11 - Tax Court Denies Deductions and Costs of Goods Sold Claimed by Medical-marijuana Dispensary
|
|
- Tracey Bishop
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 11 - Tax Court Denies Deductions and Costs of Goods Sold Claimed by Medical-marijuana Dispensary Patients Mutual Assistance Collective Corp., et al., (2018) 151 TC No. 11 The Tax Court has denied a California medical-marijuana dispensary's deductions for ordinary and necessary business expenses and costs of goods sold. The Court also found that the government's dismissal with prejudice of a previous civil forfeiture action against the taxpayer did not bar the deficiency determination. Background on the Code and marijuana businesses. A business may deduct from its gross income all the ordinary and necessary expenses paid or incurred during the tax year in carrying on the trade or business. (Code Sec. 162(a)) However, under Code Sec. 280E, no "deduction or credit shall be allowed for any amount paid or incurred during the tax year in carrying on any trade or business if such trade or business (or the activities which comprise such trade or business) consists of trafficking in controlled substances." Thus, a taxpayer may not deduct any amount for a trade or business where the trade or business (or the activities which comprise the trade or business) consists of trafficking in controlled substances (e.g., controlled substances within the meaning of Schedule I such as marijuana and Schedule II of the Controlled Substances Act) which is prohibited by Federal law. Nonetheless, several state legislatures have passed laws legalizing the cultivation and sale of marijuana. Four years after enacting Code Sec. 280E, Congress added the uniform capitalization (UNICAP) rules of Code Sec. 263A to the Code. Under Code Sec. 263A(a), resellers and producers of merchandise are required to treat as inventoriable costs the direct costs of property purchased or produced, respectively, and a proper share of those indirect costs that are allocable to that property. Flush language at the end of Code Sec. 263A(a)(2) provides, "Any cost which (but for this subsection) could not be taken into account in computing taxable income for any tax year shall not be treated as a cost described in this paragraph." In Californians Helping to Alleviate Med. Problems, Inc., (2007) 128 TC 173 ("CHAMP"), the taxpayer, CHAMP, had the primary purpose of providing caregiving services to individuals. Its secondary purpose was providing members with medical marijuana under the California Compassionate Use Act of '96 (CCUA). IRS disallowed all of CHAMP's deductions under Code Sec. 280E. The Tax Court held that marijuana is a schedule I controlled substance for this purpose, even if it's medical marijuana recommended by a physician as 35
2 appropriate to benefit the user's health. However, the Tax Court allowed CHAMP to deduct its expenses attributable to its counseling and other caregiving services. The Court rejected IRS's contentions that CHAMP was engaged in a single business activity (trafficking in marijuana) or that Code Sec. 280E required the denial of all CHAMP's expense deductions.." Background on cost of goods sold. Taxable income is equal to gross income minus deductions. (Code Sec. 63) Cost of goods sold (COGS) is a reduction made in the course of computing gross income. (Reg (a)) It is not a deduction. (Max Sobel Wholesale Liquors v. Comm., (1977) 69 TC 477), aff'd, (CA ) 46 AFTR 2d ) Accordingly, a COGS allowance is not disallowed by Code Sec. 280E. (Olive v. Comm., (2012) 139 TC 19, aff'd, (CA ) 116 AFTR 2d ; Reg (a)) The Code Sec. 471 regs have different rules for resellers and producers. Under the regs, resellers must use as their COGS the price they pay for inventory plus any transportation or other necessary charges incurred in acquiring possession of the goods. (Reg (b)) On the other hand, producers must include in COGS both the direct and indirect costs of creating their inventory. (Reg (c), Reg ) Producers have to capitalize the cost of raw materials, expenditures for direct labor, and indirect production costs incident to, and necessary for, the production of the particular article, including an appropriate portion of management expenses. (Reg (c)) Background on res judicata. In general, res judicata requires that when a court of competent jurisdiction enters a final judgment on the merits of a cause of action, the parties to the action are bound by that decision as to all matters that were or could have been litigated and decided in the proceeding. (Comm. v. Sunnen, (S Ct 1948) 36 AFTR 611) Under the judicial doctrine of res judicata, a final judgment on the merits of an action precludes the parties or their privies from relitigating issues that were or could have been raised in that action. Four conditions must be met in order that res judicata apply: (1) the parties in each action must be identical (or at least be in privity); (2) a court of competent jurisdiction must have rendered the first judgment; (3) the prior action must have resulted in a final judgment on the merits; and (4) the same cause of action or claim must be involved in both suits. Once these conditions are met, each party is prohibited from raising any claim or defense that was or could have been raised as part of the litigation over the cause of action in the prior case. Facts. Patients Mutual Assistance Collective Corporation d.b.a. Harborside Health Center (Harborside), a California medical-marijuana dispensary, had four activities, each of which it maintained was a separate trade or business: 1. The sales of marijuana and products containing marijuana. This included edibles, beverages, extracts, concentrates, oils, topicals, and tinctures (marijuana-infused alcohol, vinegar, or glycerin) which Harborside bought 36
