1 / 133

Rulings and Cases Chapter 17 pp. 571-646

This chapter provides summaries and insights into court cases, treasury regulations, revenue procedures, IRS rulings, and notices, offering a comprehensive guide to understanding and applying national income tax laws.

amatthews
Télécharger la présentation

Rulings and Cases Chapter 17 pp. 571-646

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Rulings and CasesChapter 17 pp. 571-646 2016 National Income Tax Workbook™

  2. Rulings and Cases pp. 571-572 • Court cases • Treasury regulations • Revenue procedures • IRS rulings • IRS notices • Chief counsel advice

  3. p. 573Substantial Authority • 20% accuracy-related penalty for substantial understatement of tax • Exceptions: • “Substantial authority” for position • Adequate disclosure on return, with “reasonable basis” for position

  4. p. 573Reasonable Basis • Less stringent standard • Some authority exists even if weight of contrary authority is greater • Disclosure required to avoid penalty for substantially understating tax if the IRS proposes a deficiency and wins in court

  5. pp. 574-582Substantial Authority • Do not have to believe there is > 50% chance of winning case • Substantial authority can exist for more than one position relating to same item • Code, regulations (including proposed), IRS releases, federal court cases, treaties, congressional reports . . .

  6. pp. 580-581Jurisdiction • Tax Court has jurisdiction over all of the US • Circuit court of appeals decisions bind only a geographic area (Figure 17.5) • Taxpayers living outside circuit still can (and must) consider opinions in determining substantial authority

  7. A Word of Caution • This chapter contains short summaries. Be sure to read the complete text of a case, ruling, notice, or regulation before using as authority for a return position.

  8. p. 583ACA Prop. Regs. §§ 1.36B-2,-3,-5 • Tax years > 12/31/16 but TPs may rely on some provisions for years > 12/31/13 • Recklessly gives false info to Exchange • If final HHI < 100% not treated as applicable TP • Gives bad info to make ineligible for Medicaid, CHIP, etc → treated as eligible

  9. p. 583ACA Prop. Regs. §§ 1.36B-2,-3,-5 • Nonappropriated Fund Health Benefits Program treated as ER program • If declines ER coverage one year & not given chance to enroll the next, treated as ineligible for ER coverage • If offered only excepted benefits, PTC o.k. with Marketplace insurance • Expand/clarify opt-out arrangements

  10. pp. 583-584ACA Prop. Regs. §§ 1.36B-2,-3,-5 • Rules for when Exchange delays in stopping APTC after TP stop request • APTC eligible after appeal, retroactive enrollment, covered for a month if pays by 120 days after appeal decision • PTC/month lesser of: • Premium reduced by any refund • SLCSP over contribution amount

  11. p. 584ACA Prop. Regs. §§ 1.36B-2,-3,-5 • APTC reconciled by one who attests to the intention to claim exemption • Multiple families in single QHP with APTC, 1095-A premiums = allocable prem. share based on SLCSP share • Full month SLCSP if terminate mid-mo. or if enroll mid-month due to birth, adoption, foster, court order date

  12. p. 584ACA Prop. Regs. §§ 1.36B-2,-3,-5 • Regs changed to make specific form references: 1095-B, 1095-C

  13. p. 585Brinks Gilson & Lione v Comm • Excessive comp: comp vs dividend • Allocated all of book income to comp • Closing agreement for deduction • Appeal of accuracy-related penalty • TP cases not applicable • No substantial authority = penalty

  14. pp. 585-586Richard Schiffmann v Comm • CEO & CFO aware of unpaid emp taxes • Wrote checks for other creditors with loans and investment $$ • IRS sought recovery from CEO & CFO • Main factor: extent of decision-making authority • Court: Willfully failed to pay emp. Trust fund taxes → personally liable

  15. pp. 586-587Rev. Proc. 2016-40 • Examples of distributions of controlled corp stock to distributing corp SHs - no challenge for lacking substance • Applicable transactions: p. 586 • If transaction under a safe harbor • No action taken within 24 months • Unanticipated third-party transaction

  16. pp. 587-588Letter Ruling 2016-23-013 • Unincorporated association to maintain private common driveway to 4 homes • Account to make payments • Revenue from fee assessments • Formed for benefit of members, does not meet requirements for a community → cannot be a 501(c)(4)

  17. pp. 588-590CCA Letter 2016-06-027 • Issue 1: PN guarantees qualified nonrecourse debt if PS states in writing unable to pay – no longer qualified non-recourse for § 752? • Ruling: Debt is no longer qualified non-recourse debt

  18. pp. 588-590CCA Letter 2016-06-027 • Issue 2: PS in business of acquiring, renovating, and maintaining hotels w/o part in day-to-day operations – “activity of holding real property” for § 465(b)(6)? • Ruling: Yes, PS is engaged in activity of holding real property

  19. pp. 588-590CCA Letter 2016-06-027 • Issue 3: If PN guarantees PS qualified non-recourse debt can nonguaranteeing PNs treat debt as qualified non-rec.? • Ruling: If the guarantee is bona fide and enforceable by creditors, the debt is no longer qualified non-recourse debt.

