Tax Law Commons^™

Annual Survey Of Virginia Law: Taxation, Carle E. Davis

University of Richmond Law Review

In its 1990 session, Virginia's General Assembly passed many bills amending sections of and adding new sections to title 58.1 of the Code of Virginia (the "Code"). These bills affected a broad range of areas, including the individual and corporate income tax, the sales and use tax, real estate and recordation taxes, and miscellaneous local taxes. The Supreme Court of Virginia also decided several cases concerning miscellaneous taxation issues. In addition, the Virginia Department of Taxation finalized several regulations and promulgated proposed regulations. This article covers legislative and regulatory changes, and recent judicial decisions affecting Virginia taxation from July 1989 …

Case Digest, Law Review Staff

Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law

United States Tax Principles Govern Determination of Accumulated Profits Under Foreign Tax Credit Section of Internal Revenue Code, United States v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. 110 S. Ct. 1172 (1990).

Tax Injunction Act Bars Foreign Parent of Subsidiary Doing Business in California from Raising Foreign Commerce Objections to Tax Board's Formula Franchise Tax Board of California v. Alcan Aluminum Ltd. 110 S. Ct. 661 (1990).

Correspondence Bank Account with United States Trust Company Held Insufficient Contact with United States to Establish Subject Matter Jurisdiction under the FSIA--International Housing Ltd. v. Rafidain Bank Iraq, 893 F.2d 8(2d Cir. 1989).

Successful …

Corporate Divisions Under Section 355, Mark J. Silverman, Kevin M. Keyes

William & Mary Annual Tax Conference

No abstract provided.

Section 2036(C), Jere D. Mcgaffey

William & Mary Annual Tax Conference

No abstract provided.

Planning Considerations For Like-Kind Exchanges Involving Partnerships, Joseph G. Howe Iii

William & Mary Annual Tax Conference

No abstract provided.

Issues Involved In Allocation Of Purchase Price In Stock And Asset Acquisitions, Including Impact Of Section 1060, Samuel C. Thompson Jr.

William & Mary Annual Tax Conference

No abstract provided.

Allocating Partnership Liabilities Under The New Section 752 Regulations, William F. Nelson

William & Mary Annual Tax Conference

No abstract provided.

Howard V. United States: Who Should Be Responsible For The 100 Percent Penalty?, James E. Hungerford

Seattle University Law Review

The 100 percent penalty provision of I.R.C. section 6672 imposes a penalty that can far exceed the maximum criminal penalties for fraud or tax evasion. For this reason, the Internal Revenue Service (I.R.S.) should only assess the 100 percent penalty against persons who are clearly liable for the penalty. As Justice Rehnquist said in his dissent in United States v. Sotelo, the 100 percent penalty provision imposes a potentially crushing liability on corporate officials-a liability that is nondischargeable (in bankruptcy) in its entirety and virtually in perpetuity. This Note will discuss section 6672, including its purpose, history, and specific …

Section 752(C): The Other Issue In Tufts V. Commissioner, L. Scott Stafford

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Tax Treatment Of Employment-Related Personal Injury Awards: The Need For Limits, J. Martin Burke, Michael K. Friel

UF Law Faculty Publications

This article examines Section 104(a)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code and the litigation that has centered on the applicability of this Section to payments in settlement or other resolution of employment-related disputes arising out of an employment relationship and accompanied by charges of tortious conduct leveled at one or more of the parties. Part II reviews the origin of amounts received as damages on account of non-physical injuries. Part III analyzes the application of Section 104(a)(2) focusing on how courts have often blurred the distinction between what non-physical injuries are encompassed by the term “personal injury,” and whether a taxpayer …

Estate Freezes, Ronald D. Aucutt

William & Mary Annual Tax Conference

No abstract provided.

Termination Of S Corporations And Of S Shareholder Interests, Morton A. Harris, Russell E. Hinds

William & Mary Annual Tax Conference

No abstract provided.

Operation Of And Distributions From S Corporations, Deborah H. Schenk

William & Mary Annual Tax Conference

No abstract provided.

Structuring Real Estate Investments And Transactions After Tra 1986, Charles H. Egerton

William & Mary Annual Tax Conference

No abstract provided.

Termination Of Partnerships And Of Partnership Interests, Louis A. Mezzullo

William & Mary Annual Tax Conference

No abstract provided.

Partnership Operations And Distributions, Steven M. Friedman

William & Mary Annual Tax Conference

No abstract provided.

