Professional Documents
Culture Documents
3
Overview of the income tax system.....................................................................................................................3
Time value of money...........................................................................................................................................5
Overview of tax treatment of income and deduction items.................................................................................5
5 step process for determining tax liability for an individual..........................................................................5
Distinguishing between business and investment activities..............................................................................10
Intro to § 212 deduction.................................................................................................................................10
Full-time gamblers.........................................................................................................................................12
Rental income/deductions..............................................................................................................................12
Distinguishing personal from business/investment expenses............................................................................13
Intro to the tax treatment of capital expenditures and of gains and losses from the disposition of property....16
capital expenditure.........................................................................................................................................16
§ 1011 “basis compass provision”............................................................................................................17
Realization.....................................................................................................................................................17
character.........................................................................................................................................................18
Capital gains start with § 1222..................................................................................................................19
Capital losses - § 165 (c)(2) ..........................................................................................................................19
depreciation of capital assets.........................................................................................................................20
amortization – § 197......................................................................................................................................21
§ 1245 recapture........................................................................................................................................21
More on capital expenditures vs. current deductions.........................................................................................22
Repairs vs. permanent capital improvement..................................................................................................22
Takeover expenses: Indopco..........................................................................................................................23
II.Intro to Consumption Taxes; Policy Considerations: Evaluating Systems/Provisions (Unit 2)........................24
Annual consumption taxes.................................................................................................................................24
equity/fairness ...............................................................................................................................................24
economic efficiency.......................................................................................................................................25
neutrality........................................................................................................................................................26
complexity......................................................................................................................................................26
Wage tax........................................................................................................................................................26
Optimal taxation.............................................................................................................................................26
substitution effect/income effect....................................................................................................................26
Tax expenditures............................................................................................................................................26
Progressivity: arguments for and against.......................................................................................................27
Examples of different systems at work..............................................................................................................28
III.The Outer Limits of Gross Income (Unit 3).....................................................................................................30
Tax Treatment of Windfalls...............................................................................................................................30
court-awarded damages.................................................................................................................................30
Treasure trove................................................................................................................................................31
bargain purchase at arm’s length – “good deal” exception............................................................................32
Tax treatment of illegal or unethical activities..................................................................................................32
Deductions for illegal businesses...................................................................................................................33
Civil damages and deductions.......................................................................................................................34
Introduction to the Realization Requirement.....................................................................................................35
Corporate tax and dividend info....................................................................................................................35
Pro-rata stock dividends ................................................................................................................................35
Subdivision of property..................................................................................................................................37
Improvements to rental property made by lessee..........................................................................................37
when improvements are essentially substitute for rent..................................................................................38
Remember that RECAPTURE DOESN’T APPLY TO REAL ESTATE.....................................................38
1
Like-kind exchanges......................................................................................................................................38
Non-Liquid Property Received in Kind as Compensation................................................................................39
§ 83 bargain purchases between an employer and a service provider .....................................................39
substantial risk of forfeiture – 4 definitions...............................................................................................40
§ 83(b) election..............................................................................................................................................41
Barter Exchanges of Goods and Services..........................................................................................................42
Imputed Income from Self-Provided Services and Ownership of Consumer Assets........................................42
IV.Tax Treatment of Borrowing and Lending (Unit 5).........................................................................................43
Basic rules related to borrowing and lending....................................................................................................43
Straight borrowing and loan repayment transactions.....................................................................................43
Below-market loans.......................................................................................................................................43
§ 7872: recharacterizes supposedly interest-free loan into component parts............................................43
Contingent payment obligations ...................................................................................................................45
Phantom repayment obligations.....................................................................................................................46
Relief of one’s obligation to a third party as income.........................................................................................47
Transfer of property to satisfy debt as a realization event.................................................................................48
Compensatory use of property § 83(h).....................................................................................................48
Davis-Keenan ................................................................................................................................................48
in property-for-property exchange, you have a realization event..................................................................49
§ 1041 – Transfers of property between current spouses, or former spouses incident to a divorce.............49
§ 1032 NO realization event when stock used to compensate..................................................................49
Cancellation of indebtedness income and the § 108 exclusion..........................................................................49
Kirby Lumber if you don’t pay back loan, have “freeing of assets”........................................................49
§ 108 exclusion and Title 11..........................................................................................................................50
§ 108 exclusion and insolvency.....................................................................................................................51
Purchase money debt.....................................................................................................................................51
COD income and lawsuit settlements............................................................................................................52
Tax treatment of mortgage relief: Crane and its progeny..................................................................................53
Crane and progeny essentially say that non-recourse debt is a loan for income tax purposes .................54
Estate of Franklin when it’s a sham transactions.....................................................................................54
After-acquired non-recourse debt..................................................................................................................55
sale of property subject to non-recourse debt................................................................................................55
when property is worth less than the mortgages it secures: non-recourse.....................................................55
when property is worth less than the mortgages it secures: recourse & bifurcation......................................57
Accounting methods and bad debt losses..........................................................................................................58
worthlessness.................................................................................................................................................58
where creditor has 2 relationships with closely held corp.............................................................................59
Accounting methods and bad debt.................................................................................................................59
loan forgiveness and bad debt .......................................................................................................................60
Timing of bad debt deductions......................................................................................................................60
V.Gratuitous Transfers: Intervivos Gifts & Testamentary Gifts (Unit 6)..............................................................61
definition of “gift”..........................................................................................................................................61
§ 274(b) $25 max for business gift deduction..........................................................................................62
Where 102(c) doesn’t apply service provider relationship.......................................................................62
where T an employee of donor......................................................................................................................63
Basis of property acquired by intervivos gift.....................................................................................................63
basic rule is carryover basis under § 1015 ....................................................................................................63
How exceptions work....................................................................................................................................63
Basis of property acquired by testamentary gift................................................................................................64
current rule if a death gift, basis is FMV at the time of death..................................................................64
2
Gift rule § 1014(e) ..................................................................................................................................65
VI.Calculation of the Federal Income Tax Liability of Individuals .....................................................................66
SUMMARY OF ANSWERS TO PROBLEM 8...............................................................................................66
VII.Another Look at Gains/Losses from Disposition of Property; Alternative Methods of Cost Recovery.........72
Basis of Property Acquired in Taxable Property-for-Property Exchange.........................................................72
Depreciation and Amortization Deductions.......................................................................................................72
Wasting Assets...............................................................................................................................................72
Real Property.................................................................................................................................................72
Equipment......................................................................................................................................................73
Personal Property...........................................................................................................................................73
Self-Created Goodwill/Customer List...........................................................................................................73
Existing Goodwill/Customer List..................................................................................................................74
Business License............................................................................................................................................74
Patents & Copyrights ....................................................................................................................................74
Gains on the Sale of a Personal Residence........................................................................................................75
Principal Residence: Married.........................................................................................................................75
Principal Residence: Single...........................................................................................................................75
Capital Gains and Losses...............................................................................................................................75
VIII.Tax Treatment of Personal Injury Recoveries...............................................................................................79
Personal injury lawsuits: § 104(a)(2) rule..........................................................................................................79
Basis Permanent exclusion ..........................................................................................................................79
Where D uses property other than cash to settle a lawsuit ...............................................................................79
Medical expenses...............................................................................................................................................79
3
a. those in lower income brackets will pay a larger percentage of their income in
taxes
2. the rate needed to replace income tax would be 30% - huge price increases for goods and
services
3. interference with retail sales taxes which are important for the states as a source of
income
4. only countries that use a sales tax are those with smaller economies
o Three trial courts
Tax Court - Article I court - limited terms for judges
1. judges usually are tax specialists
2. appeals: go to COA for circuit in which TP resides. TC follows as precedent decisions
from that circuit (e.g. 5th Circuit in case of taxpayer from Texas)
3. don’t have to pay deficiency before you go to court (whereas with Fed Claims and Dist.
Ct., have to pay and then fight to get your money back); tax court only deals with
deficiencies - once you’ve paid, no longer a deficiency and can’t go here.
a. if you end up losing, you also owe interest
b. if you wanna go to Dist. Ct. or Fed Claims, have to pay the deficiency - if you
win, you get interest on the refund
4. make sure you file within 90 days b/c of 90-day notice; don’t have this option once that
90 days expires.
Fed. District Court
1. judges are generalists
2. jury an option here; no jury in tax or fed claims courts
3. appeal goes to COA for circuit in which TP resides
Court of Federal Claims - handle tax, IP and gov. contracts
1. Appeals go to COA for Fed. Cir.; if you want to avoid binding adverse precedent in home
circuit, sue here.
o other sources of law - pp. 99-100
regs have the force and effect of law; difficult to challenge - have to show the reg. is unreasonable
revenue ruling
1. “opinion letter” from the IRS - represents their opinion on the matter; courts don’t have
to follow - they are merely the opinion of the IRS office of chief counsel; if proper
analysis of the law, court may follow
2. important b/c they give you the opinion of the IRS on an issue; can tell you if you’re ok
to do something; if what you are doing is consistent with the ruling; rulings are binding
on the IRS unless the revenue ruling is revoked
revenue procedures - same as rulings, but have to do with procedure
1. binding on IRS
2. less analysis than rev. rul’s, so even discussion of substantive issues will be more sparse
private letter rulings, technical advice memoranda, FSA
1. only binding on IRS with respect to TP to whom they’re issued; technically only this
person can rely on them as long as what they told the IRS was true, etc.; still helpful in
figuring out how IRS views an issue.
2. PLRs instigated by taxpayer; TAM and FSA instigated by IRS
a. If transaction is big enough, they want a PLR.
3. can’t be relied on as precedent by other taxpayers; but, if you follow a ruling, you’re safer
4. downside
4
a. higher transaction costs
b. you want to do something; IRS gives negative ruling; IRS now knows what the
taxpayer had planned, will be looking at what they are doing - asking for an audit
Closing agreements
1. taxpayer and IRS close an agreement by agreeing to certain things
2. binding on both; not public
GC memoranda
1. used to analyze fact situations that would end up being rev rulings, revenue procs
2. don’t do them anymore; but if you have an old issue, can still find them
Administrative pronouncements that are weaker than regulations
1. Notices: Congress passes legislation; then there’s more pressure to pass guidelines and
regs; notices will be drafted to give temporary guidance.
o Sunsetting
Has become important in tax legislation; Peroni: it’s ridiculous!
Ex.: Bush tax cuts sunset in 2010 unless extended by Congress. Code will go back to way it was
in 2001. If you make them permanent, revenue loss is much greater.
o Time value of money
o Basic idea: A dollar today is worth more than dollar 10 years from now; you can consume it or invest it
and earn interest. A dollar of taxes paid today has more sting than dollar paid 10 years from now.
o A lot of tax planning involves taking advantage of this – trying to defer taxes and accelerate tax benefits
(deductions, credits).
Deferral reduces effective amount of tax; kind of like an interest-free loan.
Longer the deferral and higher the interest, the closer deferral comes to exemption.
And if you combine deferral with other benefits, may create a negative tax.
Charging interest on deferred tax takes away this benefit.
o Overview of tax treatment of income and deduction items
o 5 step process for determining tax liability for an individual
General steps:
1. GI: § 61 (income without deduction or credits)
2. AGI: § 62 (GI minus above-the-line deductions)
3. Taxable income: § 63(AGI minus itemized deductions)
4. Tentative tax: TI multiplied by tax rate
5. Bottom line: tentative tax minus credits (credits = dollar-for-dollar offset)
Gross income - § 61(a) - all income from whatever source derived
1. see list of “including” - is it within the meaning of income?
a. Important: if not on list, still can be income
2. 61(b) cross-references:
a. specific inclusion provisions - §§ 71-100
i. confirm something you think would be income is indeed included
ii. but also say that the following things can be excluded, so some excluded
items are in these sections dealing with inclusion
b. specific exclusion provisions - §§ 101-150
i. things Congress has said aren’t income; not deductions, but affect GI
ii. usually strictly construed; legislative grace
3. REMEMBER - deductions NOT taken into account in this step.
5
a. caveat: basis - e.g. gain from sale of prop that should be taxed - have to take into
the basis the price paid for it (§ 1011)
b. caveat: costs of goods sold - like basis; gross sales minus costs of goods sold
(e.g. $1M in gross sales, $500K costs of production gross income is $500K)
c. caveat: costs of selling property - e.g. commission to real estate agent - offset to
the amount realized - not treated like a deduction
4. SUMMARY specific inclusion provisions + specific exclusion provisions
a. income items - if income within the meaning of § 61, have to include them unless
a specific statutory provision lets you take them out
5. Two theoretical alternatives
a. Schanz-Haig-Simons: “theoretically pure” comprehensive income tax.
i. income = consumption +/- savings
ii. measures change in value of the store of property rights between
beginning and end of period in question.
b. Cash flow consumption tax: drops savings out of the equation.
i. Tax only the current amount of income consumed
ii. Discourages consumption, encourages savings
iii. Problem: to implement CFC tax, have to tax borrowing for consumption.
Adjusted gross income - § 62 - income minus § 62 deductions (have to go to other code parts to
actually see what the deductions are)
1. above-the-line deductions - most favored
2. deductions - allowed as a matter of legislative grace unless the deduction is
specifically authorized by the code, it’s not deductible (look for an allowance provision);
also have to look for where Congress may have taken back part of an allowable deduction
(disallowance provisions)
3. Close ≠ enough. If not precisely within §62, then it’s below-the-line itemized deduction.
Taxable income - § 63 - actual tax base to which the tax rate is applied
1. AGI minus (1) deductions for personal exemptions (§ 151, § 152) and (2) greater of
either the standard deduction or total itemized deductions.
a. (1) personal exemptions - family allowance designed so that you get a personal
exemption, spouses (if filing jointly), and dependents - social policy
determination; phased out as income increases so that once you hit a certain level
of income, you don’t get the exemption
b. (2) standard vs. itemized deductions - election to itemize
i. standard deduction is social policy determination (subsistence
allowance), listed in § 63 but indexed for inflation (in Code and Reg.
Book every year)
ii. standard deduction not subject to income-phaseout (most high-income
people itemize, don’t use standard deduction); SD based on filing status
2. choice between step 2 and step 3 - have already decided that we have a deduction; have
to figure out where to take it into account is it above or below the line?
a. why § 62 deductions are “favored”:
i. allowed no matter what happens in § 63 (e.g. whether you itemize or use
standard deduction)
ii. various code provisions for deductions with floors on deductions based
on percentage of AGI (e.g. med expense deduction can take the
6
deduction but only to extent that total expenses exceed certain percentage
of income lower your AGI, more likely to get the deduction)
iii. Congress’s inclination to enact separate disallowance floors on groups of
itemized deductions e.g. before you can compare itemized to standard
deduction, have to take into account certain floors § 67, which can
eliminate certain itemized deductions (the more you can take out in § 62,
the lower the percentage that the 2% rule applies to); § 68, applies to
most IDs (all but 68(c)), but only kicks in if income is above a certain
amount (currently about $150,500 – see p. xi) and tends to disallow only
a small amount of the ID
iv. WANT A LOWER AGI so that percentage rules apply to a smaller
amount of income - hurts less
Tentative tax - taxable income multiplied by tax rates
Bottom line - tentative tax minus credits
1. NOT DEDUCTIONS offset tax liability dollar-for-dollar
2. if you end up with a refund (credits exceed tentative tax) means you paid in too much,
making an interest-free loan to the govt.
3. if you owe and it’s too much - have to pay a penalty - strive to hit 90%
o Tax rates
p. 1 of code book; § 1(i) has Bush 43 tax cuts
35% - top tax rate
1. no one pays this on all income – we have a progressive rate system
2. early amounts taxed at lower rates - only marginal dollars taxed at a higher rate
3. top rate goes back to 39.6% in 2010 unless Bush tax cuts extended
Myth #1 a salary increase will kick me into a higher bracket
1. theory the higher the marginal rates, the greater the disincentive to work
2. but incentive to work harder to hit that amount you want as tax rates increase
Stability of tax rates has declined.
o Income
always think about timing, amount, and character
character - § 1221 – defines capital asset
1. all items of income and all items of deductions have a character - whether the item is
ordinary income or capital gains, ord. loss or capital loss
2. why care about character: we prefer income items as taxpayers to be capital gains vs.
regular income b/c of preferential treatment in the tax code - preferential rates in § 1(h)
a. also care b/c the contrary is true for deductions - taxpayers want ord. deductions
and govt. wants it to be capital loss - have a tax detriment for capital losses,
which are subject to a special limitation.
b. § 1211 - limits capital losses to extent of capital gains plus up to a certain amount
delays deduction for capital losses; ord. deductions not limited this way
o Alternative minimum tax: § 55: Functions as side-by-side, second system.
Created during Nixon admin.; problem was that high-income TPs were combining tax breaks to
reduce taxes to an unacceptably low level. Instead of getting rid of the breaks, set up a 2nd system.
AMT like a floor. You pay it only if you’d more under that than under normal tax system.
1. Means high-income TPs have to have taxes computed both ways.
7
2. Problem: Bush tax cuts only apply for regular rates; so AMT kicks in more often.
3. Problem: Hurts poor people, because child tax credit only available under normal system.
o § 62 deduction – salary deduction
salaries § 62(a)(1) - trade or business deduction - deductions allowed by this chapter
§ 162(a)(1) – “shall be allowed as a deduction all the ordinary and necessary expenses paid or
incurred in the year in carrying on a trade or a business, including” – this list gives you examples
of common items and adds limitations to the named items (e.g. reasonable allowance for salaries
or other compensation for personal services actually rendered)
1. ordinary 2 meanings both of which have to be met
a. (1) common and accepted in that type of business
b. (2) not a capital expenditure
i. capital expense you have to take into account over time vs. an
ordinary expense that you have to account for in one year
2. necessary = appropriate and helpful business judgment of the taxpayer usually
respected trying to show an appropriate factual nexus to the business
3. paid or incurred (or sometimes accrued in other provisions) - reason for words here:
tell us whether general tax accounting method applies; when applied:
a. cash method - get deduction when paid
b. accrual method - get deduction when incurred or accrued
c. “paid” being told to use the cash method for this deduction
d. “incurred or accrued” being told to use accrual method for this deduction
e. “paid or incurred” use your normal tax accounting method
4. carrying on a trade or business
a. deduction for start-up expenses not deductible under this provision; have to be
actually in the business already
i. look to § 195 to see if you can write off some of your startup expenses;
section only applies if you actually enter the business in the taxable year
ii. § 195: allowed deduction for start-up expenses < $5,000
b. § 212 doesn’t specifically have “carrying on” language, but courts read it in
because §§ 162 and 212 are companion provisions.
c. what is trade/business: some say must offer goods/services; others argue it only
needs to be a regular income-producing activity (not hobby), main income source
i. Commissioner v. Groetzinger: full-time gambling
1. Dealer = trade/business
2. Mere investor ≠ trade/business
3. Active trader = trade/business (so includes full-time gambling)
ii. Have to be involved in activity with continuity and regularity, and
primary purpose is for income or profit.
