When can taxpayers invoke the substance-over-form doctrine? Erik M. Jensen
By: Jensen, Erik M
.
Material type: 




Item type | Current location | Home library | Call number | Status | Date due | Barcode |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Artículos | IEF | IEF | OP 235/2021/38/3-5 (Browse shelf) | Available | OP 235/2021/38/3-5 |
Browsing IEF Shelves Close shelf browser
No cover image available | No cover image available | No cover image available | No cover image available | No cover image available | No cover image available | No cover image available | ||
OP 235/2021/38/3-2 Section 1061 final regulations on the taxation of carried interest | OP 235/2021/38/3-3 Planning for future tax benefits of investing in regulation crowdfunding securities | OP 235/2021/38/3-4 New final regulations issued under Section 163(j) provide helpful clarification | OP 235/2021/38/3-5 When can taxpayers invoke the substance-over-form doctrine? | OP 235/2021/38/4 Journal of Taxation of Investments | OP 235/2021/38/4-1 The American Families Plan | OP 235/2021/38/4-2 The American Rescue Plan Act and State tax cuts |
Disponible también en formato electrónico.
Resumen.
This article considers the circumstances under which taxpayers can disavow the form of a transaction they enter in order to claim better tax consequences based on the substance of the transaction. In some situations, the disavowal is noncontroversial because the Internal Revenue Service has blessed the transactions. In a few situations where the Service resists, however, taxpayers are sometimes successful anyway. The focus of the article is on the Tax Court’s 2021 decision in Complex Media, Inc. v. Commissioner, and substantial discussion is devoted to the Third Circuit’s wellknown, and sometimes controversial, 1967 decision in Commissioner v. Danielson.
There are no comments for this item.