§1014 — Basis of property acquired from a decedent

1014, the surviving spouse has a step-up in basis for the portion of the joint tenancy included in decedent's gross estate. On the other hand, the marital deduction is inapplicable when the surviving spouse is not a citizen of the United States.

1014, the surviving spouse has a step-up in basis for the portion of the joint tenancy included in decedent’s gross estate. On the other hand, the marital deduction is inapplicable when the surviving spouse is not a citizen of the United States. At the same time, sec. 2040(b) is inapplicable in that situation.

However, section 1014 does not apply to “property which constitutes a right to receive an item of income in respect of a decedent under section 691.” Sec.

The puraose of section 1014 is, in general, to provide a basis for pro)erty acquired from a decedent that is equal to the value placed 2pon such property for purposes of the Federal estate tax.

Section 1014 generally provides that the basis of property acquired from a decedent is the fair market value of the property at the date of the decedent's death or on the alternate valuation date. Sec. 1014(a). Respondent's determination is presumed correct, and the burden of proof rests with petitioners to show the correct basis in their La-Z-Boy

9 Section 1014 resets basis in property to its fair market value at the time of its owner’s death. This results in a smaller taxable gain realized by the heir if he ever sells the property and the property’s value has increased. 11 A. Planning the Split-Dollar Life-Insurance While Swanson had done a split-dollar insurance arrangement before, he had

1014; one count ofincome tax evasion in violation ofsection 7201; and multiple counts ofstructuring financial transactions in violation oftitle 31 U.S.C. sec. 5324(a)(3) and (d)(1). Petitioner was sentenced to 33 months in prison and, inter alia, ordered to pay tax restitution of$264,335 to the United States pursuant to the terms of 18 U.S.C.

1014; 1 count oftheft ofhealthcare funds under 18 U.S.C. sec. 669; and 3 counts oftax evasion under section 7201. Count 20 ofthe indictment (for tax evasion under section 7201) states, in pertinent part: During the period from on or about January 1, 2000, to on or about November 5, 2001 * * * [petitioner], a resident ofDurham, North Carolina *

Backemeyerwas not entitled to a step-up in basis under section 1014 when she inherited the farm inputs from her late husband in 2011.

1014; and (3) transferring assets and concealing them from the bankruptcytrustee, in violation of 18 U.S.C. sec. 152(7). In the stipulated factual basis for plea, petitioner admitted that he included a $554,622 fraudulent Schedule E expense as part ofhis 2001 individual income tax return. He admitted that he underpaid his tax by $216,498 and t

st-1, (b) $825,213 to QTIP trust-2, and (c) $10,143,808 to the marital deduction trust (collectively, the marital trusts). All ofthe underlying trust assets, including the OG&E stock transferred to Mr. Kite in 1995, received a step-up in basis under sec. 1014. - 9 - [*9] residuarytrust property was reported on Mr. Kite's estate's Federal estate tax return as $200,406, but it was not included in the marital deduction claimed by Mr. Kite's estate.1° The Court will refer to Virginia V. Kite GST Exe

st-1, (b) $825,213 to QTIP trust-2, and (c) $10,143,808 to the marital deduction trust (collectively, the marital trusts). All ofthe underlying trust assets, including the OG&E stock transferred to Mr. Kite in 1995, received a step-up in basis under sec. 1014. - 9 - [*9] residuarytrust property was reported on Mr. Kite's estate's Federal estate tax return as $200,406, but it was not included in the marital deduction claimed by Mr. Kite's estate.1° The Court will refer to Virginia V. Kite GST Exe

and sec. 1.742-1, Income Tax Regs., the purchasing partner would take an initial outside basis in the amount ofhis purchase price or other consideration paid. For an acquisition from a decedent partner, the acquiring partner would be entitled under sec. 1014 to a "stepped-up basis". In neither case would the partnership have any reason to keep track ofthe basis ofthe partnership interest in the hands ofthe transferee partner. This could also be the case ifan individual contributes built-in loss

and sec. 1.742-1, Income Tax Regs., the purchasing partner would take an initial outside basis in the amount of his purchase price or other consideration paid. For an acquisition from a decedent partner, the acquiring partner would be entitled under sec. 1014 to a “stepped-up basis”. In neither case would the partnership have any reason to keep track of the basis of the partnership interest in the hands of the transferee partner. This could also be the case if an individual contributes built-in