5. with 3 kinds of expenses, there are additional limitations
a. § 162(a)(1) – salaries or other compensation for personal services - has to be a
reasonable allowance for services actually rendered
i. reasonableness requirement sorting out compensation from disguised
payments; IRS putting substance over form
ii. usually used by the IRS to recast what are really gifts or dividends
b. § 162(m) – certain employee excessive remuneration
i. limits compensation deduction to $1M ; cliff effect: > $1M disallowed.
8
ii. only applies to publicly held companies and covered employees (CEO
and four next highest-paid employees).
iii. concern about high-level execs doing a bad job; goal of trying to reduce
compensation; cap doesn’t apply to performance-based compensation.
c. § 162 (a)(2) – travel expenses
i. including amount for meals/lodging (not extravagant under
circumstances) while away from home in pursuit of trade/ business
d. § 162(a)(3) – business rent
i. where you conduct your business; can’t have equity interest in property
leased - targets rental payments disguised to hide purchase payments
Always make sure no disallowance applies.
TIP if § 62 allows, it’s above the line; default rule is itemized deductions if not within § 62
o § 62 deduction – unreimbursed employee expenses Intro to itemization under § 67
e.g. assoc. at law firm, salary of $100K, pays $1K in expenses for practice of law including bar
dues which firm doesn’t pay for
1. trade or business not an issue; includes being an employee, so §162 covers employees.
a. In theoretically pure system, employees would be treated as sole proprietorships.
Nothing in § 162 makes this distinction.
b. Emp. expenses often very small, and significant expenses are usually reimbursed.
But Congress did nothing to touch 162 in this regard. (But underlies § 67.)
2. expenses – ordinary/necessary requirements met; paid in carrying on a business § 162
allows the deduction (not a club for tax purposes)
3. Where do we take it into account?
a. § 62(a)(1) cannot apply to an employee
i. § 62(a)(2)(A): above the line treatment only app. to reimbursed expenses
b. § 62 doesn’t allow it itemized under § 63
i. § 67 limit: can only deduct misc. itemized deductions to the extent they
exceed 2% of AGI. Only excess of 2% is allowed.
ii. § 68: overall limit on itemized deductions
NOTE: Congress has treated employees less favorably in a number of respects
1. the above or below the line distinction
a. once we know we have a deduction under § 162, have to look to §§ 62 or 63 to
know where in the process to take it out (e.g. above the line, can get whether she
itemizes or doesn’t; below the line, subject to 2% floor on misc. IDs in § 67)
b. § 62(a)(2) only allows these expenses to be above the line if reimbursed if she
uses the standard deduction, gets no benefit
2. misc. itemized deductions floor applies no matter your AGI
a. § 67(b) defines all misc. itemized deductions by looking at what is NOT on the
list provided; if your deduction doesn’t fit on the list, it’s a § 67 misc. itemized
deduction (e.g. unreimbursed business expenses)
i. Remember: § 67 floor of 2% applies to misc. IDs
1. Only allows misc. IDs in excess of 2% of AGI
2. Many times, this floor eliminates the deduction
3. Applies to individual TP regardless of income; but greater the
income, more that’s disallowed.
4. Another reason why you want a lower AGI where possible.
9
5. Violates a theoretically pure SHS system
ii. § 67 added to raise revenue, prevent cheating.
b. other big ones § 212 not on § 67(b) list (1) expenses related to an
investment activity other than rents and royalty income (these 2 are above the
line) (2) expenses relating to tax determination, collection and planning
i. Congress allows a deduction in § 212 for cost of preparing taxes, dealing
with tax issues, but thinks it’s on shaky ground; by making it a misc.
itemized deduction, can get rid of it in a lot of cases.
ii. what Congress didn’t think about e.g. civil rights claim and recovery
of damages; prior to 1996, there was an argument that you should be able
to exclude the damages from GI; in 1996, Congress decides to limit the
exclusion to personal injuries re: physical sickness and injuries,
excluding most civil rights claims; result juries give larger awards if
they’re going to be taxable; created problem - by making the awards
taxable, the attorneys fees became deductible (related to the collection of
taxable income under § 212 and subject to § 67 2% floor); P has to report
the full gross amount of the award, deducts under § 67 if meets
requirements P’s end up subject to AMT, which disallows misc.
itemized deductions such that low income people getting hit with a tax
bill exceeding their net recovery; SCOTUS screws the taxpayers; 2004
jobs acts, Congress tries to fix it applies to civil rights recoveries,
made attorneys fees in certain civil rights cases above the line deductions
§ 68 - overall limitation on itemized deductions
1. kicks in only if AGI exceeds the applicable amount (unlike § 67 which always applies)
2. amount was originally $100K, now have to look at rev. proc. – for 2008, it’s $159,950
a. doesn’t matter whether you’re single or married filing jointly (marriage penalty)
b. married filing separately: threshold is $79,975
3. applies to all itemized deductions
a. 68(c): exceptions med expenses which have own floor; deduction for
investment interest; deduction for casualty or theft losses
4. disallows the lesser of 3% of the excess of AGI over the applicable amount or 80% of
amount of the itemized deductions otherwise allowable for the year
5. Compare. Unlike §67, §68 has a threshold requirement and applies to a much broader
range of deductions; it’s a stronger disallowance rule, with fewer exceptions, and it’s
calculated differently.
6. Anything that survives § 67 goes through § 68 if income high enough
o Distinguishing between business and investment activities
o Intro to § 212 deduction
Higgins passive investment activity no matter how much it contributes to your income, not a
trade or business - § 162 doesn’t apply
§ 212 - a response to Higgins § 212(1) and (2) - allow deduction for expenses in investment
activity
1. “ordinary” and “necessary” have same interpretation as in § 162
a. Ordinary = common/accepted for this investment or other income-producing
activity that isn’t a trade/business.
2. doesn’t say you have to be carrying on - although it’s been read into prep. expenses
wrt entering an investment not deductible
10
Expenses allowed under §212
1. for production/collection of income
2. for management, conservation, or maintenance of property held for production of income
3. in connection w/ determination, collection, or refund of any tax
Itemized under § 63 § 67 applies, § 68 probably also applies depending on income
1. below the line b/c not subject to the exception under 62(b)
2. compare: §162 deductions are above the line
3. only §212 deduction above the line: production of rental/royalty income: § 62(a)(4)
o Broker dealers -- §162
Charlie = broker dealer, pays $500 in expenses in connect w/ broker dealer activity. How to treat?
GI - broker dealers thought of as being a trade or business for § 162 purposes.
Above the line or below the line: depends whether C owns his own business
1. if an employee not covered by § 62(a)(1), not (a)(2) No indication that it was reimbursed
below the line, subject to § 67 (not on the list of those deduction excluded) and maybe
§ 68 depending on income)
If he’s an independent contractor has own trade or business line between IC and employee
depends on relationship between the person and the “employer” and if a lot of control
employee IC determines manner of the employment
broker dealers there are often non-tax reasons why the principal will make the relationship
either IC or employee; once arranged as an employee relationship, tax results follow
1. exception to disadvantage of being an emp’ee: employer pays half of employment taxes
fact that he’s a broker dealer need to know more facts before we can make determination
1. if IC § 62(a)(1) above the line; § 67 and 68 don’t apply b/c not itemized
o Investors -- §212
Not broker-dealers; no customers; doesn’t do it for someone else, doesn’t make market for stock
to be an active trader has to be quite frequent and a primary source of your income
1. e.g. if primarily a doctor, probably not active trader; look at how he spends most his time
Groetzinger passive investor not a trade/business; result is different for active traders
trade/business for § 162 purposes
1. b/c no employer, in his own trade/business
2. § 62(a)(1) makes it above the line; §§ 67 and 68 don’t apply
how to think about it continuum active traders between broker dealers and passive investors
1. look to securities as primary source of income but doesn’t have customers
BIG issue is whether someone falls within the definition of an active trader
1. most of the case law involves the issue of whether the person is a dealer vs. a trader
2. why does this matter how to treat it wrt capital gains and losses purposes
a. if active trader, can deduct expenses under § 162, but gains/losses will be capital
b. NOT KICKED OUT BY 1221(a)(1) – stock not held for others
3. taxpayer argues for dealer; govt. argues for active trader
a. only way to be broker dealer is to have customers or make a market for the stock
b. active traders, like investors, subject to capital loss limits (although the good
news is that you get the deduction for trade or business)
4. §263: Make sure a code section allows deduction & that no other section disallows it
a. Broker commissions: no current deduction; they go in your basis
b. Legal fees = capital expenditure; advice costs are CE
11
c. Most things incurred in connection with stock will not be deductable because
they’re CE (significant future benefits, life longer than a year).
5. Traders can make §475 election: mark-to-market accounting method (475(f))
o Full-time gamblers
Full-time gambler treated like broker/dealer under §162; don’t have to hold self out as trading
goods or services to be in trade/business.
Groetzinger what does it tell us about trade or business
1. continuous and regular; primary purpose is income or profit
2. picks up the active trader with no customers
3. court rejects govt.’s test, which would require that you hold yourself out to customers
If full-time gambler trade/business; expenses deductible under § 162 as long as meet reqts.
1. above the line own trade or business under § 62(a)(1)
2. If not a full-time gambler, no in-between status like trader – no deductions under §212;
tax law treats gambling other than full-time as personal consumption.
what about the losses of a full-time gambler?
1. § 165(d) - wagering losses -- applies the same to all gamblers
a. deduction allowed only to the extent of gains
b. losses don’t go back or carry forward
i. as applied to full time gamblers, this is inconsistent with how we treat
other costs of doing business.
c. Important: If wagering losses exceed gains, can’t use them against other income.
165(d) walls off net gains/losses.
i. Supporting theory: we’re a puritanical society
ii. And in most cases, it’s consumption.
iii. Also hard to keep track of it.
2. above or below the line?
a. if a casual gambler nothing in § 62 would make it above the line, so itemized.
i. can only take if all IDs exceed standard deduction.
ii. losses are below the line IDs, not subject to 2% rule because not misc.
IDs; and not subject to §68 phaseout (according to § 63(c)(3)).
b. but, if a professional § 62(a)(1) applies and loss deduction is above the line
3. All winnings go into income, not just net.
o Rental income/deductions
Is it business or investment?
1. deductions above the line no matter if it’s business or investment
2. if a business § 62(a)(1)
3. if investment § 62(a)(4) if a § 212 deduction
real estate dealer or investor
1. rule is one rental is enough to put you in the trade or business of real estate (notice
how it’s treated differently than stock stuff)
12
2. people treated as having 2 trades/bus.’s doesn’t have to be primary source of income
3. hard to fall within the investor category (e.g. has to be extremely passive)
ex: investment rental income if John own unimproved land passively leased to cattle rancher.
1. investment activity § 212 allows it, but still above the line b/c of § 62(a)(4)
2. difference has to do with characterization; active rentals generally trade/business while
passive rentals are usually investment activities.
o Welch paying off debts to build up goodwill
not an ordinary expense
1. treated like a capital expenditure
2. not clear whether common and accepted…
a. even if common and accepted, it’s a capital expenditure - buying goodwill which
is a corporate asset
what to do with the cost becomes cost of goodwill - basis; if you sell the business later, part of
the sale price will include goodwill, this cost will reduce your gain for tax purposes
also have to be carrying on the business
1. question of whether these expenses are paid in carrying on the business or a start up
expense of a new business (§ 195 for start up expenses)
generally, employment and starting own business treated as different bus.’s even if in same field
o Distinguishing personal from business/investment expenses
o Under all three systems (current, SHS, CFC), important issue is dividing line between
business/investment expenses and personal expenses. Important in our system because you get deductions
under §§ 162 and 212, but most personal expenses aren’t deductible.
o S-H-S
concept of income commonly used as a reference point
1. personal income algebraic sum of the market value of rights exercised in consumption
and the change in the value of the store of the property rights
2. income = consumption + savings
NOTE: doesn’t have a realization reqt.; but our tax system is likely to retain that reqt we don’t
tax property gains unless you sell/dispose of and don’t allow loss deduction until you sell
1. major departure from the SHS model
2. some areas we do relax the realization requirement (mark to market)
§ 162 and § 212 thought to be consistent with SHS
1. idea = decrease in wealth that’s not consumption ought to reduce tax base under SHS
2. what about wagering losses?
a. if a pro, there’s a strong argument that there should be a complete deduction,
even if they exceed winnings (decline in wealth that isn’t personal consumption)
i. counterargument excess is probably recreational
b. nonpro § 165(d) probably gets it right- treats excess like personal consumption
summary on p. 42 - SHS with a realization requirement
1. outlays and expenditures that do not reduce current wealth should not reduce income
even if outlays and expenditures are not for consumption items (e.g. cap. expenditures)
2. pers. consump. outlays/expenditures shouldn’t reduce income even if they reduce wealth
3. realized decreases in wealth that don’t represent consumption (i.e. realized declines in
value of prop. and expenditures relating to product’n of income) should reduce income
o § 262 specific disallowance: no deduction for classic personal consumption items
13
e.g. personal rent, meals
o § 274 specific disallowance of certain entertainment expenses
substantiation requirement § 274(d)
1. history – Cohan rule business meals, business entertainment, travel expenses all
deductible if TP can make a reasonable approximation.
2. §274(d) enacted in response –reasonable approximation isn’t good enough
Moss – taking “ordinary/necessary” language and trying to apply it in context of business meal to
sort out what’s personal consumption and what’s really business.
1. Posner: difficult to sort out; refers to Sutter case – and IRS’s administrative reaction to it:
a. If the TP can succeed in establishing business nature of the meal for the client,
then generally the TP’s own meal will be deductible as well, provided the TP
doesn’t overdo it (extravagant); even though TP’s portion is pers. consump.,
deductible as long as not abused. (saying every dinner is business = likely abuse)
2. Posner: stuff bothers him: 1) frequency; 2) no clients involved – each person over time
deducting only his own meal; meal itself not necessary, b/c can discuss business at places
other than this restaurant for lunch (neither ordinary nor necessary) – so never get out of
§ 162, so never get to § 274
3. NOTE: Moss not like meeting w/ client before trial; that’s likely deductible, at least under
§ 162; once you establish meal itself meets business deduction, it includes L’s portion.
4. Taking client to lunch is classic business meal; ordinary/necessary under § 162; look for
issue of trying to claim too many meals. But: if you pass §162, have to go to §274(d).
§ 274(a)(1) and (2) for business entertainment
1. requires you have business discussion before/after/during; same true with entertainment.
rest of 274
1. (k): just in case ordinary/necessary standard of § 162 is not clear, Congress says: we
mean it no deduction for expense that’s lavish and extravagant under the
circumstances (in practice, this is rarely the thing that disallows the deduction – the
employer won’t pay for lavish or extravagant meals)
2. either TP or employer of TP has to be present (can’t just send client on his way to go eat).
3. 274(l) – entertainment tickets, skyboxes; special limitations on all that stuff
274(n) – disallow 50% of whatever’s left after going through § 274
1. theory: after all this stuff, 50% is still personal consumption (on average)
2. have met every other reqt, including substantiation; you can deduct 50% of what’s left
a. above the line under 62(a)(1) if employer or owner fo own trade or business
3. 274(n) generally applies to the ultimate payor of the expense; way you get there – §
274(n)(2)(a) – the 50% disallowance rule does not apply to an expense if it’s described in
(e)(2), (3), (4), (7), (8), & (9); means: if you’re an employee, and your employer
reimburses you for that meal, you don’t have to mess with figuring out the 50%,
your employer does (employer only gets to deduct 50%); so in typical setting, where
associates take out recruits for position, and get reimbursed, the law firm loses the
50%, not the associate; 274(n)(2)(A) exempts the associate from losing it
a. business expenses above the line; $100 business meal, deductible; employer
has employee pick it up; employee has: $100 additional compensation, deduction
of $100, a wash – income matches the deduction; (if reimbursed employee
business expenses, and income matches expense, you can leave it off the return,
as long as they all match)
14
b. employer loses 50% of potential deduction; with one exception – the employer
has the option to screw the employee – if employer says: we designate this not
as reimbursed expense, but as compensation to you, then we can report it as
wages, deduct 100% of it and employee has to figure out the 50% limit rule.
o Work clothes – very difficult to deduct these expenses
objective std (p. 632), rev ruling and Pevsner establish 3 reqts to deduct work clothes under § 162
1. of a type specifically required as condition of employment
a. stronger than the normal “appropriate and helpful” standard of necessary; more
mandatory than usual meaning of necessary.
2. not adaptable to general usage as ordinary clothing
a. objective std.: you couldn’t have worn it off the job; not that you don’t like to.
3. it is not in fact worn outside the job
a. subjective – you didn’t in fact wear it outside the job
what is deductible: 1.262-1(b)(8)
1. military uniforms – has to be such that you can’t wear outside the job (i.e., reservists)
2. uniform that has the employer’s info all over it
a. note: as clothing stds change, harder to argue even those unis can be deducted
b. nurses probably qualify
note: not just a portion disallowed; all of it disallowed by § 262 as personal/family/living expense
1. all or nothing approach – we’re probably disallowing too much here; theory – no
practical way to sort that out; tough std, recognizing in most cases, it’s pers. consumption
2. TPs usually lose under this kind of rule.
3. Even where you can meet the reqts, CE rule stands in the way. Most uniforms have useful
life beyond year paid/incurred, so they ought to be depreciated, which most people don’t.
o commuting expenses
commuting to/from work each day not deductible; pers. expense (you choose where you live)
1. 1.162-2(e) – personal commuting expenses not deductible; §262 specifically disallows it;
1.262-1(b)(5) – no deduction
heavy tool exception e.g. cost of hauling equipment adds $500 to commuting expenses only
the extra $ 500 is deductible; TP must show extent to which he incurred tool transporting
expenses in excess of what he would have otherwise incurred in transporting himself.
