Tad Friend 360x1000
499
Thomas Piketty3 360x1000
1lauber
Maria Popova 360x1000
7confidencegames
13albion
5albion
Susie King Taylor2 360x1000
4confidencegames
2trap
3albion
10abion
Thomas Piketty2 360x1000
1transcendentalist
1empireofpain
199
1confidencegames
Adam Gopnik 360x1000
lifeinmiddlemarch1
Margaret Fuller2 360x1000
9albion
Thomas Piketty1 360x1000
299
6albion
Lafayette and Jefferson 360x1000
Margaret Fuller3 360x1000
1defense
3paradise
Anthony McCann2 360x1000
14albion
1albion
1falsewitness
Mary Ann Evans 360x1000
Ruth Bader Ginsburg 360x1000
1lafayette
Margaret Fuller1 360x1000
Margaret Fuller5 360x1000
2defense
Office of Chief Counsel 360x1000
2jesusandjohnwayne
Anthony McCann1 360x1000
2confidencegames
5confidencegames
8albion'
LillianFaderman
2albion
1gucci
Susie King Taylor 360x1000
1jesusandjohnwayne
1madoff
Spottswood William Robinson 360x1000
Mark V Holmes 360x1000
AlexRosenberg
2transadentilist
Learned Hand 360x1000
1theleasofus
Margaret Fuller 360x1000
2lafayette
Margaret Fuller4 360x1000
1lookingforthegoodwar
2gucci
1trap
Richard Posner 360x1000
6confidencegames
1paradide
Brendan Beehan 360x1000
11632
3confidencegames
storyparadox2
storyparadox3
Margaret Fuller 2 360x1000
Maurice B Foley 360x1000
Samuel Johnson 360x1000
2theleastofus
3theleastofus
Storyparadox1
Stormy Daniels 360x1000
George F Wil...360x1000
12albion
7albion
James Gould Cozzens 360x1000
2falsewitness
11albion
3defense
2lookingforthegoodwar
Edmund Burke 360x1000
2paradise
399
Gilgamesh 360x1000
Betty Friedan 360x1000
George M Cohan and Lerarned Hand 360x1000
4albion
lifeinmiddlemarch2

As the new year dawns it is tempting to go through my posts for the last year and attempt to extract meaning from their randomness.  Maybe I will get to it.  Probably more important, though, is to take a look at what I missed.  I found this paper titled, Important Developments in Federal Income Taxation, by Edward Morse on The Tax Prof Blog.  It is not nearly as amusing as going through my posts, but I have to admit, it appears a bit more thorough.  Here are a few of the items that Professor Morse picked up on that I failed to cover.
Dorrance v US was a demutualization decision.  The IRS has taken the position that taxpayers have no basis in stock that they receive in a demutualization transaction.  The Dorrances argued that using the open transaction doctrine, they should be able to not recognize any gain at all.  The District Court indicated that there should be an allocation.

Denaples v US was a Third Circuit decision.  It concerns whether interest paid by a state on the amount it owed for taking property was excludible under Section 103 (Interest on State and Local Bonds).  The Tax Court had ruled in favor of the IRS, but the Third Circuit overturned the decision.  I had looked at this issue many years ago and concluded that the interest was excludable.  I am glad to know that the Third Circuit agrees with me, even though the Tax Court obviously got it wrong.

Owen v Commissioner was a Tax Court Memorandum decision.  It had a lot of moving parts to it, but the part that Professor Morse and I found of interest concerned Code Section 1045, which allows you to defer gain on the sale of small business stock by buying into a new business.  The problem the IRS had with Mr. Owen’s new business was that there was not enough business going on.  The new corporation invested about 8% of its assets in jewelry and only sold six pieces in its first year of existence.  The Tax Court agreed with the IRS. It reminds me a bit of the hobby loss cases I cover.

Veriha v Commissioner was a regular Tax Court decision.  It concerns Code Section 469 (Passive Activity Loss Rules).  I noticed the case, but it was rather too convoluted for me to work it into a post.  Mr. Veriha owned a trucking company and rented trucks to it.  Code Section 469 was part of the Tax Reform Act of 1986 and was meant to drive a stake into the heart of tax shelters.  The process of people coming up with clever ideas to avoid taxes and legislation to prevent that is something of an arms race.  To buttress 469 there are rules to prevent income from your business (non-passive) from being converted to rental income (passive).  Mr. Veriha, even though he wasn’t trying to get away with anything, got snarled up in those rules.  Kind of collateral damage in the war against tax shelters.

Dirico v Commissioner, another Tax Court regular decision, was another convoluted 469 case involving the regulations about how to classify activities.

I skipped the Martin Olive Tax Court decision, because I though other bloggers had covered it well enough, but the referenda in Colorado and Washington make it even more timely.  There was a quite a bit about substantiation and the Cohan rule in the case, but the most important element is the application of Code Section 280E (Expenditures in Connection With The Illegal Sale of Drugs).  Since we have an income tax, not a gross receipts tax, you get to deduct your cost of goods sold, if you are selling illegal drugs.  Even though Mr. Olive had lousy records, he was allowed cost of sales using the Cohan rule.  None of the other deductions are allowed.  So even if DEA is hands off on the pot business in Washington and Colorado, the IRS will still be in a position to shut it down.

So How Did I Miss All That ?

I actually look at almost all original source federal material and a lot of state material.  I write about the ones that I feel like writing about.  My criteria are practical utility, humor and matter for reflection.  I’ve been at this for over two years now and have begun to feel responsible for certain issues.  LGBT tax issues, the parsonage exclusion and hobby loss cases are among them.  And of course we had the presidential candidate returns to keep up with this year.  I should go back and count, but I think that I end up writing about approximately 20% of the cases I set aside as being potentially post worthy.

So many issues, so little time.  Because of my particular method, I don’t keep that up to date on what the other tax bloggers are following.  The only tax blog that I follow religiously is the Tax Prof, because that is how I find out about work like Professor Morse’s paper.  The cases I mention above are just some of the ones that I would have written about if I had had the time.  He also addresses much that I would not have even tried to write about.  I strongly recommend that you take the trouble to download it.  As a matter of pride, I would like to find a case that I wrote about that he did not mention, but I haven’t gone through the exercise.

Happy New Year.

You can follow me on twitter @peterreillycpa.

Originally published on Forbes.com Jan 2nd, 2013