Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
A taxpayer who is normally taxable only on the receipt of interest payments cannot escape taxation by giving away his right to such income. Furthermore, when assigning income from property to another person (particularly a family member) in the form of a gift, the courts will usually see it as a way to avoid tax and thus consider it “fruit.”
Gregory v. Helvering, 293 U.S. 465 (1935), was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court concerned with U.S. income tax law. [1] The case is cited as part of the basis for two legal doctrines: the business purpose doctrine and the doctrine of substance over form.
Equitable recoupment is a judicially created defense most commonly applied in legal cases in the federal and state tax systems of the U.S.. [1] [2] This doctrine can allow, under specific circumstances, the government to defeat a refund claim or a taxpayer to avoid an assessment on the basis of a past underpayment or overpayment that is outside the statute of limitations period.
In the tax law of the United States the claim of right doctrine causes a taxpayer to recognize income if they receive the income even though they do not have a fixed right to the income. For the income to qualify as being received there must be a receipt of cash or property that ordinarily constitutes income rather than loans or gifts or ...
Cesarini v. United States, 296 F. Supp. 3 (N.D. Ohio 1969), [1] is a historic case decided by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, where the court ruled that treasure trove property is included in gross income for the tax year when it was discovered.
Several theories of taxation exist in public economics. Governments at all levels (national, regional and local) need to raise revenue from a variety of sources to finance public-sector expenditures .
The Tax court had to decide whether the taxpayer had the ability receive the check or whether she faced "substantial limitations" on this ability as a result of the circumstances. The Tax Court noted prior decisions that held a taxpayer to have constructively received funds as of the time of attempted delivery when the taxpayer made a decision ...
The rule against perpetuities serves a number of purposes. First, English courts have long recognized that allowing owners to attach long-lasting contingencies to their property harms the ability of future generations to freely buy and sell the property, since few people would be willing to buy property that had unresolved issues regarding its ownership hanging over it.