1. Fausner – p 633. and IRS reaction to it; rarely comes up
2. § 162 if sole proprietor; above the line under 62(a)(1)
notice, not talking about travel expenses away from home (on a temporary trip away from normal
tax home); talking about general § 162 deduction
The transportation expense between two work locations is not commuting; so it’s deductible; if
sole proprietor, not only deductible but above the line (so not subject to any floors)
Example of “away from home” but not overnight longer commutes
1. A construction worker whose regular location is where she lives; but has to go to temp
work sites in other cities; not so far away that she stays overnight or moves, but for
periods of months/days travels from home, outside reg metro area where she lives/works
2. IRS says: she can deduct the expense as long as she has reg work location; and as long as
these temp locations are outside that area; temp means less than a year
3. Employee: unreimbursed expense, so deductible under § 162; but itemized deduction, so
subject to § 67, if income high enough subject to § 68
o Country club dues – disallowed under §274(a)(3)
15
§ 274(a)(3); no deduction allowed for amts paid for membership at any club for business,
pleasure, or any other social purpose
o Intro to the tax treatment of capital expenditures and of gains and losses from the disposition of
property
o Background
With gains from property, a 3-part analysis:
1. Is the gain realized? (Realization)
2. Is there any nonrecognition provision to defer taxation? (Recognition)
3. Is there an exclusion provision? (No exclusion)
With losses, 4-step analysis:
1. Is it realized? (Realization)
2. Is there some nonrecognition provision that defers the loss? (Recognition)
3. Is there some provision that allows it? (Allowance)
a. e.g.: § 165(a), (c) and (f)
4. Is there any provision that disallows it? (No disallowance)
a. e.g. §267
If gains pass the analysis, it goes in step 1 (GI -- §61(a)(3))
If losses pass analysis, it goes in either step 2 (AGI; above the line) or step 3 (TI; itemized).
1. Normally, most losses will fit in §62(a)(3) – losses from sale/exchange of property.
2. So most property losses are above the line deductions.
NOTICE: You don’t net gains and losses in our five-step process. Take each individually.
o § 1001 – amount and recognition of gain/loss from on disposition of property computation section
Computation is triggered by sale or disposition of property
1. There are disposition events that aren’t sales/exchanges; in code sections like 62(a)(3),
distinction is important.
2. And not everything that’s property under state law is treated as property by tax code.
(a) – Amount realized minus adjusted basis = gain/loss
1. A/B 1011, 1012, 1016
(b) – A/R = sum of cash rec’d + FMV of prop. other than money rec’d (e.g. in a prop. exchange)
1. Notice: Doesn’t talk about services rec’d in return for property, but that’s included here.
2. When it’s something other than cash, we have to value it. In tax cases, standard for FMV
is objective – price at which prop. would exchange hands between willing buyer and
willing seller, both having knowledge of relevant facts and neither being under
compulsion to buy/sell. the “willing buyer/willing seller” standard.
(c) - default rule; entire amount of gain or loss recognized unless you find some specific other
provision providing for nonrecognition.
§ 61(a)(3) - GI - realized gains go into GI; no exclusion provision that applies; as with other gross
income items, have to make sure no exclusion provision applies (different from non-recognition
b/c takes out of tax base forever rather than deferring them)
o capital expenditure
CE= benefits beyond yr. expense was paid/incurred; no current deduction, expense added to basis
SHS: income = consumption + savings don’t allow a current deduction for CE. (Under CFC
system, would allow for a CE deduction as long as not personal)
costs related to acquisition of a capital asset
16
1. e.g. purchase price; fees related to title disputes (these fees may come later but have
origin in acquisition, so get added to basis & no current deduction); acquisition of land:
cost basis (what you pay = basis)
expenses related to sale of a capital asset treat as offset of amount realized – e.g. broker fee
o § 1011 “basis compass provision”
Default rule: adjusted basis initial basis as provided in § 1012 (cost), adjusted upward or
downward as required § 1016
1. (a)(1): upward adjustment for CE; those are added to basis
2. (a)(2): reduced for depreciation, amortization, depletion, obsolescence, exhaustion, wear
a. If you take any of these, have to reduce basis, or else you get a double tax benefit
b. Essentially for wasting assets
i. w/ something like stock - probably won’t have adjustments under § 1016
ii. no depreciation on corp. stock - not a wasting asset
Default basis: § 1012 cost - not defined
1. when you pay cash for something in an arm’s length transaction, the cost basis under
§1012 is the cash paid
2. Underlying policy: cost represents amount already run through the system; point is not to
tax it again. (Or it wasn’t taxed, and govt. doesn’t want to tax it now.)
o Realization
Required to determine gain/loss; 1001 requires a “sale or disposition” – realization has to happen.
Realization reqt. is for admin. convenience, both for TPs and for govt. If you got rid of it, you’d
have to appraise everything.
Also encourages savings and investment, long-term ownership
1. Problem: “lock-in” effect. Prevents capital from moving to another user.
2. But if you tax it earlier, might force liquidations in order to pay the tax.
3. Puts pressure on the system to lower tax on these kinds of gains.
Departure from realization: “mark to market” doctrine – §475.
1. MTM: compare value at beginning of year and end of year to calculate gain/loss.
2. SHS would rely on this because theoretically pure SHS system abandons realization reqt.
Realization is a major departure from a theoretically pure system.
3. But if we adopted MTM, you also have to adjust basis so that when you sell, you don’t
pay tax again.
o money paid to acquire stock - related to income-producing activity under §212 but can’t take a current
deduction b/c not an expense fails one of the definitions of “ordinary” b/c it’s a capital expenditure,
not a current expense (remember have to meet both definitions of ordinary)
§ 212 implies no current deduction for capital expenditures
§ 263 - specific disallowance for current deductions for capital expenditures
what about a broker fee?
1. Origin is in acquisition of stock, but still CE, curr. deduction disallowed under 263.
2. all of the cost of acquisition included as a capital expenditure - those expenditures
that have their origin in the acquisition of property
The purchase price and the broker fee goes into the basis
o if your expenditure has origin in the disposition of prop CE and not currently deducted
BUT, for purposes of determining gain or loss on sale get to take into account the sale cost,
reduce the gross proceeds by costs related to disposition
17
o character
we care about capital gains b/c if you have a net capital gain, that portion of your income in step 3
that’s net capital gain is subject to lower rates (§1(h)).
capital losses are subject to a special limit in § 1211 (can only deduct up to gains plus $3000);
allows you to carry forward some losses, so not a permanent disallowance
1. NOTICE - if a loss deduction, wouldn’t effect step one; loss deductions taken into
account either in step 2 or 3
every item of income or loss has a character - it’s always a part of the analysis
1. 2 major practical reasons if it’s gain, then this may be part of a net CG and may get
preferential rate on capital gains; if there are capital losses, limited in the deduction of
those losses as in § 1211 (can only deduct losses to the extent of gains plus $3K excess
against ord. income); anything else gets carried forward (limited to 5 future years)
2. if capital losses need to know amount of capital gains so can figure out amount of
deduction (deduction doesn’t affect step one)
capital asset has to be a sale/exchange of a capital asset; capital asset means property held by
the taxpayer other than the 8 things excluded in §1221(a).
1. dealer prop. exclusion - things like inventory or other prop. help for sale to customers
2. services aren’t prop (why compensation for services is ord. income)
3. apply the analysis to the property sold looking at the policy behind the law
if held for more than a year see § 1231 real prop. used in trade or business; depreciable or
amortizable personal (as opposed to real) prop. used in trade or business kicks these out of
§1221 (but 1231 may give you capital gain or loss treatment)
1. corp. stock is personal prop. no way it can be kicked out of 1221
short term or long term if more than one year long term
1. if one year or less short term
2. what is really taxed preferably is long term capital gains
Why do we give capital assets different treatment?
1. one of the prime reasons we care about the character preferential tax rates for net
capital gains
2. opponents
a. distributional argument: CG rates favor high income people
b. cap gain and loss provisions too complicated - lots of errors made in trying to
figure it out
c. economic efficiency: if we’re in favor of the free market, shouldn’t favor one
kind of income over another (distorting economic activity in favor of particular
kinds of investments, like stock.)
3. proponents
a. encourages long-term investment; to encourage investment in risky endeavors
that have high chance of failure (doesn’t make sense b/c no matter whether high
risk or low risk and treatment in capital losses actually discourages this);
encouraging investment or savings in general
b. economic theory: counteracts lock-in effect of realization reqt. (see above)
c. “theory of the second best”: Ideally, with no distortions and no barriers to free
market, CG preference steering investment a certain way may be good. But in
second best world, we have lots of distortions in the market; can’t be sure that a
CG preference doesn’t offset other distortions. So instead of moving away from
18
unimpeded free market, CG preference might move us back into a free market –
by offsetting distortions. Can’t clearly argue that it’s economically inefficient.
o Capital gains start with § 1222
net capital gain - this is the part that’s subject to the lower rate in § 1(h)
1. excess if any of the net LTCG over net STCL(can never be negative)
realization event has to be a sale/exchange for § 1222 to apply
STCG can’t qualify for preference; it’s taxed at ordinary income rates.
o Capital losses - § 165 (c)(2)
allows for a deduction for an investment loss
§ 165(f) - limit on capital losses go to § 1211 and § 1212
§ 1211 loss deduction limited to the amount of gains plus lower of $3K or the excess of such
losses over such gains
1. allows you to deduct capital losses (long and short term) to the extent of capital gains
2. loss not deducted carries over - § 1212 - start the next year with long term capital
losses that you couldn’t deduct the previous year; can’t carry back, but can carry
forward until you use it up. but if you don’t carry it forward, you lose it for that year
(can’t pick and choose which years you want to carry forward)
3. If you have no CG: only deduct $3,000. Doesn’t matter that the $3K isn’t a cap. asset.
4. where to take it: in step 2. Fits under §62(a)(3) (losses from sale or exchange of property)
5. corps only get losses to extent of gains; and carryforward and carryback limited
example Have $20K long term capital loss and $5K from a long term capital gain in an
unrelated transaction
1. Whatever we do with the loss - capital gain goes into gross income - 61(a)(3)
2. know we have $20K loss under § 165 and § 1001
3. § 1211(b) $8K deductible as a loss (amount up to gains plus $3K)
4. $12K carry forward
a. NOTE - 1211 doesn’t distinguish between long term or short term capital gains
5. what if Bob doesn’t want the extra $3K this year to deduct against ordinary income he
loses it have to take the full $3K carry forward will be $12K no matter if he wants
the $3K this year
6. what if the next year no capital gains $3K deduction.
o IMPORTANT: To have CG/CL, need sale/exch. of capital asset; not just any realization event, but S/E.
o Losses not compensated by insurance: § 165(c)(3) - almost no practical effect on most taxpayers
(a) - deduction allowed for loss sustained and not covered by insurance or otherwise; if there’s a
reasonable prospect for recovery, have to see how it’s resolved before you can take deduction
(b) - loss for taxpayers limited to basis - no basis, no loss
1. e.g. depreciable asset: you’ve taken deductions - have recovered via deductions, so now
basis is 0
a. assume no insurance - loss deduction is zero no basis, no loss
b. assume $100K insurance proceeds basis still zero now have a gain of
$100K
(c): limits deduction to:
1. losses incurred in trade/business (i.e., selling business property at a loss)
2. losses incurred in any transaction entered into for profit, though not connected w/
trade/business (i.e., sale of stock)
3. losses arising from fire, storm, shipwreck, other casualty, or theft
19
a. assume you got through definition of casualty, etc… § 165(h) - $100 floor;
section essentially says there’s a 10% of AGI floor
b. has to be sudden physical effect on your property (not slow-acting termites)
Losses from personal consumption items are not deductible (homes, cars, etc.)
won’t affect step one gross income only step 2 or 3
o depreciation of capital assets
consistent with SHS net income plus savings decline in the value of an asset that’s
producing value, should take into account to avoid overstating income
1. SHS would use economic depreciation – measure actual decline in value. But we violate
SHS and set up most depreciation allowances to be greater than economic depreciation,
to encourage investment. Plus, admin reasons – TPs and govt. would be mired in disputes
over valuations.
2. if using SHS would use economic depreciation - the actual decline in value and limiting
deduction to basis would result in small allowances in earlier years, getting bigger.
Our system is a departure b/c it doesn’t try to measure actual decline in value, and
sometimes almost purposely gives you a greater allowance. Some years, it’s a greater
departure than others.
3. Under CFC, all of the cost would be currently deducted. Actually, the more we allow
greater writeoffs more rapidly, the closer our system gets to CFC model.
Three types
1. depreciation - tangible property (e.g. machinery, buildings)
2. amortization - intangibles that are wasting assets (e.g. copyright, customer list, covenant
not to compete, trademark)
3. depletion - oil, gas, minerals, timber, other natural resources
depreciation - §§ 167, 168 -
1. under current rules involve 3 things – 168(a)
a. applicable depreciation method 2x straight line or 1.5x straight line
i. shorter periods get 200% (e.g. machinery with 3-year recovery period;
professional violinist buying $50K violin bow)
ii. tangible personal property
iii. can always elect straight line
b. recovery period – designed to be shorter than useful life
c. applicable convention – when you put in into use, when do we treat it as being
put into use (e.g. mid year no matter when you actually put it into use)
2. Real Property
a. straight line is only method you can use for real property
b. residential rental property (straight line over 27.5 years)
c. non-residential real property (straight line over 39 years)
3. current depreciation rules come up with recovery periods that don’t try to measure the
actual economic life of the asset, but Congress decides how much time to give for the
writeoff, want shorter periods than the actual economic life
4. can only take depreciation on an asset that you use in a trade or business or income
producing activity (e.g. personal home may depreciate, don’t get depreciation deduction)
a. purpose will allow you to recover your basis over time
b. Thus, if you have a zero basis - no depreciation
5. Example – a piece of machinery
a. $30K cost is adjusted basis (§ 1011, § 1012)
20
b. $10K each year in depreciation - § 167, § 168
c. is the deduction each year above the line or itemized?
i. § 62 (a)(1) – applies to 162 deductions as well as expenses related to
trade/business. It’s ordinary deduction not subject to 1211 limitations.
ii. above the line
iii. Depreciation deduction less favorable if it’s an unreimbursed expense of
an employee – again, deduction would be below the line, itemized.
6. Basis is reduced by the amount of the deduction every year so that by the end of 3 years
no basis, so what you sell it for will all be gain
a. if you choose not to take the deduction allowed by the statute, you lose it (e.g.
basis can go down to zero even though you never took a depreciation deduction)
o amortization – § 197
doesn’t include anything self-created unless listed in § 197(d)(1) (D), (E), or (F)
1. if self-created and listed in (A)-(C) – not § 197
a. but if doesn’t fall within 197 – check § 167
2. if self-created and listed in (D)-(F) – is § 197
straight line over 15 years, no matter the life of the asset
measuring point adjusted basis
examples:
1. self-created customer list with a definite term
a. not within § 197 - § 197(d)(1)(C)(iv)
b. BUT, see § 167
i. amortizable over useful life (e.g. basis in list is $6K, life of 6 years =
$1K per year)
2. self-created goodwill not amortizable listed in (d)(1)(A)
3. the inventor with costs in developing the invention
a. not a § 197 intangible that can be amortized
b. look at § 167 – write off over legal life of the patent
purchased amortizable assets
1. even if self-created by the seller, purchaser will get to amortize § 197 intangibles
2. e.g. I buy assets, including goodwill, customer list, cov. not to compete
a. all is purchased § 197 (c)(2) has nothing to do with this situation (b/c not
self-created by the purchaser)
3. e.g. I pay $30K in expenses wrt license with 30 year term
a. 15 year write off, straight line – 197(d)(1)(D)
o § 1231 - property used in trade/business held > 1 year – intermediate characterization
§ 1221(a)(2) – certain kinds of property that gets kicked out
§ 1231 picks what gets kicked out under § 1221(a)(2) - treated like a quasi capital asset, but better
1. net differently - if the gains equal or exceed the losses, then everything in § 1231 gets
capital gain treatment
2. if the losses exceed the gains - gets treated like ordinary loss - better b/c no special limit
like in § 1211
o § 1245 recapture
ex: you had $10K a year in depreciation deductions that were ordinary deductions, could offset
any income; bought for $100K, depreciated for 6 years ($60K); sell for $130K
1. have gain of $90K ($130K amount realized minus $40K remaining basis)
21
2. when you sell that depreciable machinery, the amount of gain as a result of the
depreciation doesn’t go into § 1231 pot – gets treated as ordinary income
3. so in this case, you’d have $60K ordinary income and $30K in § 1231 gain
4. § 1245 overrides § 1231 and § 1221
o What if a loss on the sale of depreciable property?
§ 165(c)(1) allows, no disallowance unless § 1211 applies
character of the loss - does § 1211 apply to limit the loss?
character
1. § 1245 doesn’t help you - only applies to gains, not losses
2. § 1221(a)(2) kicks it out to § 1231 - held for more than a year
3. treated like ord. loss
4. but, have to know if there’s any other § 1231 gains or losses b/c different netting - all
depends on whether § 1231 gains exceed losses
o §1(h)(6): Unrecaptured §1250 gain – for depreciable real property
Kind of a misnomer; old 1250 recaptured as OI excess of accelerated over straight-line
depreciation. Only connection of 1(h)(6) to 1250 is that they both apply to depreciable real prop.
1(h)(6) doesn’t make it ordinary income, but simply subjects it to 25 percent preferential rate.
Means that 1231 gain from sale of real property, if it survives as CG, will get 25 percent rate.
o definitional provisions of § 1222
sale or exchange of capital assets
is the realization event a sale or exchange
is it a capital asset
those eight items listed are things that aren’t capital assets (in § 1208)
23
1. TP’s argument: It’s like a repair; defensive expenses
2. Counter: These expenses create/enhance an existing though intangible asset.
a. This is the argument that wins in Indopco. If expenditures create significant
future benefits, they’re CE.
b. Significant future benefits: SCOTUS cited proxy statements soliciting favorable
vote of the shareholders.
c. So TP was hoist on its own petard.
How to deal with these CE?
1. No amortization provided under regs for 263; 197 won’t apply.
2. So there’s no write-off, ever. Unless company goes out of existence, but then CE is
worthless.
Amounts spent on employee compensation, de minimus costs and overhead are treated as
amounts that don’t facilitate a transaction like this. Limits reach of Indopco.
If defensive transaction fails: expenses probably currently deductible. See § 1.265(a)-5.