3 from other collectives, tested, and repackaged if needed. Harborside also purchased all of its marijuana flowers (buds) from its patient-growers with some of these growers promising to sell what they cultivated back to Harborside. Harborside gave them either seeds or clones (cuttings) to get started. Once a grower had cultivated, harvested, trimmed, flushed, dried, and cured his marijuana buds, he would bring them to Harborside to sell. 2. The sales of products with no marijuana. This included branded clothing, hemp bags, books about marijuana, and marijuana paraphernalia such as rolling papers, pipes, and lighters. 3. Therapeutic services. A portion of each marijuana sale included free holistic services. 4. Brand development. Harborside maintained that its branding activities were part of a "unified business enterprise" with its activities that did make money during the years at issue ln July 2012, the federal government filed a civil forfeiture action in the California district court in which it alleged that that the property which Harborside rented and on which it operated its business was subject to forfeiture because it was used to commit the distribution, cultivation, and possession of marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. sections 841(a)10 and 856. The action was dismissed with prejudice in May 2016 by stipulation of the parties. On audit, IRS determined that Harborside's sole trade or business was trafficking in a controlled substance and that Code Sec. 280E prevented it from deducting business expenses. IRS also determined that Harborside had to calculate COGS using the Code Sec. 471 regs for resellers. Harborside argued that Code Sec. 280E didn't apply to it, that it was a producer, and that a dismissed civil-forfeiture action precluded a deficiency action. Court's conclusion. As an initial matter, the Tax Court found that the government's dismissal with prejudice of a civil forfeiture action against Harborside did not bar deficiency determinations. For there to be an identity of claims, two cases must arise out of the same transactional nucleus of facts. The Court noted that this almost always meant that res judicata applies only when the second claim could have been asserted in the previous action. Harborside's present case was about its tax deficiencies, and the parties agreed that the government could not have brought such an action as part of the civil forfeiture case in district court. The Court also concluded that Code Sec. 280E prevented Harborside from deducting ordinary and necessary business expenses. The Court rejected Harborside's interpretation of Code Sec. 280E, under which the words "consists of" in the statute meant that Code Sec. 280E applied only to businesses that exclusively or solely traffic in controlled substances and not to those that also engage in other activities. Instead, the Tax Court held that Code Sec. 280E denies business-expense deductions to any trade or business that involves 37
4 trafficking in controlled substances, even if that trade or business also engages in other activities. Further, during the years at issue (2007 through 2012), the Court determined that Harborside was engaged in only one trade or business, which was trafficking in a controlled substance. Harborside dedicated the lion's share of its resources to selling marijuana and marijuana products. Those sales accounted for over 99.5% of its revenue. Its other activities were neither economically separate nor substantially different. As that single trade or business the sale of marijuana was trafficking in a controlled substance under federal law, Harborside couldn't deduct any of its related expenses Specifically, the Court found that the sale of non-marijuana-containing products had a "close and inseparable organizational and economic relationship" with, and was "incident to," Harborside's primary business of selling marijuana. And the Court found that Harborside's holistic services offered free alongside its marijuana sales had a business purpose: it justified premium pricing and helped Harborside meet the community-benefit standards California law required. As for Harborside's brand development, the Court noted that ther was no evidence that if was in any way a separate trade or business: its branding using the same entity, management, capital structure, employees, and facilities as Harborside's marijuana sales. In addition, the Tax Court determined that Harborside had to adjust for COGS according to the Code Sec. 471 regs for resellers. Looking at the flush language at the end of Code Sec. 263A(a)(2), the Court reasoned that if something wasn't deductible, taxpayers couldn't use that section to capitalize it. Code Sec. 263A makes taxpayers defer the benefit of what used to be deductions it doesn't make what was once nondeductible now deductible. The Court concluded that the Code Sec. 263A capitalization rules don't apply to drug traffickers. Unlike most businesses, drug traffickers can't capitalize indirect expenses beyond what's listed in the Code Sec. 471 regs. Code Sec. 263A expressly prohibits capitalizing expenses that wouldn't otherwise be deductible, and drug traffickers don't get deductions. Because federal law labels Harborside a drug trafficker, it must calculate its COGS according to Code Sec While Harborside was without question a reseller of the marijuana edibles and non-marijuana-containing products it bought from third parties and sold at its facility, the situation was more complex for the marijuana bud it sold. Harborside insisted that it produced this marijuana and could include in its COGS the indirect inventory costs that Reg (c) describes. IRS said Harborside was a reseller and, under Reg (b), it could include only its inventory price and transportation costs. The Court concluded that Harborside was a reseller. 38
5 The Court reasoned that for purposes of Code Sec. 471, production (and who is a producer) turns on ownership ownership as determined by facts and circumstances, not formal title. Harborside merely sold or gave members clones that it had purchased from nurseries and bought back bud if and when it wanted. In between these two steps it had no ownership interest in the marijuana plants. Harborside was therefore a reseller for purposes of Code Sec. 471 and it had to adjust for its COGS according to Reg (b). The Court also rejected Harborside's argument that limiting its COGS to "only the actual cost used to purchase inventory" violates the Sixteenth Amendment under the theory that Code Sec. 263A represents the most accurate tax accounting method for calculating COGS and that not letting marijuana dispensaries use it forced them to pay tax on more than their gross income. The Court determined that the Constitution does limit Congress to taxing only gross income, however, courts have consistently held including in cases Harborside cited that gross income is gross receipts minus direct costs. 39
