When.com Web Search

  1. Ad

    related to: irs expense vs capital rules of court california

Search results

  1. Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
  2. Expenses versus capital expenditures - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expenses_versus_Capital...

    The taxpayer argued that these expenses were deductible, but the IRS stated that the costs should be capitalized. The court held that the inspection and replacement costs could be deducted because the improvements did not add to the value and did not prolong the life of the airplanes as a whole. [11]

  3. Internal Revenue Code section 61 - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_Revenue_Code...

    The court held that the travel expenses were compensation to the employee for services rendered to the company during 1972 and should be included in gross income. Therefore, when a company pays travel expenses, a taxpayer must include such compensation in gross income when the excursion is viewed as a reward for outstanding employee success ...

  4. Zaninovich v. Commissioner - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaninovich_v._Commissioner

    The court found that its reasoning for the "one year rule" was well illustrated by the facts of the case before it. If the taxpayers in this situation were forced to deduct their rental payments on a prorated basis, the simplicity of the cash basis method of accounting was sacrificed for an inconsequential change in the timing of deductions.

  5. Internal Revenue Code section 162 (a) - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_Revenue_Code...

    Because business expenses are fully deductible under section 162, taxpayers try to argue that expenses were not start up expenses. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals found that the Tax Court should look at if employment of the taxpayer is in the same trade or business to determine if it is a start-up expense, or a carrying on expense. [11]

  6. Arrowsmith v. Commissioner - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrowsmith_v._Commissioner

    The Second Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the Tax Court and held it to be a capital loss. [2] The U.S. Supreme Court agreed with the Second Circuit and held that it was a capital loss. [1] Allowing the income from the liquidation to be taxed as a capital gain, while allowing loss payments out of that income to be deducted as an ordinary ...

  7. Midland Empire Packing Co. v. Commissioner - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midland_Empire_Packing_Co...

    Commissioner, 14 T.C. 635 (1950), was a case in which the United States Tax Court ruled that Midland Empire Packing Company was permitted to deduct the costs of lining its basement walls and floor. [1] The costs were held to be repairs, and thus deductible as an ordinary and necessary business expense under section 162(a) of the Internal ...

  8. Welch v. Helvering - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welch_v._Helvering

    The court also considered the question of whether Welch's expenses were current expenses or investments which should have been capitalized. Although the case was eventually decided on other grounds, the idea that the expenses should have increased the basis of the business as capital expenses, with no immediate deduction but the potential for ...

  9. While the Tax Court is headquartered in Washington, D.C., its 19 judges hear cases in about 80 cities throughout the U.S. (See also Article I and Article III tribunals). Appeals from the Tax Court are taken to whichever of the United States courts of appeals has geographical jurisdiction over the claimant. The United States District Courts.