24
4. if treating people with same amount of economic income differently, should think about
why doing it –
5. Provisions that vary based on type of income violate horizontal equity.
vertical equity
1. controversial
2. looks at those with different amounts of income those with different amounts of
income ought to bear an appropriately different burden
3. what’s appropriate? Three measures
a. progressive – suggests that as your income goes up, you pay more total tax and,
at each level of higher income, pay a larger percentage
i. generally, theory that we should distribute burden based on ability to pay
ii. declining marginal utility of money – as your income goes up, each extra
dollar provides less utility
iii. for poorer people, every dollar earned goes towards necessity; someone
like Bill Gates – only so much you can do with your money, taking a
higher percentage from these people means less overall sacrifice for the
rich people
iv. how progressive? Highest rate ever was over 92% (although very few
people paid this)
1. top rate now is 35%
2. look at rates and base – can’t just look at the rates
b. flat rate – everyone pays same rate – decreasing marginal utility doesn’t matter
i. even in this system, those with higher income pay more tax
ii. true proportional system would tax all income and no exemptions
1. once you add exemptions, have a 2 rate system – some income
won’t be taxed (0% rate for exempted income; tax rate for other
income)
2. this is why there’s never been a true flat-rate system.
c. regressive – no one ever says they’re in favor of regressive taxation
i. As income goes up, you pay lesser percentage of total income in tax.
ii. VAT a supporters in favor of regressive taxation
iii. Most consumption taxes are regressive even though just one rate
1. Not all, though. You can make a CFC tax progressive, but
requires higher rates – more steeply progressive.
iv. Poorer people pay a higher percentage of total income in taxes
v. This is a factor that holds up the imposition of a VAT
o economic efficiency
Virtually impossible to achieve pareto optimality and superiority in regulation for taxes.
1. Pareto = leave someone better off but nobody worse off.
2. This measure of efficiency is useless.
Tax law focuses on cost-benefit analysis (Kalder-Hicks). If benefits > costs, it’s efficient.
1. Policy move is desirable as long as the winners exceed the losers and the winners could
compensate the losers for their loss
2. Just b/c benefits exceed the cost, doesn’t mean you do – have to consider other things;
but this informs the analysis
3. Makes sense to know the costs and benefits of a particular move
25
4. Often used in tax law when deciding on whether to make a change – on the whole, is this
a good move
5. Greater role in other kinds of regulations outside of tax
o neutrality
theory is that tax policy should have as little as possible an effect on behavior
suggests that the best systems are those with the less distortion
assumption that free market is the best way to allocate resources – allow invisible hand to allocate
rather than the gov.
o complexity
idea is that a tax system should be as simple as possible b/c complex systems impose high
transaction costs for government and taxpayers
those costs spent on lawyers and accountants; administrative costs deadweight losses –
resource wasters
effect of this criteria obviously not great, but once you figure out other goals, try to make it as
simple as possible
o Wage tax
Problem is that is slams those who get all or most of income from wages, as opposed to
investment income (horizontal equity)
Also an issue with vertical equity capped, so that the more you make, the less percentage you
pay in FICA tax regressive
Proposal fund social security reform – eliminate the cap, but keep the percentage the same
trying to do it without calling it a tax increase
o Optimal taxation
Says we should try to tax or tax more heavily those things that have a lesser substitution effect;
where behavior is elastic, relatively unchanged by the tax
1. E.g. sin taxes
Won’t find much effect on the income tax system
1. E.g. gambling winnings should be taxed higher than ordinary income
more of an effect on other kinds of taxes, not the income tax
o substitution effect/income effect
with an income tax, the return on savings is taxed no matter consumption; consumption system,
wouldn’t pay a tax unless and until you consume
proponents of consumption tax say that it would increase savings and investment
Substitution effect says that having an income base that taxes savings no matter consumption
timing and having an income tax makes people substitute income for savings If I have to pay
the tax anyway, no need to delay gratification
1. issue offsetting income effect – says that if you have a targeted goal (e.g. you need $X
to retire), have to save more to get to that target
same idea with work and leisure
1. income tax that taxes your wages regardless of consumption has a substitution effect
work less consume more
2. income effect if you want so much income after tax in order to consume, when they
tax it and take 35% have to work that much more
o Tax expenditures
Tax expenditure theory divides tax system into two types of provisions
26
1. “Baseline” or normal provisions: provisions that properly help define income, basis.
2. Tax expenditures: everything else. Serve some social or economic program purposes;
figure out which ones they are, find out how much they are costing, and compare doing
program through tax system vs. more direct method to see which is more effective
a. criticism – under this analysis, likely to flunk.
b. Hard to argue that IRS ought to be in charge of a certain program. Interferes with
IRS’s major revenue-raising goal; and it has to have regs to implement certain
deductions.
problems
1. putting govt program in tax code puts wrong agency in charge (e.g. energy policy,
housing policy, etc)
2. by having it buried in the tax code, makes it easier to hide the programs from taxpayers –
no one really doing a cost benefit analysis or asking if a program makes sense
3. what comes out of it – tax expenditure budget – one that lists tax expenditures in the
budget – know what the programs are costing – when someone proposing something,
trying to avoid having it be called a tax expenditure – will try to call it baseline
a. argument that it’s too hard to make the distinction, so shouldn’t do it – but
distinctions and decisions are always hard to make
Why Peroni likes tax expenditure theory – both left and right hate it
1. left – way to sneak in government programs
2. right – assuming that money belongs to the gov –
a. answer – the money’s already there – the issue is whether it makes sense to divert
resources to the program done in this specific way
benefits: why tax expenditures may be better than direct programs
1. Surrey always found tax expenditures wanting
2. may be better to administer some programs through the tax programs less of a stigma
for some benefits for poor people
3. charitable contribution deduction – lets people decide where to donate money rather than
the govt. Gov can’t decide wrt church donations – constitutional issue
4. deductions for state/local property taxes: kind of like revenue-sharing. And you’ve paid
taxes to one sovereign, which reduces your ability to pay the other; so this is more like a
baseline provision. (Still, treated like a tax expenditure.)
5. Don’t have to create a new bureaucracy to carry out a program.
why allowed this way when couldn’t do directly – SCOTUS says so
In TE, identification of expenditures as govt. programs is meant to bring transparency and
accountability; Surrey didn’t want govt. programs hidden in code provisions to avoid scrutiny.
1. Shift toward doing programs through tax system creates lack of accountability, which
makes making programs popular. Politically, it’s harder to get direct govt. programs
through Congress.
2. End result with tax preferences is that they’re normally captured by someone else,
through capitalization of benefits, so intended beneficiary is no better off.
a. i.e., credits/deductions for education – universities just raised tuition.
b. i.e., home mortgage interest deduction: helps existing homeowners more than
prospective homeowners; allows house prices to be higher than they normally
would be. Sellers are better off.
o Progressivity: arguments for and against
Against:
27
1. Substitution effect: As you progressively take more in tax from someone’s income,
people will substitute leisure for work, and encourages current consumption over savings.
2. Redistribution: It’s un-American, against the capitalist system. (Or, you don’t believe in
redistribution through the tax system.
3. More transaction costs: More gaming; higher the rates, the more pressure to create
explicit preferences and have more aggressive tax maneuvers.
4. Off-the-books economy: Progressivity encourages bartering, underground economy
5. Libertarian/property rights (counter to “ability to pay”): So what if I earned more? I
should get to keep it!
6. Discourages productive activity; takes away more from those who produce econ. activity.
For:
1. Income effect (counter to substitution): You have to work more and play less to get same
after-tax income, and you have to save instead of consume.
2. Redistribution: Take from the top and use it to direct govt. programs for people who are
less well off.
3. “Veil of ignorance”: If you entered world with uncertain outcomes and could contract
with others, you’d come out with something like a progressive rate structure with
redistribution. If you don’t know whether you’ll be a winner or loser, you’ll take the
chance that if you’re a winner, you’ll pay more.
4. Ability to pay/utilitarian theory/declining marginal utility of money
a. Technical argument: As income goes up, you not only have more ability to pay,
but a greater ability to pay a greater amount.
b. Each progressively higher dollar provides less utility than the lower dollars. So
you can afford to sacrifice more.
29
Tax-exempt bond interest: §103 allows you to exclude interest income. In CFC, all interest would
be excluded as long as you save it.
Many elements are CFC-like in their approach; as we add more features like this, we come closer
to CFC tax.
Borrowed funds is one area where the two are still very far apart.
30
a. assets can be tangibles and intangibles plus goodwill – residual value that’s in
excess of other intangible assets
b. it’s an asset, so if you purchase a business rather than self-create it, generally
there’s a basis in goodwill
c. § 197 allows a taxpayer to amortize purchased goodwill over a 15 year period;
not allowed for self-created goodwill
d. gain for award for destruction of goodwill amount realized (jury award) minus
basis (cost) plus you add back in to this amount any amount you took for
amortization
i. e.g. $30K cost basis; $10K in deductions; $100K award $80K taxable
e. character – is it a capital asset (it’s goodwill)?
i. start at § 1221 – 1221(a)(2) kicks it out
ii. picked up by § 1231 if held for more than a year (trade or business held
for more than a year)
iii. if held for one year or less – would be ord. income
f. recapture
i. we treat amortization deductions under § 197 like depreciation
ii. recapture – to the extent of any amortization or depreciation taken –
before dealing with § 1231, have to first deal with § 1245 when you
sell at a gain, the part of gain traceable to prior ord. deduction will be
characterized as ordinary
iii. so, in above example, $70K is § 1231 gain; $10K is 1245 ordinary gain
3. when a purchaser acquires an existing business and it’s structured as an asset acquisition
as opposed to a stock acquisition
a. treated like a purchase of every asset and sale of every asset
b. have to allocate price among the assets per market value – IRS will only respect
allocation that reflects economic reality
o Treasure trove
found money is income even though a windfall
1. income in the year it is reduced to undisputed possession
1.61-14 reg wrt treasure trove
ordinary income no sale or exchange
realization event? when is the realization event?
1. Peroni 2 possibilities (and a third if you try to find the rightful owner)
a. year 1 – when you literally have the treasure trove in your house – e.g. when you
bought the desk the expensive necklace is in
b. Year X (later) – when you find it and reduce it to your possession and
control
c. if you go to the cops and the police don’t give it back to you until a year later b/c
couldn’t find the owner – year 9 might be a possibility (wouldn’t be undisputed
possession until police give back to you)
2. Answer year X (the year of discovery and reduction to undisputed possession)
a. but, doesn’t matter if title voidable under state law in determining possession
b. if T tried to find rightful owner, that delays income; there’s accession to wealth
and realization, but not dominion/control.
when you get it in something other than cash, have to value it at its fair market value
1. same with Michael Jordan jersey hypo – what’s the relevant market?
31
a. probably collectors market (higher value), not sporting goods store market
b. seems like harsh result if TP doesn’t have cash to pay the tax; but also seems like
an optimal tax, because you wouldn’t harm economic activity or affect behavior.
c. Yet in a self-assessment system, we worry about taxing things people don’t see
as income. Leaves it to IRS to use discretion.
i. But if you sell it or contribute to charity, then IRS will tax it.
2. usually use objective valuation standards
a. doesn’t matter what the finder thinks about it
b. use “willing buyer/willing seller” standard.
What about basis?
1. e.g. if necklace found in desk, can we reduce the income by allocating some of the basis
in the desk?
a. no – allocation of basis when you buy multiple things occurs at time you acquire
them – if you are unaware of jewelry, can’t allocate basis to it
2. what about land – don’t know about natural resources when you buy
a. can you allocate any of your basis in the land to the now-discovered natural
resources no to allocate, have to do at the time of purchase in relation to
the resources (e.g. finding costs)
3. T’s basis when you acquire non-cash prop that you are required to report as income,
basis is the amount included in income tax cost basis idea that this money has
already been through the system once
a. e.g. discovery is $10K; sell for $20K adjusted basis is $10K
b. baseball example basis in ball is whatever you reported as GI from the ball
o bargain purchase at arm’s length – “good deal” exception
discovery that what you bought is really worth a lot more than what you paid
not gross income
no realization until disposition of asset – discovery of the true value isn’t the realization event!!
basis is the cost of the item you thought was just a regular item – what you paid.
natural resources learning about oil not a realization event; extraction of the resource is
idea is that as long as you have an arms-length transaction (e.g. not relatives, employer/employee)
of property for cash, under the commercial bargain purchase doctrine, not income
34
2. what if you stopped at the office party can you argue it’s part of the business to show
up and be social and fit in by drinking tougher case than the bar example, but court
might say depends on what kind of accident (e.g. drunk driving not ordinary and
necessary); ordinary and necessary requires an inquiry into whether there’s a nexus
between the activity and pursuit of the business
Gilliam just b/c arises from business doesn’t make it automatically deductible business man
taking business trip; has an incident on the plane and attacks a flight attendant; argues that legal
fees and other costs should be deductible b/c he was on a business trip, in pursuit of business
not unexpected that people might wig out on a plane court says distinguishable from Dancer
no deduction fact that incident occurred on business trip didn’t mean that activity was in
direct pursuit of the business
1. as the behavior becomes more common better argument that it’s ordinary and
necessary? But issue that assaulting a flight attendant not directly in pursuit of the
business
Paying civil damages, punitives deductible – Rev Ruling 80-211
1. underlying activity arises in the business and is ordinary and necessary
§ 305(b)(1): if there’s choice b/w getting shares or something else, it’s included in GI and
taxable. Choice is the key; doesn’t matter if everyone chooses cash or chooses shares. Fact that
you could elect takes you out of the Eisner protection.
1. what’s the measure of the income?
a. FMV – e.g. $20 per share; 200 shares 200 x $20 = $4K
b. character is OI, but taxed at CG rates – 1(h)(11) – qualified dividend income
c. realization event not just more pieces of paper, but also increased proportional
share of the corp. b/c of those who chose to take the cash
2. basis:
a. basis = cost = tax cost; the FMV of the shares (remember – tax cost is the value
that you will be taxed on)
b. since we treat this as a separate realization event, have to give a basis as the
taxable amount b/c don’t want to run same money through the system twice
c. holding period? don’t get to tack on – different event. 1223(4).
stock split - § 1036 – no tax on stock split
1. in splits and stock dividends, get more certificates in co. you’re already invested in
2. difference is in how treated internally within the company
a. with a split – getting more pieces of paper within the same corp. – can be positive
– e.g. one for one; or reverse – e.g. 1 for every 2 you already own
i. companies trying to mess with the price of each share
ii. theory is that more pieces of paper with a split, lowers price and makes
stock more attractive
b. stock dividend – like other dividends, requires that corp. have earned a surplus
36
i. actually have some additional restrictions imposed b/c of having to move
money around at the corp. level.
ii. from shareholder’s POV – pro-rata dividend = more pieces of paper
(same as in positive split) – same proportional interest in the corp. –
control, earnings, liquidation preference.
iii. does combo of more pieces of paper along with accounting changes at
the corp. level enough to make stock dividend a taxable realization
event? NO.
o Subdivision of property
The act of subdividing the property is not a realization event
1. even if total value of the property is enhanced!!!
2. basis and holding period remain the same.
Determining basis when the lots are sold
1. if different values - probably have to hire an appraiser to determine how to allocate since
some lots are more valuable than others
a. based on FMV at the time you acquired the prop. (see p. 403)
2. if same value for each piece, divide basis proportionally among the lots; if size
difference, but nothing more valuable – allocate based on size and proportional value
Investor property may become dealer property through subdivision or conversion. (like condos)
o Improvements to rental property made by lessee
§ 109 lessor does not realize gross income on reversion/termination of the lease even when the
property is worth more at that time b/c of improvements made by lessee
Basis for lessor doesn’t increase b/c of improvements; no basis in the building per § 1019
1. L’s basis in the land not impacted by the construction of the building
When lease terminated whether or not there’s a realization event will determine basis in the
building (NOTE: this issue doesn’t effect realization for the land – this won’t be taxed until
transferred or sold)
1. interest has changed from future contingent interest to actual ownership Helvering
says it’s a realization event (says it doesn’t matter whether it’s windfall or disguised
rent); therefore, OI in amount of FMV at date of reversion
2. BUT Congress changed this reversion not a realization event in some instances
§109 improvements on land at termination of lease are not included in GI if not rent
if the building is disguised rent, § 109 doesn’t apply
3. § 1019 if § 109 applies, § 1019 tells us common tax sense your basis is 0; if
Congress wanted § 109 to be a permanent exclusion (never taxed) would have to give
you a basis equal to the amount taxed netting out to zero; without § 1019, would have
to speculate about what § 109 does
when selling raw land and building, have to take the price and allocate it between the 2 assets;
purchaser has to do the same thing
1. why – b/c the land isn’t depreciable; classic non-depreciable capital expenditure
2. amount realized – example $325K ($175K allocable to land; $150K for the building)
(basis in land = $50K)
3. gain $125K for land ($175 amount realized minus $50K basis)
a. $150K for building – no basis
4. character
a. land –§ 1231 gain of $125K
37
i. § 1221(a)(2) kick out real prop. used in trade or business whether
depreciable or not go to § 1231 b/c held for more than a year
b. building – § 1231 gain of $150K – prop used in trade or business, held for more
than a year (if held a year or less, not a capital asset or a § 1231 asset – ordinary)
c. suppose some depreciation – depreciation recapture doesn’t apply to real estate
i. capital gain here that might come through § 1231 – to the extent that it’s
traceable to depreciation, no recapture, but the rate preference is 25%
o when improvements are essentially substitute for rent
e.g. under the terms of the lease agreement with L, T had agreed to construct the building; fair
rental value of L’s land was $9K per year, T only had to pay rent of $4K per year?
it’s at least some disguised rent b/c of the lower rent and maybe something of a windfall
Helvering applies; § 109 exception applies b/c this is rent
Upon termination of the lease, have GI equal to FMV of the improvement (ordinary income)
Basis § 1012 tax cost basis is equal to FMV
1. Thus, if you then sold the building for $150K and its FMV at the time of termination of
the lease was $125K have a gain of $25K ($150K minus $ 125K = $25K)
2. § 1231 gain
character – does T’s characterization on disposition (sale) depend on T’s characterization upon
termination of lease (ord. income)? generally no; we determine character at time of disposition
whether he had to report income in year 3 or not doesn’t affect treatment of character in year 4
what if held for 1 year or less but used in a trade or business? Not a capital asset and not a 1231
asset ordinary income and ordinary loss
o Remember that RECAPTURE DOESN’T APPLY TO REAL ESTATE
what about § 1250 – kind of recapture that applies to real estate
unrecaptured § 1250 gain in § 1(h) label doesn’t make any sense
1. it’s in 1(h), so this unrecaptured § 1250 gain is still capital gains for purposes of the gain
not ordinary income recapture like § 1245 is
2. created in 1997 argument that if gain is attributable to past depreciation deductions,
should be able to recapture as ordinary income real estate industry hates this
3. congress splits the baby § 1245 won’t apply, but gets taxed as capital gains, but not
the lower 15% rate, 25%
a. problem above since L gets a basis in the building in some cases, in theory L
would probably start taking depreciation in the year of termination basis
would be lower, more gain upon sale gain on the building would be part §
1231 gain (that part of gain not attributable to any depreciation); other gain
would be taxed at 25% under § 1250
o Like-kind exchanges
if an economic substitute (e.g. risk and everything else is the same) not a realization event
1. exchange materially different realization event
2 classic realization events involving property cash sales and property-for-property exchange
if a realization event – go to § 1001: amount realized is FMV of what you receive
Cottage Savings – most recent SCOTUS case on realization issue
1. court had to deal with whether exchange of mortgage pools – where different debtors and
property, but economic substitutes – was a realization event
38
2. differing materially in kind or extent in defining a realization event, regs seem to
suggest that when you have an exchange, the prop has to be materially different in kind
or extent court had to deal with what these words meant
a. Materially different in kind or extent what does it mean?
i. important b/c could use loss to offset income; want t a deduction sooner
rather than later
b. under banking regs and economic market evals – swaps only took place where
the pools were economic substitutes – swappers not changing economic positions
i. engaging in the swap to get a deduction and a loss
3. b/c of why swaps taking place, govt wants test to be = different in economic substance
(not economic substitutes)
a. reg wording in there for many years, so have a tough time b/c this test not in the
regs and now trying to tell the court its meaning although couldn’t point to
anything that said that this was really the interpretation
4. SCOTUS
a. looking at prior corp. tax cases stand for principle that materially different if
legal entitlements different in kind or extent
i. e.g. different debtors, different properties
ii. realization here – corp. gets loss deduction
5. Peroni
a. what if gov won the case?
b. Peroni: court did govt. favor by rejecting its proposed standard
c. test gov proposed would end up being major loss for the government; would
avoid taxpayers taking loss deductions, but in a self-assessment system based on
facts and circumstances, for every loss case the govt wins, will lose 30 gain cases
d. in gain cases, this test would allow you to elect whether to report income; could
come up with some reason why trade was/wasn’t economic substitutes
e. such a test = high transaction costs for TPs figuring it out, IRS trying to enforce
f. § 1031 – test proposed by gov would make this section superfluous b/c it’s a non-
recognition provision, which assumes a realization.
g. most exchanges that come under § 1031 as non-recognition would never be
realized
h. test that says no realization unless diff. in economic substance would read § 1031
out of the code – court refuses to do this
i. § 1031 commonly applies to swaps of one piece of investment real estate for
another piece of real estate. theory: properties are economic substitutes, therefore
not an appropriate occasion to impose tax.