  20. pp. 588-590CCA Letter 2016-06-027 • Issue 4: PS agreement: if guar PN pays • Make other PN’s contribute capital or • Ratable portions = loans to other PNs Nonguarantee’g PNs personally liable? • Ruling: Not sufficient to make nonguaranteeing PNs personally liable

  21. pp. 590-591Methvin v Commissioner • Owned 3% in various O&G ventures • Ventures excluded from Sub K – line 21 • Subject to SE tax? • TP: Not engaged in T or B, not PN • Court: Liable for SE tax – T or B carried out on his behalf thru agents/EEs + election out of Sub K did not affect nature of business entity

  22. p. 591Williams v Comm. • Husband and wife • S corp in real estate – no mat. part. • C corp operating medical clinic • H full time in clinic – mat. part. • Reported S corp rental as passive • Argued § 469 applied to S corp itself • Court: self-rental, income not passive

  23. pp. 591-592Aleamoni v Commissioner • H 25%, W 25%, Kids 50% - corporation • Corp operated H’s consulting business • TP loaned $ to corp, deducted on Sch C • TP: 1) loans = exp of H – alter ego & 2) IRS estopped due to prior audits • Court: 1) loan or cap contrib., not exp. 2) IRS not estopped from raising issue

  24. p. 592Nelly Home Care v US • SMLLC – nonmedical in-home care • 35 workers at one care facility • Did not train or instruct • Did obtains workers’ comp • Industry practice: not EEs • Prior audit addressed EE/IC issue • Court: Reasonable basis for IC + 530

  25. p. 593Udeobong v Commissioner • Medical supply company – cash basis • 2005 insurance reimb. returned < 2010 • 2010: settlement pay from ins. Comp. to pay returned amounts • TP: not 2010 income, already taxed • Court: § 1341 – deduction for repaym’t, in 2010, payment = income

  26. pp. 593-594H.W. Johnson v Commissioner • Family owned – construction business • Mother 51%, 2 sons 24.5% each • Sons paid 2003: $4M+, 2004, $7.3M+ • Part disallowed as > industry standard • Successful in managing expansion • Court: Hypothetical investor test – 10% return of equity met – comp o.k.

  27. p. 594Letter Ruling 2016-17-002 • Business property condemned – eminent domain for highway expansion • Relocation payments used for relocate and replace equipment not moveable • Taxable? • Ruling: 1) No taxable income, 2) no deduction to extent of payments used, 3) no basis to extent of payments used

  28. pp. 594-595In re Medley • Involuntary chapter 7: Nov & Dec 2013 • Orders of relief filed in Jan & Feb 2014 – effective date of filing • No election to close debtors’ tax years • S corp 2014 K-1’s – Who is taxed? • Court: Filing before end of S tax year, income flows to estate not debtors

  29. pp. 595-596Letter Ruling 2016-11-007 • Parent corp of 2 subsidiaries • EEs of subs transferred to new corp • Substantially all assets to new corp • Is new corp successor ER for emp tax? • Ruling: Yes 1) All property acquired, 2) Successor employs one from former & 3) Wages in year of acquisition

  30. p. 596Ryther v Commissioner • Solely owned corp – steel fabricating • Corp liquidated in chapter 7 • Bank. estate abandoned steel scrap • TP sold scrap over 7 yrs, 2/month • Reported as misc – no SE tax • Court: No SE income, not a T or B

  31. pp. 596-597Peterson v Commissioner • IC sold cosmetics – commissions from sales of TP and downline sales • Retirement pay based on average commissions year before retirement • Retirement pay = SE income? • Court: Yes, subject to SE tax • Deferred comp based on income prior to retirement

  32. p. 597Hess v Commissioner • H&W – Amway distributorship • H: Full-time software manager • No business plan (other than Amway’s) • Receipts for expenses, no sales records • Court; Not operated w/profit intent - not in businesslike manner, no expertise, no advise outside Amway, never a profit

  33. pp. 597-598Delia v Commissioner • Employed full-time + hair braiding bus. • Mall – evenings & weekends • Never produced a profit • Maintained separate records • Made attempts to increase customers • Court: Had intent to make a profit (only negative factor was lack of profit)

  34. p. 598Roberts v Commissioner • Horse breeding/racing 2005-2008 • IRS disallowed losses in all four years • Court: Losses allowable 1) businesslike manner, 2) advice of experts, 3) significant time spent, 4) appreciation expectation, 5) other successes, 6) losses beyond his control, 7) not much pleasure/recreat.

