Most Recent Posts
We Only Wash Losses Here
I’ve been sitting on this one for a while. It was issued July 27, 2010. It refers to the flash crash of the stock market on May 6 which caused many stop-loss orders to be triggered some of which resulted in gain recognition. Whoever (I don’t think Redacted Text was his real name) wrote to the IRS more or less logically (as if that means anything) thought investors should be able to reestablish those positions with appropriate basis as if no gain were recognized.
And Another Purge
If you were supposed to send somebody a 1099, you were supposed to ask them for their social security number of EIN. Since you didn’t ask they didn’t give it to you. Therefore you should have subjected their payments to back up withholding. It’s a nightmare. You can get out of the back-up withholding by getting them to sign a form swearing they reported the income. Good luck.
Let The Sun Shine In
I’m going to do this as a bonus post because I don’t have the ability to expand on it much. They have figured out a way to make a “curtain wall” of glass where all the windows are, in effect, solar panels. The Service has ruled that even though such a wall is clearly a “structural component” of the building, the entire cost is still subject to the 30% energy credit. That’s a great credit since it is one that can be used against the AMT (The only thing better is a refundable credit).
Inadvertent Termination
Much to my surprise, the IRS has ruled this to be an inadvertent termination. I suppose if you drove blind folded that any crashes you had would be inadvertent too, but I don’t recommend it. The shareholders have to amend their individual returns to pick up a deemed dividend for the amount of the earnings and profits. Also they have agreed that on receipt of the ruling they will make payments to bring distributions to shareholders into proportion with ownership. Why the stiffed shareholders are waiting till then is beyond me, but that’s the deal.
Courts and Value Billing
The disdain for professional imprimaturs unsupported by work has moved beyond the Son of Boss unbalanced entries to a deal that tax professionals felt deserved a bit more respect. Canal Corporation and Subsidiaries was a deferral deal. Instead of selling a subsidiary the taxpayer contributed it to a partnership and took a large distribution. The debt that funded the distribution was allocated to the contributing partner, which avoids the disguised sale rules. Of course, they didn’t really want a liability, so the guarantee that supported the allocation was pretty tenuous.
Time to Face the Music
The statute of limitations was closed on years prior to 2004. So the service took the position that the accruals had constituted an impermissible accounting method. This required a cumulative adjustment for all the accruals hitting the couple with just shy of $300,000 in tax and $60,000 in penalties for the 2004 year.
What’s It Worth To Say Your Wine is From Long Island ?
We have concerns about how a taxpayer would value the right to use an AVA designation. It is unclear whether the value of the right to use an AVA designation attaches to an acquisition of a particular vineyard within an AVA. The benefit in value from the right to use an AVA designation accrues to all land whose highest and best use is as a vineyard within such designated viticultural area. Consequently, all of the closest comparable vineyards share the same intangible benefit thereby making an appraiser’s determination of the increment of value assigned to the intangible benefit and finding comparable vineyards outside of the particular AVA factually difficult.
Chief Counsel Reiterates Dependency Option for Same Sex Couples
In order for someone to be your dependent you must meet three tests – relationship, support and gross income. One of the possible relationships is “member of your household” (with the quaint caveat that the household composition not violate local law). So if Robin provides more than 1/2 of Terry’s support and Terry’s gross income is below the threshold (currently $3,650) Terry can be Robin’s dependent. This will qualify Robin for the more favorable head of household rates and exempt from payroll and withholding the health benefits that Robin’s employer provides to Terry.
You Should Wear Shoes in Tax Court But Don’t Bring the Box
This was originally published on October 27th, 2010. Thomas F. Hale v. Commissioner, TC Memo 2010-229 Over 500 years ago Fra Luca Bartolomeo de Pacioli published a...
FLP Good for the Family Business – But Maybe not the Family Jewels
The Eighth Circuit affirmed the Tax Court’s conclusion that the restrictions upon the children did not serve a bona fide business purpose because the partnership was not a ““business,” active or otherwise.” Id. at 770. In so holding, the Holman court distinguished a line of cases where active, ongoing business interests were preserved by the transfer restrictions at issue.S