(1) such amount is received after termination of such individual’s agreement to perform such services for such company,
(2) such individual performs no services for such company after such termination and before the close of such taxable year,
(3) such individual enters into a covenant not to compete against such company which [Why not "and such covenant"] applies to at least the 1-year period beginning on the date of such termination, and....
Spell Czech wrote:Can anyone here locate a definition of the word "such" as it is being used in this Code section? I don't want an example, I want a definition.
(i) In general
The term “acquisition indebtedness” means any indebtedness which—
(I) is incurred in acquiring, constructing, or substantially improving any qualified residence of the taxpayer, and
(II) is secured by such that residence.
(1) that amount is received after termination of that individual’s agreement to perform those services for that company,
(2) that individual performs no services for that company after the termination and before the close of the taxable year,
(3) such individual enters into a covenant not to compete against that company which applies to at least the 1-year period beginning on the date of the termination, and
Is SSA's SSR 71-22 (the ruling linked just above) even relevant in determining whether the earnings in the OP are subject to IRC Section 1401's self-employment tax?
For renewal commissions, this is virtually impossible, and a few Tax Court cases have said so:
to which I would say "No, it doesn't seem taxation related" and I would point out that upon reading SSA's Ruling SSR 71-22, I discovered that by its own terms the SSA Ruling asserts that it is "For purposes of work deductions under section 203 [of the Social Security Act]...." And I know that Section 203 of the Social Security Act has *nothing whatsoever* to do with determining whether income is self-employment income for purposes of Internal Revenue Code Section 1401."For purpose of work deductions" seems taxation related, no?
...shouldn't that be "section 203" rather than "section 302"?"The purpose of this ruling is to update SSR 64-57, C.B. 1964, p. 68, restating the position set forth therein under the current provisions of section 302 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 403)."
...is that just another typo?"...the last act required to entitle him to fist-year commissions."
Users browsing this forum: chicagocpa, Gjkycpa, Google Adsense [Bot], GRobCPA, JAD, JR1, lckent, NGeorgiaCPA, Nilodop, Seaside CPA, sjrcpa, SumwunLost, TAXMASTER and 120 guests