T.C. Memo UNITED STATES TAX COURT. JASON R. BECK, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
T.C. Memo. 2015-149 UNITED STATES TAX COURT JASON R. BECK, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent Docket No. 25842-10. Filed August 10, 2015. Jason R. Beck, pro se. Carolyn A. Schenck
More informationCurrent Federal Tax Developments Week of June 18, Edward K. Zollars, CPA (Licensed in Arizona)
Current Federal Tax Developments Week of June 18, 2018 Edward K. Zollars, CPA (Licensed in Arizona) CURRENT FEDERAL TAX DEVELOPMENTS WEEK OF JUNE 18, 2018 2018 Kaplan, Inc. Published in 2018 by Kaplan
More informationAlter Ego of Law Firm was Liable for Its Unpaid Employment Taxes
Alter Ego of Law Firm was Liable for Its Unpaid Employment Taxes Western Management, Inc. v. U.S., (CA FC 12/12/2012) 110 ATR 2d 2012-5528 Over one dissent, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
More information17 - Third Circuit Characterized Pharmaceutical Deal As License, Royalties As Ordinary Income
17 - Third Circuit Characterized Pharmaceutical Deal As License, Royalties As Ordinary Income Spireas v. Comm., (CA 3 3/26/2018) 121 AFTR 2d 2018-589 The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, affirming
More information21 - CA 10 Clarifies TEFRA Partnership Audit SOL and Trial Court Jurisdiction. Omega Forex Group LC et al., (CA 10 10/22/2018) 122 AFTR 2d
21 - CA 10 Clarifies TEFRA Partnership Audit SOL and Trial Court Jurisdiction Omega Forex Group LC et al., (CA 10 10/22/2018) 122 AFTR 2d 2018-5350 The Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, affirming
More informationMarijuana and Federal Tax Law: In Brief
Erika K. Lunder Legislative Attorney May 26, 2015 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov R44056 Contents Tax Issues for the Seller... 1 Denial of Business Deductions and Credits... 1 Cost of
More informationCALIFORNIA CANNABIS TAX & PAYMENT GUIDE GUIDANCE FOR
CALIFORNIA CANNABIS TAX & PAYMENT GUIDE GUIDANCE FOR DISTRIBUTORS RETAILERS CULTIVATORS MANUFACTURERS Expert navigation of the complex tax and payment requirements of California s emerging cannabis market
More informationDocket Nos , , Filed November 29, ¹
151 T.C. No. 11 PA UNITED STATES TAX COURT PATIENTS MUTUAL ASSISTANCE COLLECTIVE CORPORATION d.b.a. HARBORSIDE HEALTH CENTER, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent Docket Nos. 29212-11,
More informationIRS Wasn't Wrong to Reject Taxpayer Payment Plan that Didn't Pay Off Liability in Ten Years
IRS Wasn't Wrong to Reject Taxpayer Payment Plan that Didn't Pay Off Liability in Ten Years Brown, TC Memo 2016-82 The Tax Court has held that IRS was not wrong to reject, based on several failings by
More informationT.C. Memo UNITED STATES TAX COURT. LAUREL ALTERMAN AND WILLIAM A. GIBSON, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
T.C. Memo. 2018-83 UNITED STATES TAX COURT LAUREL ALTERMAN AND WILLIAM A. GIBSON, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent Docket No. 13666-14. Filed June 13, 2018. Henry G. Wykowski
More informationIssue 5: Marijuana and Hemp Taxation p. 40. Hemp uses: Paper Fiber Hemp Oil Hemp Rope Hemp Fabric Marijuana uses: Recreation Medicinal
Issue 5: Marijuana and Hemp Taxation p. 40 Hemp uses: Paper Fiber Hemp Oil Hemp Rope Hemp Fabric Marijuana uses: Recreation Medicinal State Laws p. 40 Many states allow medical and recreational use of
More information151 T.C. No. 13 UNITED STATES TAX COURT. ALTERNATIVE HEALTH CARE ADVOCATES, ET AL.,¹ Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
SR 151 T.C. No. 13 UNITED STATES TAX COURT ALTERNATIVE HEALTH CARE ADVOCATES, ET AL.,¹ Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent Docket Nos. 16123-14, 30186-14, Filed December 20, 2018.
More informationNo. 59 July 16, IN THE OREGON TAX COURT REGULAR DIVISION
No. 59 July 16, 2012 537 IN THE OREGON TAX COURT REGULAR DIVISION COSTCO WHOLESALE CORP. and Subsidiaries, Plaintiff, v. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Defendant. (TC 4956) Plaintiff (taxpayer) appealed Defendant
More informationUNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, DC ORDER AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
24 RS UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, DC 20217 JOHN M. CRIM, Petitioner(s, v. Docket No. 1638-15 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. ORDER AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
More information15 - First Circuit Determines When IRS Willfully Violates Bankruptcy Discharge Order
15 - First Circuit Determines When IRS Willfully Violates Bankruptcy Discharge Order IRS v. Murphy, (CA 1, 6/7/2018) 121 AFTR 2d 2018-834 The Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, affirming the district
More information07 - District Court Finds GRAT was Includible in Estate. Badgley v. U.S., (DC CA 5/17/2018) 121 AFTR 2d
07 - District Court Finds GRAT was Includible in Estate Badgley v. U.S., (DC CA 5/17/2018) 121 AFTR 2d 2018-772 A district court has ruled against an Estate in a refund suit that sought to exclude the
More informationBEFORE THE HEARINGS EXAMINER FOR CLARK COUNTY, WASHINGTON I. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
BEFORE THE HEARINGS EXAMINER FOR CLARK COUNTY, WASHINGTON In the Matter of Emerald Enterprises LLC and John M. Larson, 1 Appellants FINDINGS AND FINAL ORDER Notice and Order Nos. N&O CDE2016-Z-001 and
More information2017 Loscalzo Institute, a Kaplan Company
October 30, 2017 Section: 165 Taxpayer Penalized for Failing to Produce Adequate Evidence to Support Value Claimed for Theft Loss... 2 Citation: Partyka v. Commissioner, TC Summ. Op. 2017-79, 10/25/17...
