§1002 — Repealed. Pub. L. 94–455, title XIX, § 1901(b)(28)(B)(i), Oct. 4, 1976, 90 Stat. 1799]
231 cases·45 followed·9 distinguished·9 questioned·4 criticized·5 overruled·159 cited—19% support
Statute Text — 26 U.S.C. §1002
[§ 1002. Repealed. Pub. L. 94–455, title XIX, § 1901(b)(28)(B)(i), Oct. 4, 1976, 90 Stat. 1799] Section, act Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 295, related to the recognition of the entire amount of gain or loss determined under section 1001 on the sale or exchange of property. Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries Effective Date of RepealRepeal effective for taxable years beginning after Dec. 31, 1976, see section 1901(d) of Pub. L. 94–455, set out as an Effective Date of 1976 Amendment note under section 2 of this title.
Treasury Regulations
- Treas. Reg. §Treas. Reg. §1.1002-1 Sales or exchanges
- Treas. Reg. §Treas. Reg. §1.1002-1(a) General rule.
- Treas. Reg. §Treas. Reg. §1.1002-1(b) Strict construction of exceptions from general rule.
- Treas. Reg. §Treas. Reg. §1.1002-1(c) Certain exceptions to general rule.
- Treas. Reg. §Treas. Reg. §1.1002-1(d) Exchange.
231 Citing Cases
In sum, we hold for petitioner on the issue of the recapture of the investment tax credit.
210 (1981), the Supreme Court held that the Federal statutes then governing military retirement pay prevented State courts from treating military retirement pay as community property. In response to McCarty, Congress enacted in 1982 the Department of Defense Authorization Act, 1983, Pub. L. 97-252, sec. 1002, 96 Stat. 730 (1982), which added section 1408 to title 10 of the United States Code. Under 10 U.S.C. sec. 1408(c)(1) (2006), a State court may treat disposable military retired pay in a div
Commissioner, 317 F.2d at 795: [O]ne need not assume the benefits and burdens ofownership in propertybefore exchanging it but may properly acquire title solely for the purpose ofexchange and accept title and transfer it in exchange for other like property, all as a part ofthe same transaction with no resulting gain which is recognizable under Section 1002 ofthe Internal Revenue Code of 1954.
Commissioner, 317 F.2d at 795: [O]ne need not assume the benefits and burdens ofownership in propertybefore exchanging it but may properly acquire title solely for the purpose ofexchange and accept title and transfer it in exchange for other like property, all as a part ofthe same transaction with no resulting gain which is recognizable under Section 1002 ofthe Internal Revenue Code of 1954.
Commissioner, 317 F.2d at 795: [O]ne need not assume the benefits and burdens ofownership in propertybefore exchanging it but may properly acquire title solely for the purpose ofexchange and accept title and transfer it in exchange for other like property, all as a part ofthe same transaction with no resulting gain which is recognizable under Section 1002 ofthe Internal Revenue Code of 1954.
1002 (2006)), generally applies to VEBAs. -8- [*8] PBCjoined the American Workers Group). But the United Fund"--a purported VEBA trust with essentially the same terms and employer-trustee"-- actually ended up administering it." D. Eligibility for Death Benefits The Pinns were the owners ofPBC and so they couldn'tjoin the union representing th
1002 (2006)), generally applies to VEBAs. -8- [*8] PBCjoined the American Workers Group). But the United Fund"--a purported VEBA trust with essentially the same terms and employer-trustee"-- actually ended up administering it." D. Eligibility for Death Benefits The Pinns were the owners ofPBC and so they couldn'tjoin the union representing th
1002(7) (2000) as: any employee or former employee of an employer, or any member or former member of an employee organization, who is or may become eligible to receive a benefit of any type from an employee benefit plan which covers employees of such employer or members of such organization, or whose beneficiaries may be eligible to receive an
730, which added section 1408 to title 10 of the United States Code (hereinafter 10 U.S.C. sec. 1408).9 Under 10 U.S.C. sec. 1408(c)(1) (2000), a State court may treat disposable military retired pay in a divorce proceeding either as property solely of the servicemember or as property of the military retiree and his or her spous
730-735 (1982). The provisions of 10 U.S.C. sec. 1408, Payment of retired or retainer pay in compliance with court orders, relevant to the case at hand provide as follows: (a) Definitions.--In this section: (1) The term “court” means-- (A) any court of competent jurisdiction of any State * * * * * * * * * * (2) The term “court o
1002 (23) is “an individual’s accrued benefit”, we find no indication that this term has a different meaning for purposes of sec. 411(d)(6). - 16 - benefits which he would have received. [S. Rept. 93-383, at 45 (1974), 1974-3 C.B. (Supp.) 80, 124.5] There appears to be only one case that has addressed the issue of whether a retirement supplem
60-percent of the value of the transferred property because the taxpayers’ 40-percent stock interest was increased proportionately by the transfer and that such increase was analogous to receipt of consideration. The Court of Appeals agreed citing sec. 1002, 1939 I.R.C., which contains the same language as the current version of sec. 2512(b). See id. at 152- 153. - 62 - undivided interests in the leased property. Petitioner never transferred 25-percent fractional interests in the leased propert
60 percent of the value of the transferred property because the taxpayers’ 40-percent stock interest was increased proportionately by the transfer and that such increase was analogous to receipt of consideration. The Court of Appeals agreed, citing sec. 1002, I.R.C. 1939, which contains the same language as the current version of sec. 2512(b). See id. at 152-153. Although the majority describe the gifts as “undivided 25-percent interests in the leased land”, majority op. p. 389, the 15-percent
Venue for such appeals was set forth in section 1002 of the Revenue Act of 1926.
Because of the definition of “person (other than an individual)” to include an estate and confusion as to where returns were to be filed, the cases construing section 1002 of the Revenue Act of 1926 are not on point or particularly helpful in the present inquiry.