39
§ 83 added to the code to fortify § 61 analysis that form of compensation doesn’t matter non-
cash property taxed to service provider no matter to whom the property is actually transferred –
e.g. doesn’t matter is property goes to service provider or someone else that he wants it to go to
have to have property – 1.83-3(e) definition of property – real and personal property, tangible or
intangible other than money or unfunded and unsecured promises to pay cash in the future
1. investment real estate obviously applies
only restrictions that will affect timing and amount of income are those listed in § 83; if
restriction doesn’t meet one of the tests, doesn’t affect the timing and amount of income
1. if no restrictions, no risk of forfeiture, & transferable – no deferral of the income
Valuation
1. value it without regard to restrictions unless the restrictions don’t lapse
a. valuation: at time property = transferable or not subject to subst. risk of forfeiture
2. Only restrictions looked at when valuing property are perm. limitations on transferability
of property that never leave property (e.g. right of first refusal at formula price).
3. e.g. formula prices in an agreement if you ever want to sell, have to offer to X at a
certain price will affect valuation under § 83
Timing
1. included in gross income at the time the rights are transferable OR are not subject to a
substantial risk of forfeiture, whichever is earlier
2. to delay timing – have to have a substantial risk of forfeiture AND non-transferability – if
one of these falls, tax it when that happens
Income: FMV minus what you have to pay for it = income (ordinary)
initial adjusted basis cash paid plus amount reported as GI
1. basis tied to the timing and amount of income
beginning of holding period: when property is reported as income, clock starts ticking
property transferred in connection with performance of services (not in consideration for; applies
to past, present and future services; includes bonuses)
1. gift argument? very hard to make and win; transfers from employers generally not gifts.
transferable = only if any transferee of property wouldn’t be subject to subst. risk of forfeiture
1. SRF follows the property no matter who it’s transferred to = non-transferable
2. where restriction doesn’t follow the property = transferable
substantial risk of forfeiture – 4 definitions
3. Basic definition. Rights to full enjoyment are conditioned upon future performance of
substantial services by someone (“earn out” provision, common in start-ups). § 83(c)(1).
4. Treas. Reg. 1.83-3(c)(1): Broader than the statute: Defines SRF as present if rights are
conditioned on 1) future performance of substantial services by someone or 2) the
occurrence of a condition related to the purpose of the transfer.
a. incentive (includes negative stuff) – e.g. covenant not to compete – if you violate,
you lose the property (related to what’s in the reg.)
b. if you have a condition like where T will forfeit property if after year 4, the
earnings of the company have not increased by at least 5% per year incentive
kind of condition (incentive-LIKE, not like straight up compensation)
5. Robinson v. Comm’r (1st Cir.). Broadest test (which violates leg. history of § 83): if
restriction serves significant noncompensatory business purpose of employer, it’s SRF.
a. Facts: Corp has purpose to restrict insider trading, imposed limit that once TP
purchases stock under an option, he could not sell it for 1 year. Held: a SRoF.
40
b. The uncertainty this causes in other circuits means, for TPs to report income
upon transfer, they should take § 83(b) election instead of saying: no SRoF.
6. § 83(c)(3) sales which may give rise to liability under § 16(B) of Sec. Exchange Act
o § 83(b) election
can elect to include in gross income in the year of transfer
have to make the election within 30 days and can’t change your mind later
accelerates timing of the tax, but this means that any appreciation in value is capital gains when
sold = better tax rate
1. contrast with situation where get prop. with FMV of $50K in year one for $10K; free and
clear in year 4, when value is $90K amount included in gross income is $80K
2. increase in value is treated as OI (although when sold will be capital gain/loss)
Valuation is the same: TP’s income is the FMV at the time of transfer, minus any amount paid for
the property. Only permanent restrictions affect value. The basis is §1012 cost: price paid +
amount included as income (FMV). The holding period starts when the property is transferred.
1. Upon making the § 83(b) election, § 83(a) will not apply to the property: any subsequent
appreciation is not taxable upon the removal of restrictions on the property.
Upon forfeiture of property, no deduction allowed for amount previously included as income.
When to use it?
1. When it seems tax cost of accelerating the § 83 OI inclusion will be more than made up
by the tax savings from converting ordinary income on appreciation into capital gain.
2. Factors: Is the property a cap. asset? Is the upfront reported income low? Is it 0 (then TP
should always make the election)? Is the property expected to appreciate substantially?
Does the TP have control of the condition (loss of forfeiture deduction not a risk)?
3. When you have very speculative interests worth very little upfront – use the election.
4. Also consider what will happen with tax rates – stay stable, or go up/down in future?
taxpayer gets prop. subject to substantial risk of forfeiture, non-transferable; worth $10K, pays
$10K. At year 4, worth $90K (Alves)
1. when do you measure the bargain element?
2. if you make the election, you have income of $0
3. if you wait until year 4 – have $80K of income
4. taxpayer argues no bargain, so how can I have compensation? court says you didn’t make
the election; measure it in year 4 b/c no election made
5. lesson – make the election in this situation
combine Alves and Robinson client says I got stock in closely held corp. and they are worried
about securities regs, so company putting a 1 year restriction on sale. Restriction not related to
incentive or anything like that. Client says that I am having to pay $10K and it’s only worth
$10K. Looks like § 83, have to value it and report it upfront b/c not subject to substantial risk of
forfeiture. Client follows advice.
1. Year 5 and stock is worth $90K. We didn’t make election b/c reported up front b/c not
subject to a substantial risk of forfeiture. IRS agent says you have $80K in income b/c
restriction meets Robinson test and you didn’t make election, so we measure bargain
later. LESSON make a protective § 83(b) election if you’re not sure about substantial
risk of forfeiture and if client wants to report up front
2. if you make money on the property before it’s substantially vested and you wait to report
(e.g. don’t make election) – any income earned is additional compensation income
a. e.g. dividend on stock, rental income
Deduction by employer
41
1. Use of property other than cash in satisfying obligation is a realization event. §1.83-6.
2. §162 allows deduct,, but timing determined under §83(h) – then you run it through 162.
3. §83(h): deduction allowed for taxable year in which service provider includes it in GI.
42
IV. Tax Treatment of Borrowing and Lending (Unit 5)
o Basic rules related to borrowing and lending
o Straight borrowing and loan repayment transactions
One of the major differences between CFC and income tax system is way we treat loans.
1. CFC proceeds of loans go into income; investments (savings) get deduction; personal
consumption not deducted; principal and interest payments deductible
2. with savings and investment loans – prevents sheltering; loan goes into income; with an
income tax, there’s a mismatch between when we tax and allow deductions
3. if you only take the feature of not taxing saving and investment income, you have a very
poorly designed consumption tax system
in an income tax system, loans are not income
1. loans aren’t an accession to wealth; you have the offsetting obligation to repay
big difference between IT and CFC: timing
1. SHS: consume now, pay later – incentive to borrow for consumption
2. CFC: pay tax upfront when you consume
if an individual, start with presumption that personal interest isn’t deductible – if you want to
deduct, has to fall into certain categories
1. § 163(h)(2) – says what’s not “personal interest”
2. § 163(f)(2)
3. § 221 – income phase out making most education loan interest non-deductible
4. b/c we don’t tax you up front, can’t get a deduction for the principal; but you get taxed on
the income used to pay off the loan
o Below-market loans
§ 7872: recharacterizes supposedly interest-free loan into component parts
idea: no such thing as below-market or interest-free loan; substance over form reflected in statute
if no exceptions apply and it’s a loan and it’s interest free or below market, have to do recasting
1. idea that these “loans” are disguised transfers – gift, dividend?
2. e.g. employer loan idea that it’s really compensation; if lender is corp. idea that it’s
really a dividend; if it’s between family members presumed to be a gift
tells you 2 things
1. takes the amount of foregone interest and treat as a transfer from lender to transferee –
then have to analyze in accordance with the facts
2. then assume this amount of foregone interest is transferred back to transferor as interest
a. recipient has a potential interest deduction (§ 163(a))
b. transferor has interest income
3. bottom line: foregone interest is a transfer back from lender and then transferred back
employer loan – example On Jan. 1 of year 1, T’s employer makes an interest-free loan of
$20K to T. The loan is repayable on a demand basis. (If T’s employer had charged interest on this
loan at the applicable federal rate, the amount of T’s interest expense for year 1 would have been
$1200.) T uses the loan proceeds to finance an expensive around-the-world vacation trip.
1. foregone interest = $1200
2. § 7872: is this a loan? yes - (c)(1)(b) – compensation-related loan
3. exceptions
a. (c)(3) – de minimis exception for comp-related and corp-shareholder loans –
doesn’t apply here (exclusion if amount of loan doesn’t exceed $10K)
b. (c)(2): de minimis for gift loans < $10K (like parent-child) – not applicable here
43
c. (d): special rules for gift loans where aggregate proceeds don’t exceed $10K
4. treat forgone interest as a transfer from employer to T and, on the same day, a deemed
transfer back to the employer
a. SO, transfer to employee of $1200
i. $1,200 is ordinary compensation income to T
ii. what about to employer § 162 deduction
b. AND transfer to employer of $1200
i. ordinary income = $1200 of interest - § 61(a)(4)
ii. what about transferee potential deduction under § 163 (e.g. if used for
personal consumption, not deductible unless falls within an exception)
c. so, in some cases, both parties will have washes
i. notice this is consistent w/ rent-free use of property: e.g. allowing service
provider to use property rent free = sometimes income to serv. provider
what if a shareholder loan?
1. lender is corp. T is shareholder/debtor
2. § 7872(a) exactly the same
3. from corp to T exactly the same
a. transfer foregone interest to T as dividend and then back to corp. as interest
b. shareholder has a dividend instead of compensation and if a qualified dividend,
can get favorable tax treatment – §1(h)(11)
c. corp no deduction for payment can’t get deductions for dividends
i. no wash on this side
4. transfer back from corp. to T
a. same as before
b. interest income to corp.; T has potential deduction if interest deductible under
some code provision
what if a gift loan?
1. from donor to donee still go back and forth wrt transfer
2. transfer from donor to donee is a gift
a. 2 potential consequences:
i. donee has no income tax on it - § 102; if he has a deduction, it’s better
than a wash.
ii. for donor, it’s covered by gift tax
b. § 7872 focuses on donor -- tries to prevent avoiding gift tax, or assigning income
3. transfer back from donee to donor
a. remember that § 7872 calls this transfer back interest
b. still potential deduction for borrower
4. what changes in terms of consequences is treatment in transfer to taxpayer (first transfer
to donee/recipient)
a. special rules with gift loans
b. $10K de minimis amount (similar to exception for compensation); cliff effect, if
amount of loan proceeds exceed $10K, exception doesn’t apply
i. exception to the de minimis exception
ii. doesn’t apply if one of the principal purposes for the loan arrangement is
tax avoidance; makes the rule inapplicable in most cases
5. Gift loans for under $100,000: The § 7872 deemed retransfer of forgone interest from
borrower to lender applies only if the borrower’s net investment income is over $1,000
44
for the year. If it is, all of the forgone interest (no cliff effect) up to the net investment
income is deemed retransferred. § 7872(d).
a. this limitation doesn’t apply where more than $100K of loans outstanding
between lender and borrower
b. if borrower’s net investment income from all sources doesn’t exceed $1K (cliff
effect) special rule doesn’t apply (d)(1)(E)(ii)
i. e.g. if $900 in net investment income, we’ll treat as $0 and § 7872
doesn’t apply; you get an exemption from application of the retransfer
o Contingent payment obligations
James stands for proposition that even though you may have to pay back victim, the ill-gotten
gain is income upfront and issue is whether you’ll get a deduction when you have to repay.
if not really a loan, fact that criminal law says you have to repay not a loan, so have to pay
taxes upfront. To be a loan, has to be a consensual acknowledgment of obligation to repay.
claim of right doctrine one of things James is applying; N. American Oil in this case, T
gets $ under a legal cloud, dispute about entitlement to income still income in that year; if you
treat it as if it belongs to you and it’s under your control, fact that you may lose it in litigation and
have to pay it to someone else, still income
in case of either contingent or phantom – either way it’s income and potential deduction if you
have to pay it back
Why claim of right matters:
1. Timing. TP would rather report income later because of time value of money.
2. Integrity of the taxable year
3. §1341 – tax computation provision for certain items of income, when you have income in
earlier year under claim of right, then later you have deduction on payback.
a. Doesn’t apply if deduction is $3K or less.
b. Has to be clear that you had a right to it, then something else happened that made
you repay. If no semblance of a right, you lose.
c. 1341 deals with tax rate differential.
i. 1341 says: when you get that deduction in the later year, if you meet
certain reqts. ($ amt) and you have a semblance of a right, then 1341
comes in; when you get to tax rate calculus in step 4, you get a break.
Kinda violates ITY. When deciding at what rate you’re taxed at, it’ll be
better of earlier year or lower year. It’s a tax rate calculation.
ii. Tricky thing is authorities narrowed application to semblance of right; so
classic bonus situation would fit. On other hand, doesn’t fit in criminal
activity. That’s not semblance of a right – you’ll get deduction on the
payback, but 1341 doesn’t apply.
iii. Usually BTL; ord deduction, doesn’t relate to trade/business of being
proprietor. How could it be ATL? If you own trade/business and payback
relates to that, it’s 62(a)(1) – above the line. If earlier income was CG, so
under Arrowsmith payback is a CL, it could be ATL under 62(a)(3).
4. Reverse of §1341: You take deduction in earlier year, then get money back in later year –
tax benefit rule. Refund may be treated as potential income.
security deposits
1. Indianapolis Power and Light: treats utility deposits (true deposit) as a loan even though
landlord or power company may use it to offset unpaid rent or bills;
45
a. characterizes transaction: it’s not advance payment for services, no income up
front, as long as set up so that not automatically applied to last bill (e.g. if paid
up, you’ll get it back)
b. if deposit always applied automatically, it’ll be income
2. can argue these deposits are like conting. repayment obligs. that aren’t enough like a loan
a. e.g. assume there’s not restrictions on how to use, interest, etc. - looks more like
claim of right, where we say there’s income with a potential deduction later
3. what happens when tenant doesn’t pay and deposit applied to outstanding debt?
income in the year applied. Contingency in the hands of the debtor, not the creditor.
what if premises trashed although rent paid; deposit applied to clean up?
1. more complicated – may depend on how specific it is in terms of damage can think of
it as an involuntary disposition and apply against basis, so income unless deposit exceed
basis, but it would reduce your basis
2. whatever we do with the deposit – income or reduction of basis – to the extent you use to
repair if you spend all on repair and not a permanent improvement - § 162 deduction;
if a permanent improvement, add to basis
3. deal with receipt and use of money in different steps (e.g. is it income or reduction in
basis; then once you’ve spent, how to treat it – an addition to basis or 162 deduction)
a. which possibility applies depends on facts
b. assume withheld deposit to extent of damage, then it’s most likely treated as a
forced sale apply the basis in the property against the damage proceeds and
only to the extent the damage exceeds the basis do you have income
i. Rev rulings that involve power plants where the IRS treats the damage
payment as a forced sale that reduces the basis in the property
4. First step is what to do with retention of the deposit instead of paying it back then
have to consider how to treat what she ultimately does with the money
5. however we treat her retention of the deposit, then follow what she actually does with the
money to figure out the consequences
a. repair – current deduction under 162 or 212
b. if have to make a permanent improvement, add to basis as a capital expenditure
6. third way rough justice way plenty of basis, so no issue of gain generally; most
people just net it out to zero, keep the money and make the repair, no income, no
deduction, etc…. BUT, what you can’t do is ignore the income and the take a repair
deduction not the right answer on an exam, but comes out the same way
7. if basis in property is $0 (e.g. you’ve depreciated it down to zero) and you get $1K in
damage proceeds $1K in gain
o Phantom repayment obligations
Jim borrows $10K from his sister, Lori, evidenced by a 5-year note with a market rate of 6%
interest. How, if at all, are the “normal” tax results for Jim only altered if:
1. Jim intends to repay but is insolvent, w/o job, and suffers from assorted problems that
will likely prevent him from obtaining/holding job? Does it matter whether Lori knows
about Jim’s status?
a. If no reasonable expectation of repayment, not a loan
b. Assuming there’s an acknowledgement of an intent to repay loan
c. but, intent determined by looking at surrounding facts and circumstances
i. so, issue of whether intent to repay is real
46
d. if Lender at outset never intends repayment, it’s not a loan – both parties have to
intend loan treatment, so if Lori knows that he can’t repay brings loan status
into question if not a loan, it’s a gift
i. If gift, Jim has no income, but Lori doesn’t get option of bad-debt
deduction
2. Jim has financial resources but subjectively intends not to repay the loan, and Lori is
unaware of this intent? Does it matter if Jim signs a note or verbally acknowledges that
it’s a loan?
a. in reality, if Lori is TP seeking bad-debt deduction, Jim’s subjective intent
matters, but she’s got good argument that it’s properly structured and she didn’t
know of his intent
b. if Jim didn’t sign a note, it’ll look bad for Lori (esp. if she asked him to and he
wouldn’t)
3. Jim has financial resources, but Lori has no intention of enforcing the loan? Does it
matter if Jim is aware of this intent?
a. probably doesn’t matter, but practically speaking, it depends on who’s in court
b. If Lori is trying to take a bad-debt deduction, then she’s probably going to lose
Fred embezzles $10K. In Year 2, he’s caught. Employer agrees not to press charges so long as
Fred pays back $10K plus $3K. He pays back full amount in Year 4. What are tax consequences?