More informationTenth Circuit Finds IRS Followed Procedures and Could Proceed with Levy Action. Cropper v. Comm., (CA 10 6/22/2016) 117 AFTR 2d
Tenth Circuit Finds IRS Followed Procedures and Could Proceed with Levy Action Cropper v. Comm., (CA 10 6/22/2016) 117 AFTR 2d 2016-794 The Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit concluded that because
More informationAdult Use of Marijuana Act Proposition 64 League of California Cities. Wednesday, January 11, :00 p.m. 4:30 p.m.
Adult Use of Marijuana Act Proposition 64 League of California Cities Wednesday, January 11, 2017 2:00 p.m. 4:30 p.m. Presenters Michael Coleman Fiscal Policy Advisor, League of California Cities Tim Cromartie
More informationMARIJUANA REGULATORY STRUCTURE LEGISLATION
MARIJUANA REGULATORY STRUCTURE LEGISLATION Key County Issue Medical Cannabis Regulation & Safety Act Adult Use of Marijuana Act Proposition 64 Local Control Local control clauses Referenced in Business
More informationSession of HOUSE BILL No By Committee on Commerce, Labor and Economic Development 1-26
Session of HOUSE BILL No. By Committee on Commerce, Labor and Economic Development - 0 AN ACT concerning economic development; relating to agribusiness development of an industrial hemp industry; enacting
More informationWilliams v Commissioner TC Memo
CLICK HERE to return to the home page Williams v Commissioner TC Memo 2015-76 Respondent determined deficiencies in petitioners' income tax for tax years 2009 and 2010 of $8,712 and $17,610, respectively.
More informationTHE NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HOLDS THAT THE TAXPAYERS WERE NOT ENTITLED TO NONRECOGNITION TREATMENT PURSUANT TO CODE SECTION 1058
THE NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HOLDS THAT THE TAXPAYERS WERE NOT ENTITLED TO NONRECOGNITION TREATMENT PURSUANT TO CODE SECTION 1058 Pirrone, Maria St. John s University! ABSTRACT In Samueli v. Commissioner
More information19 - Taxpayer Had Basis in Solar Panels for Purposes of Bonus Depreciation and Energy Credit
19 - Taxpayer Had Basis in Solar Panels for Purposes of Bonus Depreciation and Energy Credit Golan, TC Memo 2018-76 The Tax Court has concluded that a taxpayer established a basis in solar panels and related
More informationChange in Accounting Methods and the Mitigation Sections
Marquette Law Review Volume 47 Issue 4 Spring 1964 Article 3 Change in Accounting Methods and the Mitigation Sections Bernard D. Kubale Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/mulr
More informationChapter 13 p.783 Business & Investment
Chapter 13 p.783 Business & Investment Assume an expenditure is not personal (the subject matter examined in Chapter 12), but business/investment related. Is expenditure therefore immediately deductible
More informationTackling Taxes. The Evolving Taxation of the Marijuana Industry. By Ronald Marcuson, Paul C. Lau and Caleb Lendy *
Tackling Taxes The Evolving Taxation of the Marijuana Industry By Ronald Marcuson, Paul C. Lau and Caleb Lendy * Background of the Marijuana Industry PAUL C. LAU is a Retired Tax Partner with Plante Moran
More informationTHE PROCTER AND GAMBLE COMPANY & SUBS. v. U.S., Cite as 106 AFTR 2d (733 F. Supp. 2d 857), Code Sec(s) 41, (DC OH), 06/25/2010
American Federal Tax Reports THE PROCTER AND GAMBLE COMPANY & SUBS. v. U.S., Cite as 106 AFTR 2d 2010-5433 (733 F. Supp. 2d 857), Code Sec(s) 41, (DC OH), 06/25/2010 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES,
More informationIU INTERNATIONAL CORP. v. U.S., Cite as 77 AFTR 2d (34 Fed Cl 767), 2/08/1996, Code Sec(s) 312; 1502
IU INTERNATIONAL CORP. v. U.S., Cite as 77 AFTR 2d 96-696 (34 Fed Cl 767), 2/08/1996, Code Sec(s) 312; 1502 Irving Salem, New York, N.Y., for Plaintiff. Mildred L. Seidman and Jeffrey H. Skatoff, Dept.