Should General Utilities Be Reinstated To Provide Partial Integration Of Corporate And Personal Income—Is Half A Loaf Better Than None?, Douglas A. Kahn

Articles

The General Utilities doctrine is the name given to the now largely defunct tax rule that a corporation does not recognize a gain or a loss on making a liquidating or nonliquidating distribution of an appreciated or depreciated asset to its shareholders. The roots of the doctrine, can be traced to a regulation promulgated in 1919 that denied realization of gain or loss to a corporation when making a liquidating distribution of an asset in kind. No regulatory provision existed which specified the extent to which realization would or would not be triggered by a nonliquidating distribution such as a …

Business Activities Of Tax-Exempts And Affiliates, Jo Ann Blair

William & Mary Annual Tax Conference

No abstract provided.

1986 Tax Reform Act: Alternative Minimum Tax On Corporations (Section 55, Irc And Section 701(A) Act), Paul Broderick

William & Mary Annual Tax Conference

No abstract provided.

1986 Tax Reform Act (Tra) Limitations On Net Operating Loss Carryforwards (Sections 382 And 383, Irc And Section 621, Act), Paul Broderick

William & Mary Annual Tax Conference

No abstract provided.

Section 183 Of The Internal Revenue Code: The Need For Statutory Reform, Joseph H. Marxer

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

An Aggregate Approach To Indirect Exchanges Of Partnership Interests: Reconciling Section 1031 And Subchapter K, Karen C. Burke

UF Law Faculty Publications

This article examines indirect exchanges of partnership interests in light of the distinctive continuity-of-investment principles of section 1031 and Subchapter K of the Internal Revenue Code. Part II of the article focuses on the failure of judicial responses and alternative approaches prior to the 1984 Act to prevent the potential abuses of direct exchanges of partnership interests. Part III examines section 1031(a)(2)(D) against the background of two recent decisions by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit concerning successive tax-free exchanges. Part IV focuses on planning techniques involving like-kind exchanges coupled with partnership contributions and distributions. Part …

The Infield Fly Rule And The Internal Revenue Code: An Even Further Aside, Mark W. Cochran

Faculty Articles

Baseball’s infield fly rule and certain provisions of the Internal Revenue Code are similar. The purpose of the infield fly rule is to prevent the defense from making a double play by subterfuge, at a time when the offense is helpless to prevent it.

In baseball, as in life, fairness is an elusive concept that defies precise definition. Considering the infield fly rule, the “unfairness” derives from the infielder’s ability to manipulate a situation without incurring any risk. Federal tax law, like the rules of baseball, recognizes and responds to the “manipulation without risk” phenomenon. Section 267 of the Internal …

Qualified Domestic Relations Orders, Craig Westbrook

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

Distinguishing Between Capital Expenditures And Ordinary Business Expenses: A Proposal For A Universal Standard, Steven J. Greene

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

It is apparent from an examination of the various court decisions that there is no single, common standard used to distinguish between capital expenditures and ordinary business expenses. The courts are not completely to blame for this situation, however, because the Internal Revenue Code provides little guidance on the capital/ordinary distinction. This Note proposes an amendment to the Tax Code that would provide courts with a universal standard to apply in differentiating between the two types of expenditures and that best reflects the general purpose of the Code in matching income with its related expenses. Part I analyzes the historical …

Statutory (Formerly Non-Statutory) Fringe Benefits: New Sec. 132, Jerry J. Mccoy

William & Mary Annual Tax Conference

No abstract provided.

Disposition Of The Corporation Or The Corporate Business, N. Jerold Cohen

William & Mary Annual Tax Conference

No abstract provided.

Federal Tax Liens—I.R.S. May Levy Upon The Entire Balance Of A Joint Bank Account When Delinquent Codepositor Has Right Of Withdrawal, David A. Smith

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Supreme Court's Misconstruction Of A Procedural Statute-A Critique Of The Court's Decision In Badaracco, Douglas A. Kahn

Articles

When a taxpayer files an honest' federal income tax return for a taxable year, section 6501(a) of the Internal Revenue Code2 limits the period of time during which the Government can assess a tax for that year to a three-year period commencing with the date that the return was filed. The three-year limitations period is extended for an additional three years by section 6501(e)(1)(A) if the taxpayer's return omits properly includible gross income in an amount in excess of twenty-five percent of the gross income that was reported. If a taxpayer fails to file a return for a taxable year …

To Hold Or Not To Hold: Magneson, Bolker, And Continuity Of Investment Under I.R.C. Section 1031, J. Martin Burke, Michael K. Friel

UF Law Faculty Publications

This article examines the judicial and administrative development of the two holding requirements under the continuity of investment standards of section 1031 prior to decisions of the Tax Court and the Ninth Circuit in Magneson v. Commissioner and Bolker v. Commissioner, both of which expanded the boundaries of qualified holding and reemphasized the need for guidance from the Treasury or Congress on these issues. Next the article examines the subsequent impact of these decisions. Finally, the article suggests a standard to be followed in the future.