1. James: embezzler has to report income in Year 1. Obligation to repay doesn’t matter.
2. No consensual acknowledgment of obligation to repay, so no loan treatment.
3. Agreement in Year 2 doesn’t negate income in Year 1. No tax consequences until Year 4,
when Fred tries to run $13K through the system.
4. Year 4:
a. §165(c)(2) probably allows $10K deduction. Below the line, itemized. Not sale/
exchange of property, so not subject to CL limit. But is subject to §§67 and 68.
b. $3K like fine/penalty, so could argue under §165 no reason to allow deduction.
But not clear.
c. §265(a)(1): specific disallowance for amounts otherwise allowable as deduction
to extent the expense is allocable to one or more classes of tax-exempt income.
i. Casebook: this disallows the $3K, since not related to taxable income
ii. Peroni: Not clear, but it’s extra ground for disallowing the extra $3K.
d. §1341: shouldn’t apply; wasn’t included in income of earlier year under
semblance of right. Doesn’t help either the $3K or the $10K.
47
$ 7000 in potential salary exp. deduction – have to analyze under § 162; doesn’t matter what the
employee is doing with the money it’s just compensation $$ as far as company is concerned
o net lease lessor charges stated amount of rent plus some of lessor’s expenses (e.g. tax payments)
Old Colony applies to the extent lessee is discharging lessor’s obligations, that’s rental income
lessor here has ord. rental income of total rental payments, plus extra ordinary rental income b/c
of discharging of obligations (e.g. tax obligation)
What about lessee?
1. if a personal use premises no deduction - § 262
2. if business rent: total paid as rent is potentially deductible under § 162 as long as no
equity interest being hidden in the scheme
3. Real estate taxes deductible under § 164
a. when lessee discharges lessor’s tax obligation, presumed to act on his behalf
b. lessor has potential deduction
Landlord-tenant law (state) determines whether it’s lessor or lessee’s obligations.
49
corp. issues bonds to finance debt corp. able to buy back the bonds at less than face amount
and retire them reason they could do this was b/c of probable increase in interest rates; other
possibility is that debt rating went down, investment became riskier
court held that under a freeing of assets rationale, this was gross income (see § 61(a)(12) –
income from discharge of indebtedness)
1. this kind of income is ordinary b/c cancellation of debt isn’t a sale or exchange
point is that you have an increase in net worth and under Glenshaw Glass accession to wealth,
clearly realized, under dominion and control met here
o Distinguish COD income from “Crane gain” (which is treated as gain from property)
difference matters b/c of character, (ordinary versus capital or § 1231)
§ 108, which deals with exclusions of COD income, only applied to Kirby Lumber COD income,
not gain from disposition of property
o § 108 – sometime operates as a permanent exclusion for COD income, sometimes not
108(b) – amount of COD income excluded used to reduce tax attributes, making them less
effective wrt offsetting incomes
1. same idea as “carryover”
2. BUT, if you don’t have any of the tax attributes listed in (b), can still meet § 108 this
is why § 108 is only sometimes a permanent exclusion
Insolvency § 108(a) doesn’t apply if you’re solvent
1. SO, when you’re solvent, even if you’re in shaky financial condition, cancellation of debt
= COD income and no exclusion under § 108
If someone else pays a compromised debt
1. the whole amount comes back to you as income
2. e.g. I owe $100K; lender agrees to settle debt for $70K; employer pays the $70K
a. COD income = $30K
b. ordinary compensation income = $70K (Old Colony)
i. compensation income not eligible for § 108 exclusion
ii. employer gets potential salary deduction
3. e.g. reduction in debt between mother and daughter
a. Key: detached and disinterested generosity, then the 30K is excludable by donee;
same as if mother gave her a break in the debt as a gift
b. point is: reason for cancellation is donative intent on mom’s part; if that’s the
case, donee can exclude it under § 102
c. unlike § 108, no reduction of attributes; a gift
d. Notice: for gift tax purposes, mom has possible gift that would have to be run
through the fed transfer tax system/gift tax system
i. b/c it’s a gift, you can’t deduct gifts in IT system; so C doesn’t get bad
debt deduction under 166, or loss deduction in § 165; so might not want
to express the donative intent here
o § 108 exclusion and Title 11
when you have tax attributes to offset – have 2 choices
1. have to go in order under (b) of what to reduce in what order (e.g. NOL carryover first)
2. OR, you can make an election under 108(b)(5) and reduce basis in depreciable property
NOL carryover does the most good if you can take advantage of it the very next year if T
expects to reverse financial fortunes and will have income, NOL carryover will allow them to
offset that income
50
1. why you might elect to reduce basis; can’t take advantage of NOL carryover immediately
2. reduce basis if you want to spread out the pain over several years
What if she has no attributes (e.g. no NOL or capital loss carryovers, no adjusted basis in
depreciable property)
1. doesn’t affect her ability to exclude the full $30K
2. (a)(1)(A) would work to be a permanent exclusion have to reduce attributes if you
have them, but if you don’t have them, still qualify for the exclusion
o § 108 exclusion and insolvency
§ 108(d)(3) calculating insolvency
1. negative net worth (assets over liabilities)
§ 108(a)(3) can only exclude up the amount of insolvency
1. e.g. insolvent by $50K; COD income is $30K can exclude all of the $30K (not
permanent exclusion unless you don’t have tax attributes to offset)
2. point is cancellation would take her negative net worth from $50K to $20K still
insolvent after the discharge
a. if the cancellation doesn’t bring taxpayer to positive net worth all of it
excludable (e.g. if insolvent before and after the exclusion, all excluded)
3. Can do something in-between: 108(b)(5) says you can apply any portion of attribute
reduction to reduce basis in depreciable property.
If no tax attributes, § 108 works as a permanent exclusion for the $30K excluded COD income
1. just b/c no attributes to reduce doesn’t mean no benefits of exclusion
2. if Congress wanted this to be a deferral in all cases, could have done so, but they didn’t
3. Policy: help debtors get back on their feet to become productive; they’ve suffered enough
Where COD income exceeds amount of insolvency
1. e.g. liabilities exceed assets by $10K; COD income of $30K
a. Before discharge negative net worth of $10K
b. after discharge positive net worth of $ 20K
2. can exclude $10K all it would take to get her back to zero
3. to the extent the discharge occurring outside Title 11 – can only exclude amount of
insolvency - § 108 (a)(3)
a. rest is income $20K
b. attributes reduced by $10K
i. e.g. NOL carryover from $40K to $30K
ii. or could make election to reduce basis in depreciable property
o Purchase money debt
purchase-money debt when the debt involved is used to purchase property
1. when the person making the loan is the seller it’s seller-financed PM debt
2. when third party making loan third-party PM debt
3. Recourse PMD: debtor is personally liable.
4. Nonrecourse PMD: debtor isn’t personally liable; creditor can only look to the property
securing the debt. (Only recourse is to seize the property.)
Seller-financed PM debt
1. § 108(e)(5) treat as a purchase price adjustment, not income no income to
buyer/debtor means reduction in basis of the asset
51
a. (e)(5) DOESN’T APPLY TO THIRD PARTY PM DEBT only applies to
seller-financed PM debt
2. theory is that when the seller is also the creditor and the debtor is the buyer, we can
assume that what’s really going on is a dispute about the value of the property (e.g.
quality – reduction in price b/c of defect)
3. only applies if the other exclusions don’t - § 108(e)(5)(B)
a. e.g. if a Title 11 case, have to use (a)(1)(A); insolvent, have (a)(1)(B)
4. SO, can exclude all b/c it’s NOT COD income, but a price reduction
5. what if she has no basis in the property?
a. nothing the (e)(5) says anything about this
b. other theories that would cause her to be taxed
i. e.g. if she’s depreciated the property to zero –tax benefit rule when
you take deduction and get money back later income; deal with that in
the later year when you get it.
ii. this situation might trigger this rule
6. meant to apply to original seller and buyer; when debt sold and then discharge (e)(5)
might not apply – not clear
o § 108(e)(2) – potential deduction had you paid and COD (i.e. liability compromised = business rent)
to the extent that you would have had a deduction, you don’t have COD income makes sense,
you would have had a deduction anyways, why have income here. Kind of a “wash” theory.
if able to deduct upon payment (only available to cash-method taxpayer), no income on discharge
if accrual method TP economic performance w/ rent occurs day by day with use of premises
1. would have already taken a deduction for this amount on her return (payment not
required before you can take a deduction)
2. now, when she doesn’t pay it off, have to give her the income kind of like tax benefit
doctrine – got the deduction, but never had to pay the bill – have to event things out
o COD income and lawsuit settlements
Where fact/amount of liability are in dispute NO income from settlement for < amt. claimed
when settling, settling the amount of the debt and T pays it off when she settles
1. until case is finally resolved in court (appeals, etc.), parties determine amount of debt
when settling. settlement sets the debt.
2. e.g. Just b/c $100K in damages alleged, unless there’s a judgment, no liquidated debt and
nothing to apply COD doctrine to
Zarin gambler who doesn’t get COD income from cancellation of lots of debt to a casino
1. 3rd Circuit relies on disputed debt doctrine to rule that there’s no COD income
a. broad interpretation of disputed debt doctrine
b. not likely this opinion will have much effect on doctrine outside gambling arena
c. e.g. a straight loan from a creditor charging usurious interest rate just b/c
usury laws make debt bad disputed debt doctrine won’t save you from getting
COD income here
2. court failed to see that disputed debt doctrine usually deals with issues of existence and
amount of debt, not enforceability. In all COD cases, have an issue w/ enforceability –
otherwise why is debt cancelled?
3. § 108 discussion in case crap
a. don’t get to § 108 until you figure out if there’s COD income (except in limited
cases under (e)(2) and (e)(5)
52
b. demonstrates what many judges do asking what the right answer is and
finding a way to get there
4. argument for why not to treat loan as the full amount
a. Zarin could only use line of credit to get chips that he could only use in casino
b. no way, unless he won, that he could have spent $ outside the casino
c. issue of whether we should treat the amount borrowed as the full amount given
the restriction
d. casino also assumes that Zarin will lose given his record
e. although doesn’t fit neatly into disputed debt doctrine, neither does it fit within
rubric of a pure loan
5. one argument for no COD income and why no income from comping rationale is
Gotcher can’t be § 132(d), not personal services looking at the primary purpose
if to serve transferors interests and only incidental benefit to recipient not income
a. unless you conclude that he’s acting as a shill for the casino
6. at heart a dispute about gambling
a. either understand the nature of it or you don’t
b. argument for taxing Zarin here fact is that taxpayer has $30K personal
consumption that she didn’t pay for with after tax dollars
c. if she had gone to bank and borrowed, then gambled different outcome.
7. should she be able to exclude when not insolvent?
a. we tax windfalls, illegal gains, etc…
b. why not this
8. Peroni this case should be COD income
a. under case law, if it fits the exact facts of Zarin, no COD income
b. if not exact same facts COD income
53
3. govt. had to argue that non-recourse debt was real debt
a. court says: if debt is real goes into basis under § 1014
b. issue really under § 1014 is basis the property’s value or, if property is subject
to mortgage liens, the equity? court says: value of the property, not equity
4. Crane, although she took depreciation, later argues that b/c mortgage equaled value of
the property, she had equity of zero, and therefore, basis of zero
a. Tufts later will say that Crane was affirming govt.’s decision to treat nonrecourse
debt like recourse debt
b. court said to not put the mortgage in basis would lead to having basis go up over
time as you pay off the property administrative convenience is prime reason
for court’s holding.
acquisition debt, recourse and nonrecourse (§ 1014 or § 1012) is included in the debt; unpaid
principle of this debt included in the basis
1. If you acquire property with recourse or non-recourse debt, your § 1012 cost basis
includes the principal amount of the debt
a. even though if you fail to pay, all the creditor can get is the property itself and
debtor not personally liable
b. if property value falls below amount of mortgage, debtor can walk away from
what turned out to be a bad deal loss of economic incentive to pay off the debt
2. Mayerson 99 year term, nonrecourse debt, all principle repayable in one balloon
repayment court says basis includes the full 99 year debt
if you dispose of property and it has recourse or nonrecourse debt and purchaser takes subject to
debt or assumed the debt, the amount realized includes the debt
o Going to treat non-recourse debt like a loan for all purposes?
if you get a loan on a non-recourse basis, are we going to treat as a loan (e.g. receipt of the cash
isn’t income)?
Crane and progeny essentially say that non-recourse debt is a loan for income tax purposes
1. so, receipt of non-recourse loan proceeds doesn’t result in income to the borrower
§§ 465, 469 collaterally attack tax shelters, but don’t change the rules of Crane wrt basis, etc….
o § 1012 basis = whole amt. of cash paid + outstanding nonrecourse debt, just as if it were a mortgage
REMEMBER when you buy land and building, have 2 assets so have to allocate basis to each
asset based on FMV at the time of acquisition
1. e.g. of the $250K paid (cash and debt), $50K to the land; $200K to the building
a. get depreciation deductions on the amount allocable to the building
o Estate of Franklin when it’s a sham transactions
Romneys – motel depreciated down to zero; getting income but no offsetting benefits; want to
come up with a way to stay in the business and get more out of if than just the rental income
doctors form an LP partnership not a taxpayer, all of the income and deductions flow through
to the partners; liability limited to what they invest in the venture
LP enters into a deal with the Romneys LP buys the motel lease it back to the Romneys
almost all the principal repayment to take place in 10 years (no reportable income to the Romneys
under installment sales method) so docs don’t have to pay anything until the end, but pay
interest of $75K per year, which matches the rent the Romneys owe on the leaseback
doctors have to pay Romneys prepaid interest of $150K, this is the only cash that exchanges
hands
non-recourse note is for $1.2M, FMV of the property is $700K
54
1. if prop stays cheap, docs can walk away and Romneys get their motel
2. if prop goes above $1.2M, docs pay off the note and have made a deal
IRS argues that this is an option purchase
9th Circuit in Franklin: Crane assumes that the non-recourse debt is real, and to be real, there
has to be economic incentive at the outset to pay off the debt
so, if FMV of property is lots below the amount of nonrecourse debt Crane doesn’t apply
1. Franklin treating the debt as a sham, didn’t go into basis
2. minority of courts following the doctrine would allow nonrecourse debt to go into basis
up to the value of the property
o After-acquired non-recourse debt
not used in connection with acquisition of the property, but secured by the property
no income from mortgage proceeds
basis with after-acquired debt, have to follow what you do with the loan proceeds
1. so, if used to make a capital improvement on the property, goes into basis
2. if used to buy stock get a basis in the stock, not in the property
o sale of property subject to non-recourse debt
adjusted basis will be reduced by any depreciation
payment on an after acquired mortgage only affects amount realized
as long as we treat recourse and non-recourse as real debt, when the seller disposes of the
property without paying off the debt, but has the buyer assume or take the property subject to the
debt, Crane and cases stand for proposition that amount realized includes cash and unpaid
principal amount of acquisition non-recourse debt and after-acquired non-recourse debt
1. Amount realized = cash paid, plus amount property was taken subject to (acquisition and
after-acquired debt)
Remember to allocate will have different gains
1. character rental real property if an active rental trade or business if held for
more than a year, go to § 1231 won’t know if gain or loss without knowing about all
other § 1231 transactions
a. REMEMBER § 1245 depreciation recapture doesn’t apply to real estate, so
doesn’t apply here
b. APPLY § 1250 to a building amount taken in deprecation deductions subject
to 25% rate (unrecaptured § 1250 gain still CG but less preferential rate)
Purchaser’s basis
1. under Crane, acquisition cost includes both mortgages that the purchaser takes the
property subject to (second mortgage not after-acquired for purchaser like it was for
seller)
2. plus cash paid
3. would have to allocate basis between the land and building goes back up (e.g. even
though previous owner had depreciated down to zero, can start all over again once a new
owner buys the property)
o when property is worth less than the mortgages it secures: non-recourse
e.g. sell to buyer – take no cash, just sell by having him take the debt
Not COD income affects character
Tufts had to decide the significant of FN 37 in Crane which talked about one of the rationales
for why the court treated non-recourse as real debt (even though not personally liable, have an
55
economic incentive to pay off the debt as long as value of the property stays at or above mortgage
amount); lots of lawyers knew that FN 37 was dicta, but relied on it nonetheless
1. Supreme Court could have reversed Crane, but instead affirmed while rewriting
2. courts says that Crane’s reasoning wasn’t the primary rationale – as long as prime reason
backing up FN 37 wasn’t the primary rationale, can do away with FN 37
3. said that Crane merely affirmed the government’s decision to treat non-recourse debt as
recourse debt once you walk away, full amount treated as debt have to treat as
amount realized
when you walk away and tell creditor to take the property, have to include unpaid debt in amount
realized, even if property worth less
1. e.g. sale without cash but property subject to mortgages worth $250K have amount
realized of $250K minus basis, allocation of basis (etc.)
2. includes both acquisition and after-acquired mortgages
debate between O’Connor and majority wrt characterization
1. O’Connor wanted to treat some as COD income
2. Majority this is disposition gain, not COD income
3. means that § 108 doesn’t apply only applies to COD income
4. if not COD income, can’t exclude any of this gain under § 108
purchaser’s basis in this situation
1. purchaser’s basis not 0 nor limited to amount of mortgage (assuming not a sham
transaction purchaser thinks it will go up in value see Estate of Franklin and shady
deals)
2. Basis FMV or amount of mortgages property is subject to?
a. argument for FMV only have economic incentive to treat as real debt if don’t
go above FMV; will have a basis higher than the FMV, unusual in cost-basis
situation
i. this is portion of debt that would reflect the economic incentive rationale
b. argument for value of mortgages Tufts didn’t overrule Crane treating non-
recourse debt as real debt for tax purposes if you took out recourse debt to
purchase, no doubt your basis would be amount of that debt
i. if not a shady deal, rules would say acquisition debt is amount of basis
3. answer basis is either one no clear authority good arguments for either one as
amount of basis
a. Peroni amount of mortgages as basis follows from Tufts and Franklin
How have at-risk rules in § 465 and the passive activity loss rules in § 469 undercut the
importance of Crane basis rule? How have §§ 465 and 469 eliminated the market for most types
of tax shelter investments designed to take advantage of this Crane basis rule?