More informationTax Court Holds that Certain Tax Return Information May Be Disclosed to an Employer Asserting a Defense to Withholding Tax
IRS Insights A closer look. In this issue: Tax Court Holds that Certain Tax Return Information May Be Disclosed to an Employer Asserting a Defense to Withholding Tax... 1 The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
More informationORDINANCE NO. A new City of Merced Municipal Code Chapter 3.52 is hereby adopted to read:
ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF MERCED, CALIFORNIA, ADDING CHAPTER 3.52 TO THE CITY OF MERCED MUNICPAL CODE, APPROVING AND IMPLEMENTING A COMMERCIAL CANNABIS BUSINESS TAX THE PEOPLE
More informationProposition 64 Regulation Under the Adult Use of Marijuana Act. Thursday, April 6, 2017
Proposition 64 Regulation Under the Adult Use of Marijuana Act Thursday, April 6, 2017 1 How to Ask a Question All phone lines have been muted. For written questions - use the Q&A window to the right side
More informationPROPOSITION M (Adopted by the Voters of Los Angeles at the Election on March 7, 2017)
PROPOSITION M (Adopted by the Voters of Los Angeles at the Election on March 7, 2017) ORDINANCE NO. 184841 An ordinance amending the Los Angeles Municipal Code regarding the enforcement, taxation and regulation
More informationduring the period of the
opinion section by explaining what it wasn t deciding, a somewhat unusual step. But, then again, this was a The Court explained what wasn t at issue: during the period of the The IRS s regulations interpreting
More informationUniform Capitalization Method
DID YOU GET YOUR BADGE SCANNED? Uniform Capitalization Method #TaxLaw #FBA Username: taxlaw Password: taxlaw18 Uniform Capitalization Method The Grey Areas IRC section 263A, requiring the use of the uniform
More informationBasics of Marijuana Taxation
Basics of Marijuana Taxation Michigan Society of Enrolled Agents Presented by John Sheeley, Enrolled Agent, Fellow of the National Tax Practice Institute October 21, 2015 Disclaimer Marijuana remains illegal
More informationHowell v. Commissioner TC Memo
CLICK HERE to return to the home page Howell v. Commissioner TC Memo 2012-303 MARVEL, Judge MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION Respondent mailed to petitioners a notice of deficiency dated December
More informationDistrict court concludes that taxpayer s refund suit, relating to the carryback of a deduction for foreign taxes, was untimely
IRS Insights A closer look. In this issue: District court concludes that taxpayer s refund suit, relating to the carryback of a deduction for foreign taxes, was untimely... 1 IRS issues Chief Counsel Advice
More informationProcedures for Protest to New York State and City Tribunals
September 25, 1997 Procedures for Protest to New York State and City Tribunals By: Glenn Newman This new feature of the New York Law Journal will highlight cases involving New York State and City tax controversies
More informationBankruptcy Liquidating Trust Was Not Grantor Trust; Taxpayer Not Entitled to Associated NOLs
Bankruptcy Liquidating Trust Was Not Grantor Trust; Taxpayer Not Entitled to Associated NOLs Gould, (2012) 139 TC No. 17 The Tax Court has held that a taxpayer was not the grantor of the liquidating trust
More informationMSCAP FEDERAL TAX COMMITTEE TAX FORUMS SUBCOMMITTEE CURRENT DEVELOPMENTS TAX ACCOUNTING. Outline
MSCAP FEDERAL TAX COMMITTEE TAX FORUMS SUBCOMMITTEE CURRENT DEVELOPMENTS TAX ACCOUNTING Outline 1. Transfer of Restricted Property Stock Options 2. Taxation of Loan from Foreign Sub 3. Tax Treatment of
More information14 - Court Determines Damages for Willfully Filing a Fraudulent Information Return
14 - Court Determines Damages for Willfully Filing a Fraudulent Information Return Angelopoulo v. Keystone Orthopedic Specialists, S.C., et al., (DC IL 7/9/2018) 122 AFTR 2d 2018-5028 A district court
More informationCOMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, PETITIONER v. NADER E. SOLIMAN 506 U.S. 168; 113 S. Ct. 701
CLICK HERE to return to the home page COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, PETITIONER v. NADER E. SOLIMAN 506 U.S. 168; 113 S. Ct. 701 January 12, 1993 JUDGES: KENNEDY, J., delivered the opinion of the Court,
More informationDECISION OF MUNICIPAL TAX HEARING OFFICER
DECISION OF MUNICIPAL TAX HEARING OFFICER Decision Date: August 13, 2004 Decision: MTHO #151 Tax Collector: Cities of Peoria, Tempe, and Scottsdale Hearing Date: April 5, 2004 Introduction DISCUSSION On
More informationCASE NO. 1D Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and J. Clifton Cox, Special Counsel, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA VERIZON BUSINESS PURCHASING, LLC, v. Appellant, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
More informationSEC. 2. FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF PURPOSE.
