30-Jun-2020 8:37am
30-Jun-2020 9:20am
30-Jun-2020 10:51am
30-Jun-2020 10:58am
30-Jun-2020 11:53am
30-Jun-2020 12:43pm
30-Jun-2020 12:58pm
But does tax law have to "honor" that law?
30-Jun-2020 1:32pm
HenryDavid wrote:Employee is paying rent effectively to employer or a related entity? sounds like rental income currently to employer, and compensation down the road to the employee (and deduction to employer/affiliate) when employer transfers the property down the road... as one possibility
Jeff-Ohio wrote:Sure sounds like an installment sale to me. These payments don’t appear to be rental income. And, importantly, they don’t appear to be option payments. Sure sounds like a “contract for deed” situation…you make all the payments and then I’ll transfer the deed.
30-Jun-2020 1:51pm
30-Jun-2020 5:39pm
sounds like rental income currently to employer, and compensation down the road to the employee (and deduction to employer/affiliate) when employer transfers the property down the road... as one possibility
30-Jun-2020 8:17pm
Faced with the inability of B and C to agree between themselves how to conform their actions with those which the minutes direct them to take, the examining agent has said that he is unable to make the determination that, as claimed by the taxpayers, Company intended to transfer Parcel Y to its shareholders. A judicially created test does exist for the determination of intent in such a situation. There must be some "objective conduct, reflecting an intention... to dispense with further use of the corporate form...book entries, although some evidence of an informal distribution, are determinative only where they are consistent with the conduct of the parties. " Messer v. Commissioner, 438 F.2d 774, 778 (1971). In this instance, the inconsistency of the actions of B make it difficult to determine if the book entries (in this instance, the minutes) were consistent with the conduct of the parties.
If, as the taxpayer here contends, the Company retained only "bare legal title" to Parcel Y, then equitable title must have been conveyed to someone else. Taxpayer concedes that this was not done in a particularly artful or formalistic fashion, but would have us read the cases cited (both those discussed above and others) to mean that formalities do not necessarily make a difference, so long as the result and the intent are clear.
'''' This case is concerned with the disposition of real property. Such dispositions are, in every state, governed by the requirement of a signed writing, as provided in the common law Statute of Frauds. The particular state statute controlling this case is section *****, which provides:
No estate or interest in real property, other than a lease for term not exceeding one year, nor any trust or power concerning such property, can be created, transferred or declared otherwise than by operation of law or by a conveyance or other instrument in writing, subscribed to by the party creating, transferring or declaring it...and executed with such formalities as are required by law.
The formalities required by state law include one that conveyances of "any estate or interest" in land are made by deed, which must be signed and recorded. In this case, no deed transferring the property in question was ever reduced to writing, signed or recorded until the sale was closed in August.
We therefore conclude that Company failed to comply with local statutory requirements for the conveyance of this land. It follows that no distribution of that asset was made to the shareholders within the twelve-month period beginning on the date of adoption of the plan.
1-Jul-2020 7:34am
1-Jul-2020 12:44pm
Client will not want to amend 2018 so maybe a written agreement effective for 2019?