1. Crane basis and amount realized rules still the law
a. but statutory reactions to tax shelters created in wake of Crane
b. § 465 doesn’t change basis rule but says that if you have deductions from
an activity in excess of income (whole idea of a shelter – use deduction against
salary income) you can only deduct currently if you have an amount at risk
(e.g. have to have recourse debt)
c. exceptions ate up the rule, so ended up weak
d. theory was that if you’re willing to be liable, more likely to be a real deal
2. § 469 passive loss rule
56
a. Crane basis rule not changed nor was Tufts amount realized rule
b. if activity in which you don’t materially participate then if have deductions in
excess of income, can only deduct to extent of other passive income (doesn’t
include salary or standard investment income like dividends and interest)
i. walls off the tax shelter – isolates from other income and kills the reason
ii. but exemptions for corporations why tax shelters not killed off
c. § 469 applies to more than tax shelters so legit deals can come within it so
both under and overinclusive
o when property is worth less than the mortgages it secures: recourse & bifurcation
3. if you transfer the property back to the creditor and the creditor cancels the debt
a. the difference between FMV of the property and the principal amount of the
recourse debt is COD income (ordinary income under § 61(a)(2) -- but
remember, can qualify for § 108 exclusion)
b. excess of the fair market value of the property transferred to the creditor over the
transferor-debtor's basis in the debt = gain from disposition.
4. e.g. Machinery secured by recourse debt
a. have basis in machinery $100K cost
i. has recovered $80K of basis via depreciation
1. reduced basis = $20K
ii. now worth $70K
b. $30K COD income
i. owe $100K, give something worth $70K $30K diff. is COD income
c. $70K FMV (see above, FMV assumed to be amount realized) minus $20K basis
= $50K § 61(a)(3) gain (gains from dealings in property)
i. could be CG, but here it’s OI § 1245 b/c gain only $50K and T
took $80K in depreciation, all gain is recaptured under § 1245 and
treated like ordinary income
5. creditor getting $70K back on $100K basis - $30K deduction (business bad debt under §
166(a)) and gets basis in the prop equal to what it’s worth when he gets it back ($70K)
a. loan repaid to extent of $70K repaid
b. get basis in property of $70K
c. bad debt deduction of $30K
d. whether debt is recourse or non-recourse, effect on creditor is the same
REMEMBER non-recourse = no bifurcation
1. if you walk away from non-recourse debt and give up the property, the authority for
treating this like amount realized is Crane, Tufts and 1.001-2, full unpaid principal
amount is amount realized – NOT LIMITED TO FMV OF PROPERTY AS WITH
RECOURSE DEBT
2. GAIN TREATED LIKE DISPOSITION OF PROPERTY – NO COD INCOME
3. for example above same basis result $20K after depreciation deductions
a. where nonrecourse, need Crane and Tufts to support prop. that basis includes
non-recourse debt
4. $100K (amount realized equals, in this situation, the unpaid principal amount of debt)
minus $20K = $80K § 61(a)(3) gain
a. OI § 1245
b. all is ordinary income b/c have $80K gain and $80K in depreciation, so all
recaptured and treated like ordinary income
57
§ 108 doesn’t apply AT ALL – § 108 ONLY APPLIES TO COD INCOME
1. O’Connor – concurrence in Tufts if we are going to treat non-recourse and recourse
debt the same, should bifurcate in non-recourse case as well.
2. weight of academic commentary supports bifurcation
3. argument for no bifurcation in either situation – to treat amount realized as $100K and all
gain from disposition of property no legal authority
4. have we read § 108 out of the code when it comes to non-recourse debt?
a. argument that no bifurcation goes against language of the statute?
5. can be COD Income with non-recourse debt
a. if creditor says I know I can only collect $70K, but I don’t want your machinery;
I’ll keep the loan going, but cancel $30K, so that principal is now $70K
b. creditor lets you keep the property, you pay $70K cash
59
a. when when objective facts evidence worthlessness may be in year 2, 3, 4,
etc… look for signs such as fact that someone can’t pay, insolvency,
bankruptcy (although may become clear prior to this)
b. if arose in business of providing service loss will be ordinary when it gets
accounted for
c. limited to basis (the amount due) once you have, under accrual method,
included in income then have a basis
2. effect of non-payment on debtor
a. COD income (simple, she got a deduction for something that she never actually
paid, have to even things out by including as income)
i. note that § 108(e)(2) wouldn’t apply b/c payment wouldn’t give rise to a
deduction b/c under accrual method, deduction not tied to payment
b. OR: tax benefit rule; debt becomes income in later year.
c. Why it makes a difference:
i. If COD income, might be able to use other 108 exclusion rules
ii. If TBR, 108 doesn’t apply.
iii. Peroni: Unclear
cash method
1. income reported when you have actual or constructive receipt (constructive earned or
made available without restriction, you turned back on it)
2. deduction for payor when paid
3. what if, in year 2, payor says she’s about to send check and lender tells her not to hurry,
etc.. take time income in year 2 (constructive) even if he doesn’t actually get the
money in year 3
a. wrt debtor deduction is in year 3 not tied to what lender does wrt reporting
income b/c of constructive receipt no constructive payment on deduction side
4. if debtor doesn’t pay bill sent in Y2 for $3K of services in Y1 (both cash method)
a. service provider no income
i. no bad debt deduction no basis never claimed it as income to
net out to zero, don’t have to do anything no income, no deduction
ii. for cash method taxpayer who performs services and never gets paid
bad debt deduction ZERO
b. debtor § 108(e)(2) could have deducted it SO NOT TREATED AS
COD INCOME
o loan forgiveness and bad debt
Lori lends $10K cash to Jim. Lori has $10K basis in the debt instrument.
1. what if lori decides that Jim doesn’t have to pay?
2. if dominant motive for the creditor to forgive the loan is donative detached,
disinterested generosity: then, at the time she makes the gift Jim can exclude under
§102 (and no reduction of attributes)
3. Lori no bad debt deduction
a. for gift tax purposes, would be making a gift subject to the tax
what if Lori never intended to enforce the loan terms?
1. same result as above, but the timing is different
2. gift occurs at time of gift, not like above where it happens when she decides to forgive
o Timing of bad debt deductions
60
Year 5 Lender seeks to enforce, can’t collect
1. debtor COD income when the debt is cancelled may be before SOL runs out
lender may cancel when clear to her she won’t collect
2. Lender when debt is deemed worthless when Lender gets deduction
worthlessness is the realization event gets a bad debt deduction (no evidence of
donative intent) fact that it’s a family member doesn’t matter, as long as real loan and
is really worthless
Debtor returns and decides to pay Lender what does Lender have to do?
1. if Lender is cash method no bad debt deduction b/c she never claimed as income (b/c
never got the $$)
a. if accrual gets the bad debt deduction since claiming it as it becomes due
2. now have a later event in a different tax year
3. first thing to note don’t go back and amend old returns; integrity of the taxable year
a. leave everything in the past alone didn’t do something wrong
4. debtor would get a deduction of some kind if he claimed the COD income earlier
5. Lender tax benefit rule have an earlier event that was kosher at the time and then
have a fundamentally inconsistent event § 111 deal with the recovery when it
happens income under the tax benefit rule if the earlier deduction produced the benefit
a. assuming she took a bad debt deduction would have repayment amount as
income
b. what if no benefit e.g. didn’t have income, the deduction was worthless no
income if no benefit, no income
6. character: Under Arrowsmith: when an integral relationship between income and
earlier deduction will look at earlier deduction and apply the character to the income
e.g. is loss was non-business bad debt and STCL, Lender will get STCG treatment on
the repayment income
61
2. SC gift for income tax purposes depends on motive of donor detached and
disinterested generosity not for past, present or future benefit
a. determine by objective facts and circumstances
b. Factors include: (1) traditional holiday? (2) personal relationship? (if not, not
likely to be a gift) (3) normal trading of like-size gifts? (4) did others similarly
situated get a gift? (5) did TP deduct it as a business expense?
c. Not disinterested and detached: tips to waiters, casino dealers (Olk), generating
goodwill for TP’s company, rewarding a volunteer who rescued you.
d. A person is entitled to treat cash/property received from a lover as gifts, so long
as the relationship consists of something more than specific payments for specific
sessions of sex. Harris (criminal case, probably a different result for civil case).
e. § 102 does not apply to prizes and awards or scholarships and grants.
Congress 1986 facts and circumstances analysis sucks; gift ought to be personal, not between
people with business relationships
1. Congress enacts anti-Duberstein provision, but it doesn’t apply to Duberstein facts
a. most business-related gifts don’t meet Duberstein anyways
2. § 102(c) when it applies, Duberstein doesn’t apply; and vice versa
o § 274(b) $25 max for business gift deduction
if recipient can exclude under § 102, at most transferor gets $25 deduction under § 212 or § 162
way many people interpret allows a deduction of $25 for each business gift
1. Peroni if you properly apply Duberstein, § 274 can never apply not supposed to be
able to get a deduction
2. “ordinary/necessary” and Duberstein are mutually exclusive if you can meet
Duberstein, you can’t meet § 162
3. correct answer should be that you get zero deductions for business gifts
4. maybe reason for § 274(b) is we know people will still try to deduct, so at least limit it
Hypo - why Duberstein is silly
1. You save a drowning man. They give you $2K as a reward. Not a gift
a. not detached/disinterested generosity reward isn’t gift includable as income
o Where 102(c) doesn’t apply service provider relationship
b/c not technically employee, 102(c) doesn’t apply still have to go through Duberstein analysis
facts and circumstances to go through
1. e.g. fact that transferor is a relative in favor of finding a gift
a. would want to know what kind of gift X generally gives outside work
relationship if usually really nice, doesn’t look suspicious
2. if T is under-compensated by the firm less like a gift
3. is it a traditional gift-giving time? looks more like a gift
4. hard to show gift not connected to, i.e., a big deal that went through? less like a gift
5. if meet Duberstien detached generosity T can exclude
T’s basis carryover basis for life gifts
1. if not a gift ordinary compensation income = FMV of the gift
2. basis = tax cost basis (FMV)
What are consequences to donor in this situation?
1. 2 consequences
a. if a gift gift generally not realization for donor, but may generate a transfer tax
62
i. donor has no Davis-Keenan realization transaction (remember, may still
be federal gift taxes)
ii. Still have to go through §162
1. ask – is this ordinary and necessary?
2. if a gift that meets the Duberstein Test can’t see a valid
argument that it’s ordinary and necessary (because if it meets the
Duberstein test, it’s supposed to be detached and disinterested)
3. hard to find a gift in a business setting
iii. if a gift to T, X gets zero deduction
iv. § 274(b) even if you come up with some argument that it’s a gift
can only deduct $25
b. if not a gift § 83 transfer
i. donor has a realization event on the transfer; would get deduction
2. X and T have conflicting tax interests essentially T wants to exclude, but X wants a
deduction can’t generally have both
o where T an employee of donor
§ 102(c) means no Duberstein analysis
T has gross income of $3K
donor probably has a deduction; and § 83 realization event
63
3. So, have amount realized of $25K and a basis of $30K loss is $5K– LTCL
4. NOTE: if FMV at time of gift was more than carryover basis or equal to loss basis
wouldn’t apply
Grey area Assume the same facts as above, except that the stock was worth only $30K on the
date of the gift and is worth $35K on the date of the sale to Buyer. Accordingly, Donee receives
only $35K cash from Buyer on the sale.
1. Gain basis of $40K and a loss basis of $30K and sell anywhere in between get neither
a gain or a loss. zeroes out.
2. Issue carryover basis less than FMV at the time of the gift, but if we use FMV (loss
basis), we’ll have a gain, which doesn’t make any sense b/c supposed to use FMV when
calculating a loss
a. e.g. Would have a basis of $30K, amount realized of $35K gain of $5K
makes no sense – not a loss
3. Issue if use carryover basis of $40K, have a loss of $5K it’s OK to have a loss
using gain basis (if FMV is greater than carryover basis at the time of the gift) but here
FMV at time of transfer was less than carryover basis, so doesn’t make sense
65
main argument in favor of § 1014 if we’re going to keep realization as a requirement, it’s
simplicity may be hard to figure out what the carryover basis is (e.g. original basis,
adjustments to basis, etc…)
§1022 kicks in for one year when repeal of estate tax kicks in
1. carry-over basis (treat testamentary gifts as Intervivos gifts), takes away §1014
2. this will be a PITA b/c many estates do not keep track of basis, no need if it’s held until
death
main argument in favor of § 1014 if we’re going to keep realization as a requirement, it’s
simplicity may be hard to figure out what the carryover basis is (e.g. original basis,
adjustments to basis, etc…)
Lonny and Laura Loophole, ages 35 and 32, are married and reside in Richmond, Va. They have two children, a
son and a daughter, ages 10 and 8. Lonny and Laura are cash method, calendar year taxpayers.
Lonny conducts a solo law practice in Richmond and in 2008, collects $200,000 of fees from clients. Lonny’s
expenses relating to the law business (all paid by check in 2008) for office rental, salaries for an associate,
paralegal, and secretary, office supplies, subscriptions to professional journals, and bar dues were $30,000. Being
self-employed, Lonny made estimated tax payments of $38,000 on his 2008 federal income tax liability,** and made
estimated tax payments totaling $11,000 to the State of Virginia on his state income tax liability. Lonny also paid
an appropriate amount of self-employment tax under § 1401 (a substitute for F.I.C.A. by self-employed
taxpayers).***
Laura works as an engineer for a corporation engaged in the electronics business. Her employer paid her a salary
of $50,000 in 2008, of which $16,150 was withheld ($3,150 for F.I.C.A.; $3,000 for Virginia state income taxes;
$10,000 for federal income taxes). In 2008, Laura's employer also contributed $5,000 to a “qualified” retirement
plan for her benefit.**** During 2008, Laura paid $500 for various engineering journals of current professional
interest, $1,000 for her 2008 annual dues to the National Association of Engineers, none of which were reimbursed
by her employer, and $500 for her annual engineering license fee to the State of Virginia.
In 2008, Lonny and Laura paid $25,000 of interest on a home mortgage loan, which is secured by a mortgage lien
on their principal residence and the proceeds of which were used to purchase that residence. During 2008, Lonny
and Laura also paid $1,500 of interest on the outstanding balances on their personal credit cards, which they used
to purchase consumer goods and personal vacation trips, and they paid $5,000 interest on their still outstanding
student loans from their days as graduate students prior to entering the workforce.
During 2008, Lonny and Laura made contributions by check to various charitable organizations of $2,000 (all of
which are deductible under § 170). During 2008, Lonny and Laura also gave $50 to various homeless people that
they encountered in the downtown area of Richmond.
During 2008, Lonny and Laura received $1,000 of savings account interest on their bank accounts. In addition,
Laura owns 1,000 shares of stock of ABC Corporation, a large publicly traded corporation, which she has
purchased four years ago. In February of 2008, she received dividends of $2,000 on this stock. In December of
2008, she received another $2,000 of dividends on this stock.
Lonny owns 500 shares of the stock of XYZ Corporation (a large publicly held corporation), which he purchased in
1988 for $10,000 cash (the fair market value of the stock on the date of purchase). On December 31, 2008, Lonny
sold the 500 shares of XYZ Corporation stock for $70,000 cash (the then fair market value of the stock). In
November 2008, Lonny also sold 500 shares of General Motors stock for $10,000 cash (the then fair market value
of the stock). Lonny had purchased this stock in February 2008 for $30,000 cash (the fair market value of the
66
stock on the date of purchase). In July 2008, Laura sold 200 shares of LM Corporation stock for $20,000 cash (the
then fair market value of the stock). Laura had purchased this stock in March 2008 for $10,000 cash (the fair
market value of the stock on the date of purchase).
During 2008, Lonny paid $300 for a safe deposit box in which he stored the XYZ Corporation stock certificates
and various other investment assets. In March 2008, Lonny and Laura paid $3,700 to an accountant to prepare
their federal and state income tax returns for the 2007 taxable year and to help them with tax planning advice for
the 2008 taxable year.
Assuming that Lonny and Laura properly elect to file a joint return determine:
Part (1)(a)
Their GROSS INCOME for the 2008 taxable year.
Since Lonny and Laura are filing a joint return, their federal income tax liability is determined by generally treating them
as a single taxpaying unit and combining their income and deductions. Their gross income for 2006 is:
$200,000 ordinary income from Lonny’s law practice under Section 61(a)(1)
50,000 ordinary income from Laura’s salary as an employee for the
corporation under Section 61(a)(1)
1,000 OI from savings account interest under Section 61(a)(4)
4,000 ordinary income from dividends on the ABC Corporation stock
under Section 61(a)(7) (taxed under Section 1(h)(11) at rates as if it
were additional net capital gain)**
60,000 long-term capital gain from the sale of the XYZ Corporation stock
$70,000 amount realized minus the adjusted basis of $10,000 ($10,000 cash paid for the stock—
cost basis under Section 1012)—gross income under Section 61(a)(3)
10,000 short-term capital gain from the sale of the LM Corporation stock
$20,000 amount realized minus the adjusted basis of $10,000
($10,000 cash paid for the stock—cost basis under Section 1012)—
gross income under Section 61(a)(3)
________
$325,000 Gross Income
Part (1)(b)
Lonny and Laura’s ADJUSTED GROSS INCOME for the 2008 taxable year
Lonny may deduct $30,000 in total business expenses under Section 162. Since Lonny is a sole proprietor (i.e.,
not an employee), his trade or business deductions are above the line under Section 62(a)(1).
Lonny has $20,000 of short-term capital loss from the sale of the General Motors stock (amount realized of
$10,000 minus Lonny’s adjusted basis of $30,000, the cash paid for the stock, under Section 1012). This loss is realized,
recognized (no nonrecognition provision applies to this sale), allowed under Section 165(c)(2), and not disallowed under
Sections 165(f) and 1211 because Lonny’s and Laura’s capital losses do not exceed their capital gains for 2006. Thus,
Lonny has an allowable deduction of $20,000 and this deduction is above the line under Section 62(a)(3).