36(c) provides that the term "purchase" means any acquisition, but only if: (1) The property is not acquired from a related person; or (2) the basis of the property in the hands of the acquiring person is not determined in whole or in part by the basis of the property in the hands of the seller, or under sec.

section 1014 of making the referenced false statements . The 10th count sought forfeiture of funds associated with .the false statements . The indictment alleged in part that Michael,Boulware certified, as a representative of Hawaiian .Isles Enterprises, Inc ., that he had inspected and accepted delivery of arcade games, pool tables, and jukeboxes

heir AMT capital loss resulting from the sale of their Veritas shares is not included in the calculation of an ATNOL. Sec. 57 preference items are considered only to the extent they increase the NOL for the year for regular tax purposes. Sec. 56(d)(2)(A). Absent an event causing an adjustment to the bases, such as the death of the stockholder, see sec. 1014, the difference between the bases will be the same as the amount of income included in AMTI on account of the exercise of the ISO.

A taxpayer must establish the basis of the property for purposes of determining the amount of gain or loss the taxpayer must recognize. “Proof of basis is a specific fact which the taxpayer has the burden of proving.” O’Neill v. Commissioner, 271 F.2d 44, 50 (9th Cir. 1959), affg. T.C. Memo. 1957-193. - 19 - Although it is highly probab

The basis of property acquired by gift is the same as it would be in the hands of the donor or the last preceding owner by whom it was not acquired by gift, except that if such basis is greater than the fair market value of the property at the time of the gift, the basis for determining loss is the fair market value of the property. Sec.

1014.6 Petitioner’s criminal conviction stemmed from his practice of opening interest-bearing bank accounts under false names, addresses, and Social Security numbers in an attempt to conceal his financial activities. Despite petitioner’s awareness of the requirements to file Federal income tax returns and maintain books of account and records

The purpose of section 1014 is, in general, to provide a basis for property acquired from a decedent that is equal to the value placed upon such property for purposes of the Federal estate tax.

Discussion Petitioner argues that because the joint tenancy was created prior to January 1, 1977, and because she provided no part of the consideration for the purchase, the contribution rule of section 2040(a) is applicable and, consequently, under section 1014, she is entitled to a stepped-up basis in 100 percent of the property.

Discussion Petitioner argues that because the joint tenancy was created prior to January 1, 1977, and because she provided no part of the consideration for the purchase, the contribution rule of section 2040(a) is applicable and, consequently, under section 1014, she is entitled to a stepped-up basis in 100 percent of the property.

$600,000. Specifically, it is petitioners' argument that the trust's corpus, including Oak Den, became property of Mrs. Ogden's gross estate upon her death, and that in becoming part of said gross estate obtained a stepped-up basis by operation of section 1014. In support of their contention, petitioners advance two arguments. With respect to their first argument, petitioners point to a provision contained in Mr. Ogden's will and contend that the language of such provision served to transfer th

Romeyn also pled guilty in 1987 to one count of making material false statements on the Landing 1982 Federal income tax return in violation of section 7206(1); these material false statements consisted, in part, of falsely deducting payments made to R&S as business expenses. On May 19, 1989, petitioner was convicted of willful attempt

1014(h)(3) of the Technical and Miscellaneous (continued...) - 24 - a result, the transfers qualify for the grandchild exclusion if they constitute transfers to a "grandchild of the transferor" within the meaning of the statute. The Grandchildren's Trusts were established for the benefit of Mr. Peterson's grandchildren by a prior marriage. Th