Organized Retail Crime Act of 2008 (Introduced in House) HR 6491 IH 110th CONGRESS 2d Session H. R. 6491 To amend title 18, United States Code, to combat, deter, and punish individuals and enterprises
More informationCode Sec. 1234A was enacted in 1981 as part of Title V Tax Straddles of
The Schizophrenic World of Code Sec. 1234A By Linda E. Carlisle and Sarah K. Ritchey Linda Carlisle and Sarah Ritchey analyze the Tax Court s decision in Pilgrim s Pride and offer their observations on
More informationRecreational Marihuana Legalization in Michigan
Recreational Marihuana Legalization in Michigan November 12, 2015 www.crcmich.org 2 Michigan Would be 5 th State to Authorize Recreational Marihuana Market Size Market Landscape Colorado Washington Michigan
More informationLiability Tannenbaum, (DC NY 8/11/2016) 117 AFTR 2d District Court Approves Sale of Marital Home to Satisfy One Spouse's Tax
Liability Tannenbaum, (DC NY 8/11/2016) 117 AFTR 2d 2016-5120 District Court Approves Sale of Marital Home to Satisfy One Spouse's Tax A district court has concluded that IRS could enforce its tax lien
More informationRESOLUTION NO
RESOLUTION NO. 156-40 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCATA ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE ISSUANCE, COMPLIANCE MONITORING, RENEWAL, AND ENFORCEMENT OF COMMERCIAL CANNABIS ACTIVITY
More informationT.C. Memo UNITED STATES TAX COURT. EUGENE W. ALPERN, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
T.C. Memo. 2000-246 UNITED STATES TAX COURT EUGENE W. ALPERN, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent Docket No. 20304-98. Filed August 8, 2000. Eugene W. Alpern, pro se. Gregory J.
More informationInitiative 502 Fiscal Impact through Fiscal Year 2017 General Assumptions State and Local Government Revenue Estimates Assumptions
Initiative 502 Fiscal Impact through Fiscal Year 2017 Initiative 502 would license and regulate marijuana production and distribution; tax marijuana sales; earmark marijuana-related revenues; and specifically
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS FT. WORTH DIVISION. v. Case No.: 4-06CV-163-BE MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This case is referenced in an endnote at the Bradford Tax Institute. CLICK HERE to go to the home page. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS FT. WORTH DIVISION EMILY D. CHIARELLO,
More informationDebtor Owes Self-employment Tax on Earnings from Post-petition Services
Debtor Owes Self-employment Tax on Earnings from Post-petition Services Sisson, TC Memo 2016-143 The Tax Court has concluded that a Chapter 11 debtor was liable for selfemployment tax on self-employment
More informationORDINANCE NO A. Title 7 (Cannabis Regulation) is amended to add Chapter 7.10 (Cannabis Business Tax), as follows:
ORDINANCE NO. 2018- AN ORDINANCE OF THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF VISTA, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING A TAX ON COMMERCIAL MARIJUANA PRODUCTION AND SALES AND AMENDING TITLE 5 OF THE VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADD
More informationDalton v. United States
Neutral As of: July 28, 2018 9:55 PM Z Dalton v. United States United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit July 16, 1986, Argued ; September 17, 1986, Decided No. 85-2225 Reporter 800 F.2d 1316
More informationIN THE OREGON TAX COURT MAGISTRATE DIVISION Income Tax ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
IN THE OREGON TAX COURT MAGISTRATE DIVISION Income Tax LOUIS E. MARKS and MARIE Y. MARKS, v. Plaintiffs, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, State of Oregon, Defendant. TC-MD 050715D DECISION The matter is before the
More informationARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeals of -- ) ) ATK Launch Systems, Inc. ) ASBCA Nos. 55395, 55418, 55812 ) Under Contract Nos. NAS8-38100 et al. ) APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: APPEARANCES
More informationCox v. Commissioner T.C. Memo (T.C. 1993)
CLICK HERE to return to the home page Cox v. Commissioner T.C. Memo 1993-326 (T.C. 1993) MEMORANDUM OPINION BUCKLEY, Special Trial Judge: This matter is assigned pursuant to the provisions of section 7443A(b)(3)
More informationGarnett v. Comm r., 132 T.C. No. 19 (2009) Thompson v. United States, [ USTC 50,501] (Fed. Cl. 2009) By C. Fred Daniels and William S.
Garnett v. Comm r., 132 T.C. No. 19 (2009) Thompson v. United States, [2009-2 USTC 50,501] (Fed. Cl. 2009) By C. Fred Daniels and William S. Forsberg The Tax Court and the Court of Federal Claims recently
More informationIRS Errors Get Taxpayer Partial Abatement of Late Payment Interest
IRS Errors Get Taxpayer Partial Abatement of Late Payment Interest King, TC Memo 2015-36 Where a taxpayer was unable to pay his employment tax liabilities on time and asked for an installment payment agreement,
More informationU.S. Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition Service Administrative Review Branch Alexandria, VA FINAL AGENCY DECISION ISSUE AUTHORITY
U.S. Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition Service Administrative Review Branch Alexandria, VA 22302 99 Cent and Cigarette Market, Appellant, v. Case Number: C0185917 Retailer Operations Division,
More informationRecreational Marijuana in Oregon How it Will Look Rob Patridge, Chair, Commission ODMO, December 2015
Recreational Marijuana in Oregon How it Will Look Rob Patridge, Chair, Commission ODMO, December 2015 ROLE OF COMMISSIONERS Guide policy Facilitate public engagement Support communication Adopt final rules
More informationThis case is referenced in an endnote at the Bradford Tax Institute. CLICK HERE to go to the home page.