These are the only above-the-line deductions that Lonny and Laura have. Thus, their adjusted gross income for 2006 is:
**
Section 1(h)(11), enacted in 2003, treats the “qualified dividend income” as if it were “net capital gain” only for purposes of the
capital gain rate preference for individual taxpayers in Section 1(h), but not for other purposes in the Code, i.e., qualified dividend
income is still ordinary income for purposes of the capital loss limitation in Section 1211. Section 1(h)(11) will sunset for taxable
years starting after 2010 and, hence, qualified dividend income received in those taxable years will again be taxed at ordinary income
rates, unless Congress extends the effective date of Section 1(h)(11).
67
- 20,000 Section 62(a)(3)
Some Notes:
• Employer contributions to pension plan: She will not pay tax on it until she w/draws it
o Timing is huge benefit – can become like an exemption
o Still a current deduction for ER
• Deduction for ½ self-employment tax, and it’s above the line
o But ignored here, he didn’t give a number for it
Part (1)(c)
Lonny and Laura’s TAXABLE INCOME for the 2008 taxable year (to determine Lonny’s and Laura’s standard
deduction and personal exemption deductions for the 2008 taxable year, use Rev. Proc. 2007-66 set forth in the
front of the CCH Code and Regulations—Selected Sections book)
To calculate their taxable income for 2008, Lonny and Laura must subtract from adjusted gross income two items:
• their personal exemption deductions under Sections 151 and 152, as reduced by Section 151(d)(3)
• the greater of
o (i) the standard deduction ($10,900 for 2008, i.e., 200 percent of the $5,450 standard deduction for
unmarried individuals for 2008—see Section 63(c)(2)(A), as amended by the 2003 Act, and Rev. Proc.
2007-66) or
o (ii) total itemized deductions (after taking into account both §§67 and 68), if they elect to itemize.
Personal Exemptions
Since Lonny and Laura are both “taxpayers” on the joint return, they have two personal exemptions of $3,500 for the year
2006, or a total of $7,000 (see Rev. Proc. 2007-66, §.19). In addition, they will be entitled to two additional personal
exemptions for their two minor children if the requirements in §152 are met. Since the two dependents here are
“qualifying children” within the meaning of §152(c) because they meet the four requirements in Section 152(c)(1), Lonny
and Laura will be able to deduct two additional personal exemptions of $3,500 each, or a total of $7,000. Thus, their
tentative total personal exemption deductions for 2008 are $14,000.
However, since their adjusted gross income ($275,000) exceeds the “threshold amount,” within the meaning of §151(d)(3)
(D), $239,950 for the year 2006 (see Rev. Proc. 2007-66), §.19(2)), their personal exemptions will be reduced by the
“applicable percentage” in Section 151(d)(3). The “applicable percentage” is 2 percentage points for each $2,500 (or
fraction thereof, meaning that you round up to the nearest whole number) by which Lonny’s and Laura’s adjusted gross
income for 2008 ($275,000) exceeds the threshold amount for ($239,950)—namely, $35,050. So you divide $35,050 by
$2,500, which is 14.02, round it up to 15, and then multiply it by 2 percentage points, which equals 30 percent. So
Lonny’s and Laura’s personal exemption deductions of $14,000 are tentatively reduced by 30 percent, or $4,200.
However, under legislation enacted in 2001, §151(d)(3) is scheduled to be phased out, starting in taxable years beginning
in 2006. For 2008, this means that under §151(d)(3)(E)(ii), the reduction of Lonny’s and Laura’s personal exemption
deductions will be only 1/3 of what it would have been without this provision, or 1/3 multiplied by $4,200, which equals
$1,400. So, under Section 151(d)(3), Lonny’s and Laura’s personal exemption deductions for 2006 would be reduced to
$12,600 (i.e., $14,000 minus $1,400).
Itemized Deductions
Lonny and Laura have the following itemized deductions for 2008:
State and local income taxes (§164(a)(3)): $11,000 + $3,000 = $14,000
Unreimbursed employee business expenses of Laura (§162): $500 + $1,000 + $500= $2,000
Home mortgage interest (§ 163(a), (h)(2)(D), (h)(3), (h)(5): $25,000
Charitable contributions (§ 170): $2,000
Safe deposit box for storing investment assets (§ 212(2)): $300
Tax return preparation and tax planning (Section 212(3)): $3,700
68
Note:Lonny and Laura are not allowed to deduct the $1,500 of credit card interest because it is “personal
interest” within meaning of §163(h). The graduate student loan interest of $5,000 is also “personal interest”
within meaning of §163(h) and not deductible (this interest also does not meet the requirements for deductibility
in §221 because Lonny’s and Laura’s adjusted gross income greatly exceeds the limit in § 221(b)(2)).
Note also that Lonny and Laura are not entitled to any charitable contribution deduction for the $50 given to
the homeless people because such amounts are not contributed to a charitable organization within the meaning of
§170(c) and therefore do not constitute “charitable contributions” within the meaning of § 170.
Under §67, these deductions are allowed only to the extent that the total ($6,000) exceeds 2% of Lonny’s and Laura’s
AGI ($5,500) (i.e., 2% of $275,000 is $5,500)—namely, $500. So only $500 of the $6,000 is deductible.
Section 68 applies to all itemized deductions (including those allowable after applying the 2% floor), except those listed in
§ 68(c). We have no deductions listed in §68(c), so all of the itemized deductions in this problem are subject to §68:
Under §68, these deductions are reduced by the lesser of (i) 80% of the total itemized deductions subject to §68
($33,200), or (ii) 3% of the excess of Lonny’s and Laura’s adjusted gross income ($275,000) over the “applicable
amount” ($159,950 for 2008—see Rev. Proc. 2007-66 §.12), or $115,050 x 3% = $3,451.50. Note that, under
legislation enacted in 2001, § 68 is scheduled to be phased out, starting in taxable years beginning in 2006. See §68(f).)
For 2008, this means that under §68(f)(2), the reduction of Lonny’s and Laura’s itemized deductions will be only 1/3 of
what it would have been without this provision, or 1/3 multiplied by $3,451.50, which equals $1,150.50. So the
itemized deductions of $41,500 are reduced by $1,150.50 to $40,349.50, and that is the amount of their total itemized
deductions for 2008.
Since their total itemized deductions of $39,010 exceed the standard deduction ($10,300 for married taxpayers filing a
joint return for the 2006 taxable year), they would elect to itemize. So their taxable income for 2008 is:
Part (1)(d))
Lonny and Laura’s § 1 TAX LIABILITY (“tentative tax”) for the 2008 taxable year (Assume that, under § 1(h),
any of their taxable income in this Problem qualifying as “net capital gain” or as “qualified dividend income” is
taxed at a 15-percent rate and that the remainder of their taxable income is taxed at the tax rates set forth in §
69
1(a), as modified by the 2001 and 2003 tax cut legislation—to calculate Lonny’s and Laura’s 2008 tentative tax
liability, use the tax rate tables in Rev. Proc. 2007-66 set forth in the front of the CCH Code and Regulations--
Selected Sections book, which reflect the legislative changes.);
15 percent*** multiplied by the “net capital gain” from the sales of stock during the year of $50,000 (Section 1(h)),
$7,500, plus 15 percent of the “qualified dividend income” of $4,000 received at any time during the 2006 taxable
year, $600, taxed under Section 1(h)(11), enacted in 2003, as if it were additional “net capital gain”—a total tax of
$8,100 under Section 1(h)
Lonny’s and Laura’s net capital gain under Sections 1222 and 1(h) is the excess of Lonny’s and Laura’s
net long-term capital gain of $60,000 ($60,000 long-term capital gain minus zero long-term capital
losses) over Lonny’s and Laura’s net short-term capital loss of $10,000 ($20,000 short-term capital loss
minus $10,000 short-term capital gain), or $50,000****
plus a tax at the normal rates in §1(a), as modified by the inflation adjustments, as set forth in Revenue Procedure
2007-66 in the CCH Code and Regulations–Selected Sections book, on the remaining $168,050 of taxable income
— (i.e, $222,050.50 - $50,000 - $4,000) $25,550 + $10,248.14 (i.e., 28% x $36,600.50 ($168,050.50 -
$131,450)) $35,798.14.
So the total tentative tax liability for 2006, before credits is $43,898.14. (i.e., $8,100 + $35,798.14)
Part (1)(e)
Lonny and Laura’s NET TAX DUE TO THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT OR THE REFUND OWED TO
THEM for the 2008 taxable year.
Their bottom line tax liability (or refund owed to them) for 2008 is:
Tentative tax of $43,898.14 minus the credits of $38,000 (§6315 estimated income tax payments) and $10,000 (§31 wage
withholding). So they are entitled to a refund for 2006 of $2,249.20. (This means that Lonny and Laura paid too much in
federal estimated tax payments and federal income tax withholding during the year.)
Part (2)(a)
(2)(a) Tax benefit rule. In 2009, Lonny and Laura file their federal and state tax returns for 2008. Assume that
their Virginia state tax return shows that they are entitled to a refund of $1,000. They receive the refund check
from the state in June 2009. (Assume that Lonny and Laura's taxable income for 2009 is high enough to place
them in the 35 percent marginal federal income tax bracket for that year.) What are the federal income tax
consequences to Lonny and Laura on account of their receipt of this state tax refund?
Since Lonny and Laura properly took a deduction on the 2008 return for the state and local taxes paid during 2008, we
deal with the refund in 2009 (when it occurs) and do not go back and change their 2008 return. The refund of $1,000 is
fundamentally inconsistent with the earlier deduction of the state and local income taxes under §164(a)(3), thus triggering
application of the tax benefit rule in the taxable year 2009. Under the inclusionary component of the tax benefit rule,
Lonny and Laura have to include the $1,000 refund in gross income in 2009 to the extent that the earlier deduction of the
state and local taxes in 2008 produced a tax benefit by reducing their taxable income. Since, in the taxable year 2008,
they had more than $1,000 of itemized deductions that exceeded the standard deduction and more than $1,000 of
deductions that exceed the 3% floor in § 68, we can conclude that all $1,000 of the refund produced a tax benefit in the
earlier year when it was deducted and, thus, must be included in gross income in the taxable year 2009. The character of
the income is determined with reference to the character of the earlier deduction to which it relates (under the Supreme
Court decision in Arrowsmith)—since the state and local tax deduction is an ordinary deduction, the tax benefit rule
***
Note that long-term capital gain attributable to collectibles gain or section 1202 gain remains taxable at a preferential rate of 28
percent and long-term capital gain that is unrecaptured section 1250 gain remains taxable at a preferential rate of 25 percent. See
Section 1(h).
****
The preferential tax rates in Section 1(h) apply to the portion of an individual taxpayer’s taxable income that constitutes “net
capital gain” within the meaning of Sections 1(h) and 1222(11) and “qualified dividend income” as defined in Section 1(h)(11).
70
income in the taxable year 2009 is ordinary income as well. The $1,000 of tax benefit rule income is taxable at the rates
in effect in 2009, when the income is includible in gross income, not at the rates that applied in the earlier taxable year
when the deduction was taken.
Part (2)(b)
In addition to the facts in Part (2)(a), suppose that Lonny and Laura received in 2009 an $800 check from their
accountant in response to their complaint that the accountant had charged too much for his services rendered in
2008 (i.e., the accountant had refunded in 2009 part of the fee that he had charged Lonny and Laura in 2008).
What are the federal income tax consequences to Lonny and Laura on account of their receipt of this $800 check?
The $800 refund of the accountant’s fee in the taxable year 2009 is fundamentally inconsistent with the earlier deduction
of the accountant’s fee under §212(3), thus triggering application of the tax benefit rule in the taxable year 2009. Under
the inclusionary component of the tax benefit rule, Lonny and Laura have to include the $800 refund in gross income for
the 2009 taxable year to the extent that the earlier deduction of the accountant’s fee under Section 212(3) in the taxable
year 2008 produced a tax benefit by reducing their taxable income. However, under the exclusionary component of the
tax benefit rule in Section 111, the $800 refund is excluded from gross income to the extent that they did not receive a tax
benefit from the earlier deduction (i.e., to the extent that it did not reduce their taxable income). Since this deduction was
subject to the 2 percent floor in Section 67 and only $500 of the deductions subject to that floor were allowable as a
deduction, we know that only $500 of the accountant’s fee produced a tax benefit in 2008 and that is the amount Lonny
and Laura have to include in gross income in 2009 under the inclusionary component of the tax benefit rule. (Note that
since they had more than $500 of itemized deductions that exceeded the standard deduction and more than $500 of
deductions that exceed the 3% floor in Section 68, we can conclude that the $500 portion of the accountant’s fee that
survived the 2% floor in Section 67 produced a tax benefit in 2008.) The remaining $300 of the accountant’s fee refund is
excluded from gross income under the exclusionary component of the tax benefit rule in Section 111, because it was
disallowed as a deduction in 2008 by Section 67 and, thus, produced no tax benefit in the earlier year. The character of
the income is determined with reference to the character of the earlier deduction to which it relates (under the Supreme
Court decision in Arrowsmith)—since the deduction under Section 212(3) is an ordinary deduction, the tax benefit rule
income in the taxable year 2009 is ordinary income as well. The $500 of tax benefit rule income is taxable at the rates in
effect in 2009, when the income is includible in gross income, not at the rates that applied in the earlier taxable year when
the deduction was taken.
71
• Rule: maximize chance for inclusion, minimize chance for exclusion.
• Assume deduction came out of stack that produced benefit. If total itemized deductions
produced benefit, there’s more than enough to have income.
• Most logical rule, not adopted, would be to require TPs to do the math – proration –
partial inclusion, partial exclusion.
72
Land is used in T/B investment activity, but lacks other, it is not a wasting asset
So T will recover $20k basis in land when she sells
1. Treated as selling 2 assets (land & bldg)
$80k bldg basis is depreciable
1. §168(b)(3)(A): w/ real prop: straight line – 39 years
§168(b)(2): use mid-month convention for putting it in service
1. And disposed of midmonth in month you disposed of it, regardless of actual time
§168: ignore salvage value (ACRS doesn’t care)
o Equipment
Election under §179
1. Under dollar amt allowed, if she elects, could elect to depreciate it all (year is important)
Assume she doesn’t elect, or she’s already used it
1. It’s 3-year recovery period
2. Must look at Regulations and tables to discover recovery period
o Ex: computers – 5 years; RP will tell us
3. §168(b)(1): as long as it’s 3, 5, 7, 10 year depreciable personal property, can use double
declining balance
4. §168(b)(2): 15/20 year can still use accelerated
o Use 150% declining value
o Less accelerated, but still faster than straight line
5. Can still elect straight line
o Default, she’s using accelerated
o Why use straight line
Higher tax rates later, want more deduction later
Don’t have enough income to use deduction this year, you will later
6. ½ year convention – whenever acquired, assume it as acquired (and disposed) mid-year
o Personal Property
Simon/Liddle cases concern this
Personal property – wasting asset?
1. Violin used in business (pro musician)
o If it is depreciable either 2 or 5 year, so use DDB
o ½ year convention
Gov’t argued: this is not wasting asset
1. Some are, but b/c this one has value in collector’s mkt, it does not decline, it appreciates,
so this one is not depreciable
o Gov’t wanted to look at specific violin, not type of property
2. Inconsistent w/ what they do w/ other assets
Decision: is property in general wasting asset
1. Is it wasting asset in general/in theory/in essence
2. Violin meets this test, violin is depreciable b/c violins are depreciable in general, even
though this particular violin is not
o Self-Created Goodwill/Customer List
Customer list (6 year useful life)
Good will (no determinable useful life)
1. 0 basis, but FMV of $30k
Either in §197 or §167: amortization b/c intangible asset
1. Notice: SELF-CREATED intangibles (T started business, she did not buy business)
2. Self-created good will has no basis (unless in unusual facts of Welch v. Helvering – prior
ER’s debts to start own business)
o b/c advertising, etc. creates good will and we allow deduction for those things
how much amortization
1. self-created good will: 0 basis, 0 amortization
73
2. customer list: same (if self-created)
requirements
1. T/B: yes
2. Wasting asset:
o Apart from §197, goodwill has no determinable useful life
So unless §197 applies, it is not a wasting asset even if you have a basis
in it
o §167: asset is amortizable when (…)
Notice, 168 does not apply to intangibles (ACRS)
o §197 does not apply to intangible not described in
(d)(1)(a), (b), and (c) AND self created §197 does not apply
Self-created good will and self-created customer lists are not qualified
for §197
o Go back to pre-§197 law, g/w not amortizable, Customer List is amortizable for 6
year straight line under §167
o Existing Goodwill/Customer List
T buys existing business (unlike (d), not the creator of intangibles) and transaction creates
covenant not to compete
Sale/purchase of business is treated as sale/purchase of each individual asset
1. So she’s purchasing each asset w/ basis in each
2. Take purchase price and allocate to FMV of assets, price above all that is good will
o Same for seller
She has purchased
1. g/w $30k basis
2. customer list (5 year life) $7,500
3. covenant not to compete $15k
wasting assets?
1. Cov not to compete – 3 year life
2. Customer list – 5 year life
3. g/w – no determinable life (outside of §197)
o pre §197 – purchased g/w not amortizable
o now, 15 year if §197 applies -- straight line
o good news for g/w, bad news for CNTC/CL
§197 IS NOT ELECTIVE
1. Will apply to everything in this problem
Nothing kicked out by (c)(2)
1. b/c g/w and CL not self-created
2. CNTC close b/c self created, but it’s w/in exception
o Described in (d)(1)(D)
3. CNTC is service income to recipient and will report it over 3 years as payment received
o Business License
Business license: capital expenditure
1. Produces intangible
2. If there was no §197, have to write it off over 30 years
197(d)(1)(D):
1. Not kicked out by (c)(2) b/c listed in (d)(1)(D)
2. Writes it off over 15 years
[This is self-created in that she paid for it, she didn’t buy it from someone else when she bought
business]
o Patents & Copyrights
Prior to §197, patents and copyrights amortizable over legal life in §167
1. That means, if §197 doesn’t apply, you’re back to legal life rule (however it’s calculated)
74
When does §197 apply to patents/copyrights
1. 197(d)(1)(C)(iii): potential
2. If it’s self-created §197(c)(2) kicks it out
In (h) she is inventor, kicked out
1. So §197 doesn’t apply – legal life under §167
In (g) she acquires patent as part of purchase of assets of business
1. Not kicked out by (c)(2) b/c not self-created
2. HOWEVER, make sure it’s created as part of the assets constituting T/B
o b/c (e)(4): won’t be 197 intangibles (even if purchased) even if purchase is not
part of purchase of T/B (i.e. you’re only purchasing patent…)
o but not kicked out in this problem b/c she is acquiring it as part of the purchase of
a T/B
3. so write off purchase price of patent over 15 years, straight line
80