Ad
related to: irc section 125
Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
A cafeteria plan or cafeteria system is a type of employee benefit plan offered in the United States pursuant to Section 125 of the Internal Revenue Code. [1] Its name comes from the earliest versions of such plans, which allowed employees to choose between different types of benefits, similar to the ability of a customer to choose among available items in a cafeteria.
Section 162(a) of the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C. § 162(a)), is part of United States taxation law.It concerns deductions for business expenses. It is one of the most important provisions in the Code, because it is the most widely used authority for deductions. [1]
Internal Revenue Code Section 132(a) provides eight types of fringe benefits that are excluded from gross income.These include fringe benefits which qualify as a (1) no-additional-cost service, (2) qualified employee discount, (3) working condition fringe, (4) de minimis fringe, (5) qualified transportation fringe, (6) qualified moving expense reimbursement, (7) qualified retirement planning ...
The "free" money is not taxable because the IRS views these plans as health insurance plans for tax purposes. [21] According to IRS section 125, benefits received from a health insurance plan are not considered taxable income. [citation needed]
The text of the Internal Revenue Code as published in title 26 of the U.S. Code is virtually identical to the Internal Revenue Code as published in the various volumes of the United States Statutes at Large. [3] Of the 50 enacted titles, the Internal Revenue Code is the only volume that has been published in the form of a separate code.
Get AOL Mail for FREE! Manage your email like never before with travel, photo & document views. Personalize your inbox with themes & tabs. You've Got Mail!
The IRS asserts that it was the intent of Congress to apply the provision to anyone "trafficking" in a controlled substance, as defined under federal law (as stated in the text of the statute). Thus, section 280E is at the center of the conflict between federal and state laws with respect to medical marijuana.
Commissioner v. Banks, 543 U.S. 426 (2005), together with Commissioner v.Banaitis, was a case decided before the Supreme Court of the United States, dealing with the issue of whether the portion of a money judgment or settlement paid to a taxpayer's attorney under a contingent-fee agreement is income to the taxpayer for federal income tax purposes.