This case is referenced in an endnote at the Bradford Tax Institute. CLICK HERE to go to the home page. 123 T.C. No. 16 UNITED STATES TAX COURT TONY R. CARLOS AND JUDITH D. CARLOS, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER
More information142 T.C. No. 4 UNITED STATES TAX COURT. LAW OFFICE OF JOHN H. EGGERTSEN P.C., Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
142 T.C. No. 4 UNITED STATES TAX COURT LAW OFFICE OF JOHN H. EGGERTSEN P.C., Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent Docket No. 15479-11. Filed February 12, 2014. During its taxable
More informationCedric R. Kotowicz TC Memo
Cedric R. Kotowicz TC Memo 1991-563 CLICK HERE to return to the home page GOFFE, Judge: The Commissioner determined the following deficiencies in income tax and additions to tax against petitioner: Taxable
More informationIRS Loses Case on Extended Statute of Limitations
Testing the Limits What is An Understatement of Gross Income? Podcast of June 22, 2007 Feed address for Podcast subscription: http://feeds.feedburner.com/edzollarstaxupdate Home page for Podcast: 2007
More informationMSCPA Federal Tax Committee C Corporations By Lorraine Travers
ESOP disqualified by stock allocation to officer who drew no salary--dna Pro Ventures, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan, TC Memo 2015-195 The Tax Court has upheld IRS's disqualification of an employee
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO. Plaintiffs-Appellants : C.A. CASE NO vs. : T.C. CASE NO. 03CV5624
[Cite as Stumpff v. Harris, 2012-Ohio-1239.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO KENNETH M. STUMPFF, et al. : Plaintiffs-Appellants : C.A. CASE NO. 24562 vs. : T.C. CASE NO. 03CV5624 RICHARD
More informationChapter 13 p.783 Business & Investment
Chapter 13 p.783 Business & Investment Assume an expenditure is not personal (the subject matter examined in Chapter 12). Is the expenditure therefore immediately deductible in determining the taxpayer
More informationCompensation to Law Firm Shareholder-Employees Disallowed by Tax Court
Compensation to Law Firm Shareholder-Employees Disallowed by Tax Court In Brinks, 1 the Tax Court once again applied the independent investor test to recharacterize compensation paid by a professional
More informationButte County Board of Supervisors Agenda Transmittal
Butte County Board of Supervisors Agenda Transmittal Clerk of the Board Use Only Agenda Item: 5.02 Subject: Presentation on Proposed Statewide Regulatory Framework for Medical Marijuana Department: County
More informationHOW THE 1998 TAX ACT AFFECTS YOUR DEALINGS WITH THE IRS APPEALS OFFICE. The IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998.
HOW THE 1998 TAX ACT AFFECTS YOUR DEALINGS WITH THE IRS APPEALS OFFICE The IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 January 22, 1999 Robert M. Kane, Jr. LeSourd & Patten, P.S. 600 University Street, Ste
More informationSENATE AMENDMENTS TO SENATE BILL 1566
th OREGON LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY-- Regular Session SENATE AMENDMENTS TO SENATE BILL By COMMITTEE ON WORKFORCE February 1 1 1 On page 1 of the printed bill, line, after System; insert creating new provisions;
More informationIN THE OREGON TAX COURT REGULAR DIVISION Income Tax ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) TC 5039 I. INTRODUCTION
IN THE OREGON TAX COURT REGULAR DIVISION Income Tax STANCORP FINANCIAL GROUP, INC., and SUBSIDIARIES, v. Plaintiffs, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, State of Oregon, Defendant. TC 5039 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS
More informationCASEY V. UNITED STATES 459 F. 2d 495 (Court of Claims, 1972) 72-1 U.S.T.C. 9419; 29 AFTR 2d Editor's Summary. Facts
CASEY V. UNITED STATES 459 F. 2d 495 (Court of Claims, 1972) 72-1 U.S.T.C. 9419; 29 AFTR 2d 1089 Editor's Summary Key Topics CAPITAL V. EXPENSE Road construction costs Facts The taxpayer was a member of
More information08 - CA 2 Reverses Tax Court Decision on Variable Prepaid Forward Contracts
08 - CA 2 Reverses Tax Court Decision on Variable Prepaid Forward Contracts Estate of Andrew J. McKelvey v. Comm., (CA 2 9/26/2018) 122 AFTR 2d 2018-5277 The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has
More information4. Maintain records of taxpayer reports and taxes collected pursuant to this Article;
MEASURE I ORDINANCE OF THE VOTERS OF THE CITY OF WILLITS, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ADDING CHAPTER 5-10 TO THE WILLITS MUNICIPAL CODE, AND AMENDING CHAPTER 5-04 OF THE WILLITS MUNICIPAL CODE TO IMPOSE A CANNABIS
More informationCase No (Fire Fighter Vincent DiBona's health insurance benefits) OPINION AND AWARD
AMERICAN ARBITRATION ASSOCIATION In the Matter of the Arbitration X between PROFESSIONAL FIREFIGHTERS ASSOCIATION OF NASSAU COUNTY, LOCAL 1588, laff and VILLAGE OF GARDEN CITY Case No. 01-17-0005-1878
More informationPROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO SENATE BILL 1566
SB 1- (LC ) /1/ (MNJ/ps) Requested by SENATE COMMITTEE ON WORKFORCE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO SENATE BILL 1 1 1 1 On page 1 of the printed bill, line, after System; insert creating new provisions; amending
More information04 - Fourth and Eleventh Circuits Find CARDs Transaction Lacked Economic Substance
04 - Fourth and Eleventh Circuits Find CARDs Transaction Lacked Economic Substance Curtis Investment Company, LLC, v. Comm., (CA11 12/6/2018) 122 AFTR 2d 2018-5485; Baxter, et ux v. Comm., (CA4, 12/7/2018)
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY SOUTHERN DIVISION PIKEVILLE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) *** *** *** ***
Case: 7:15-cv-00096-ART Doc #: 56 Filed: 02/05/16 Page: 1 of 11 - Page ID#: 2240 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY SOUTHERN DIVISION PIKEVILLE In re BLACK DIAMOND MINING COMPANY,
More informationDallas Bar Association Tax Section December 4, New Partnership Audit Rules: What They Mean to Partnerships and Tax Professionals.
