ch17 - H Chapter Seventeen H SOURCES AND APPLICATIONS OF...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: H Chapter Seventeen H SOURCES AND APPLICATIONS OF FEDERAL TAX LAW SOLUTIONS TO RESEARCH PROBLEMS RESEARCH PROBLEMS 17-17 a. CA-7. This information is shown in the citation for the case. b. No. There is no Supreme Court citation listed. c. Tax Court and reported as a memorandum decision, as shown in the citation of the case. 17-18 It would be difficult to tell from the Citator alone exactly what effect the decision in Arkansas Best v. Comm . had on the Corn Products, v. Comm . case. For example, in the RIA (Prentice Hall) Citator Arkansas Best and Corn Products are referenced by the symbol ‘‘k,’’ which stands for ‘‘the cited and citing case principles are reconciled.’’ It is probably best to read the two cases to see how they interrelate. The Citator does alert the reader to the fact that both cases address the same issue, however. 17-19 a. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (CA-11) decided the Robert Autrey, Jr. v. United States case on appeal. b. A United States District Court originally tried the case. c. The Court of Appeals affirmed part of the District Court’s decision and reversed part of it. 17-20 a. The U.S. Tax Court tried the case of Fabry v. Commissioner . b. The judge used the following sources in framing his opinion: (1) Internal Revenue Code § 104; (2) Legislative history of § 104 located at 83rd Cong., 2nd Sess. 15 (1954); (3) Various case citations; and (4) S. Rept. 1622, 83rd. Cong., 2nd Sess. 15-16 (1954). 17-21 a. No. The government won the case. b. Judge Atkins. c. Whether operating a farm with breeding cattle and incurring net losses qualified as a business activity and therefore the net losses were deductible, or as a hobby and therefore the losses were not deductible. 17-22 a. 1998-51 I.R.B. 6 b. Lawrence W. McCoy, 38 T.C. 841 (1962) c. Reginald Turner, 13 TCM 462, T.C. Memo 1954-38 d. RCA Corp. v. U.S., 81-2 USTC { 9783 (CA-2, 1981) e. RCA Corp. v. U.S., 48 AFTR2d 6164 (CA-2, 1981) f. RCA Corp. v. U.S., 664 F.2d 881 (CA-2, 1981) g. Comm. v. Wilcox, 66 S. Ct. 546 (USSC, 1946) h. Thor Power Tool, 79-1 USTC { 9139 (USSC, 1979) i. M.G. Anton, 34 T.C. 842 (1960) j. Brian E. Knutson, 60 TCM 540, T.C. Memo 1990-440 k. Samuel B. Levin v. Comm., 43 AFTR2d 79-1057 (Ct. Cls., 1979) 17-23 a. Issue: Whether Battelstein Investment Company unreasonably accumulated earnings so as to be subject to the § 531 accumulated earnings tax. 17-1 b. Issue 1: Whether Code § 1034 fixes which of several sequential sales (within the statutory replacement period) is entitled to the benefit-of-gain exclusion on the sale of a taxpayer’s principal residence. Full cite is 47 TCM 904. Issue 2: When gain goes unrecognized under § 1034(a), does § 1034(e) require that the basis of the new principal residence be reduced by the amount of the deferred gain?...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 07/26/2011 for the course TAX 772 taught by Professor Ber during the Spring '11 term at Hartford.

Page1 / 18

ch17 - H Chapter Seventeen H SOURCES AND APPLICATIONS OF...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online