  35. pp. 598-599Letter Ruling 2016-19-003 • Facts: • Farmer’s cooperative implemented an online patronage application • Issue: • Does the online application constitute a valid “consent in writing” under I.R.C. §1388(c)(2)(A)?

  36. pp. 598-599Letter Ruling 2016-19-003Continued • Analysis: • No special form is required for consent as long as it adequately discloses terms • Ruling: • Online application is a signed written document

  37. pp. 599-600CCA 2016-26-024 • Specialty retailer - clothing MPGR outside the US • Produced printed material sent to potential customers to advertise • No advertising for other retailers • TP: GR Portion = advertising MPGR same as newspaper exception in regs • Ruling: Not the same, no MPGR

  38. pp. 600-602Tech. Advice Memo. 2016-38-022 • Facts: • Taxpayer constructed and renovated building components which were on columns attached to the foundation • Issue: • Do the activities qualify for the DPAD?

  39. pp. 600-602Tech. Advice Memo. 2016-38-022Continued • Analysis: • Qualify for DPAD if activities are construction of real property • Real property includes inherently permanent structures • Ruling: • Components are heavy and affixed to real property so activities qualify for DPAD

  40. pp. 602-603Dieringer v Commissioner • Facts: • Decedent’s trust gave stock to charity • Prior to contribution, corporation redeemed stock and family purchased additional shares at a discount • Issue: • What is the value of the charitable contribution?

  41. pp. 602-603Dieringer v CommissionerContinued • Analysis: • Charitable contribution deduction usually date of death value but limited by trustee’s powers • Ruling: • Value of stock transferred to charity was reduced because trustee had substantial power prior to distribution

  42. pp. 603-604Estate of Holliday v Commissioner • Facts: • Decedent’s children helped him form family LLP and took a discount for value of decedent’s LLP interest • Issue: • What is the value of the LLP interest/assets to be included in the gross estate?

  43. pp. 603-604Estate of Holliday v CommissionerContinued • Analysis: • I.R.C. §2036 inclusion if retained interest – exception for bona fide sale • Ruling: • Decedent retained an interest in LLP income and contribution of assets to LLP was not a bona fide sale – value of LLP assets included in gross estate

  44. p. 604Singer v Commissioner • Executor made distributions of estate property before full pay of estate tax • IRS sought tax payment from executor • Court: Executor not liable • Estate not insolvent @ distribution • NY law right of contribution form beneficiaries for state/fed taxes

  45. pp. 604-605Newman v Commissioner • 8/08 - Withdrew $ from new account before deposit cleared – ($7,875) • 8/08 - Bank closed the account • 12/11 – Bank issued Form 1099-C • Does TP have income in 2011? • Court: 1099 due to 36 months rule for event – but TP insolvent, no income

  46. pp. 605-606Anderson v Commissioner • Pretrial order – TP paid mortgage on ex-spouse residence Jan-Sep 2010 + $ to ex for monthly expenses • Final decree 9/10 - required same payments to spouse for 2 years • Are payments alimony?

  47. p. 606Anderson v Commissioner • Alimony: • Under a divorce/separation doc, • Not designated as not alimony, • Not members of same household, & • No pay requirement after death • Court: Alabama law: paymts terminate @ death – 1-4 met → alimony

  48. pp. 606-607Vichich v Commissioner • Husband had AMT credit carryforward from year prior to marriage • Husband died & widow applied unused AMT credit in later single years • Court: Looking at NOL cases disallowing carryover of other spouse, disallowed AMT credits as not hers

  49. p. 607Alphonso v Commissioner • SH in coop housing corporation • Retaining wall collapse, SHs assessed • TP claimed casualty loss • TP: 2-years’ heavy rain + faulty drainage system caused collapse • Court: No loss - Caused by gradual deterioration accelerated by rain

  50. pp. 607-608Riley v Commissioner • 2003-2008 invested $ with friend developing software • Suspicious – asks for repay in 2010 • No repay – claimed theft loss in 2010 • Need to prove 1) theft occurred, 2) Loss amount, 3) year discovered • Court: Friend claimed willingness to repay → no loss

More Related