Dallas Bar Association Tax Section December 4, 2017 New Partnership Audit Rules: What They Mean to Partnerships and Tax Professionals Copyright All rights reserved. Presented By: Charles D. Pulman, J.D.,
More informationConference Agreement Double Estate Tax Exemption No Change in Basis Step-up or down -83. Estate, Gift, and GST Tax. Chapter 12
Conference Agreement Double Estate Tax Exemption No Change in Basis Step-up or down -83 1 Estate, Gift, and GST Tax Chapter 12 Rev. Proc. 2017-58 (October 20, 2017) 12-2 Gift and Estate Tax Exclusions
More information2018 VT 21. Nos , , & v. On Appeal from Superior Court, Chittenden Unit, Kenneth C. Montani
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under V.R.A.P. 40 as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions
More information135 T.C. No. 4 UNITED STATES TAX COURT. WILLIAM PRENTICE COOPER, III, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
135 T.C. No. 4 UNITED STATES TAX COURT WILLIAM PRENTICE COOPER, III, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent Docket Nos. 24178-09W, 24179-09W. Filed July 8, 2010. P filed two claims
More informationS Corporation Stock Was Subject to Substantial Risk of Forfeiture Until Restrictions Lapsed
S Corporation Stock Was Subject to Substantial Risk of Forfeiture Until Restrictions Lapsed Austin, TC Memo 2017-69 The Tax Court has concluded that stock held by two S corporation shareholders (each of
More information11 USC 505. NB: This unofficial compilation of the U.S. Code is current as of Jan. 4, 2012 (see
TITLE 11 - BANKRUPTCY CHAPTER 5 - CREDITORS, THE DEBTOR, AND THE ESTATE SUBCHAPTER I - CREDITORS AND CLAIMS 505. Determination of tax liability (a) (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2) of this subsection,
More informationDistrict Court Tells Treasury That Its Special Use Valuation Regulation Is Invalid Again
District Court Tells Treasury That Its Special Use Valuation Regulation Is Invalid Again 2321 N. Loop Drive, Ste 200 Ames, Iowa 50010 www.calt.iastate.edu March 23, 2012 - by Roger McEowen* Overview The
More informationState Tax Return. The Case For & Against REITs -- Tax-Advantaged Entities, Tax Shelters, Or Inept Legislative Drafting?
November 2005 Volume 12 Number 11 State Tax Return The Case For & Against REITs -- Tax-Advantaged Entities, Tax Shelters, Or Inept Legislative Drafting? Kirk Lyda Dallas (214) 969-5013 The use of real
More informationBorrego Community Health Foundation
Audited Financial Statements Borrego Community Health Foundation For The Years Ended June 30, 2017 and 2016 Table of Contents Independent Auditor s Report 1 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Balance Sheets 3 Statements
More informationT.C. Memo UNITED STATES TAX COURT. ROBERT LIPPOLIS, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
T.C. Memo. 2017-104 UNITED STATES TAX COURT ROBERT LIPPOLIS, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent Docket No. 18172-12W. Filed June 7, 2017. Thomas C. Pliske, for petitioner. Ashley
More informationDISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS. No. 00-CO-929. Appeal from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia (M )
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections
More informationCase 1:16-cv WGY Document 14 Filed 09/06/16 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
Case 1:16-cv-10148-WGY Document 14 Filed 09/06/16 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS IN RE: JOHAN K. NILSEN, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 16-10148-WGY MASSACHUSETTS
More informationMedical Marijuana General Liability Application
Medical Marijuana General Liability Application Applicant s Name: Agency Name: Agent: Mailing Address: Address: Location Address: E-mail: Phone: Web Site Address PROPOSED EFFECTIVE DATE: From To 12:01
More informationDistrict Court Determines IRS Exceeded Regulatory Limit on FBAR Penalties
IRS Insights A closer look. In this issue: District Court Determines IRS Exceeded Regulatory Limit on FBAR Penalties... 1 Internal Revenue Service Issues Guidelines for IRS Chief Counsel on Supervisory
More information2011 REGIONAL FORUMS TRUST AND ESTATE DEVELOPMENTS
2011 REGIONAL FORUMS TRUST AND ESTATE DEVELOPMENTS Trust modification prevents drafting error from resulting in costly transfer tax PLR 201132017 IRS has given its blessing to a court approved modification
More informationUNITED STATES OF AMERICA CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU
2016-CFPB-0021 Document 27 Filed 12/20/2016 Page 1 of 15 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING File No. 2016-CFPB-0021 In the Matter of: CONSENT ORDER
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION RICHARD BARNES, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 4:13-cv-0068-DGK ) HUMANA, INC., ) ) Defendant. ) ORDER GRANTING DISMISSAL
More information