000			01656nab a2200241 c 4500
999			_c143633 _d143633
003			ES-MaIEF
005			20220930184032.0
007			ta
008			210222t2021 us ||||| |||| 00| 0|eng d
040			_aES-MaIEF _bspa _cES-MaIEF
100	1		_aRappaport, Matthew E. _963609
245		0	_aForget what you know _bKeefe shows there’s no hope for dealer-investor jurisprudence _c Matthew E. Rappaport
260			_c2021
500			_aDisponible también en formato electrónico.
500			_aResumen.
520			_aThe so-called “dealer-investor issue” requires courts to differentiate between property held for investment and property held primarily for sale in a taxpayer’s trade or business. The latest case examining the dealer-investor issue is Keefe, a Second Circuit taxpayer appeal of a Tax Court decision. Keefe is an atypical “bad facts” case; the circumstances of the subject property might have favored the taxpayers, but the taxpayers’ failure to fi le income tax returns until receiving an IRS notice of intent to levy might have doomed their case from the beginning. The result for the tax community is two judicial opinions to further muddy the waters of the dealer-investor issue, proving that litigating the subject is unpredictable and tax opinions are necessary whenever practitioners confront this type of matter.
650		4	_943879 _aINVERSIONES EMPRESARIALES
650			_aIMPUESTOS _947460
650		0	_967106 _aESTADOS UNIDOS
650		0	_aJURISPRUDENCIA _947615
773	0		_9164367 _oOP 235/2021/2 _tJournal of Taxation of Investments _w(IEF)51921 _x 0747-9115 _gv. 38, n. 2, Winter 2021, p. 39-49
942			_cART