§1021 — Sale of annuities

18 citing cases

Statute Text — 26 U.S.C. §1021

In case of the sale of an annuity contract, the adjusted basis shall in no case be less than zero.

Treasury Regulations

Treas. Reg. §1.1021-1Sale of annuities Show full text ▾ Collapse ▴

In the case of a transfer for value of an annuity contract to which section 72(g) and paragraph (a) of § 1.72-10 apply, the transferor shall adjust his basis in such contract as of the time immediately prior to such transfer by subtracting from the premiums or other consideration he has paid or is deemed to have paid for such contract all amounts he has received or is deemed to have received under such annuity contract to the extent that such amounts were not includible in the gross income of the transferor or other recipient under the applicable income tax law. In any case where the amounts which were not includible in the gross income of the recipient were received or deemed to have been received by such transferor exceed the amounts paid or deemed paid by him, the adjusted basis of the contract shall be zero. The income realized by the transferor on such a transfer shall not exceed the total of the amounts received as consideration for the transfer.

18 Citing Cases

Estate of Martin J. Machat, Deceased; Avril Giacobbi and Eric R. Sklar, Executors, Petitioners T.C. Memo. 1998-154 · 1998

ERISA section 1021(a), 88 Stat. 104, added section 401(a)(13), which requires tax-qualified plans to provide "that benefits provided under the plan may not be assigned or alienated." This prohibition generally precludes the plan from recognizing the rights of creditors with respect to a participant's interest under the plan. In the years following the en

Smith v. Commissioner T.C. Memo. 1996-292 · 1996

1021(c), 88 Stat. 829, 935, to require tax-qualified plans to provide "that benefits provided under the plan may not be assigned or alienated". ERISA, sec. 514(a), 29 U.S.C. sec. 1144(a) (1988), provides that the labor title of ERISA preempts State law. Consequently, after the enactment of ERISA, it was unclear whether this preemption provisio

SIH Partners LLLP, Explorer Partner Corporation, Tax Matters Partner, Petitioners · 2018

The Limited, Inc. and Consolidated Subsidiaries, Petitioner 113 T.C. No. 13 · 1999

Powell v. Commissioner 101 T.C. 489 · 1993

Darby v. Commissioner 97 T.C. 51 · 1991

Francis Jungers Sole Proprietorship v. Commissioner 78 T.C. 326 · 1982

Lonecke v. CitiGroup Pension Plan 584 F.3d 457 · Cir.

In Re: Citigroup Pension Plan ERISA · Cir.

Garratt, Reg G. v. Knowles, James E. 245 F.3d 941 · Cir.

United States v. Jane Boyd 991 F.3d 1077 · Cir.

Sofco Erectors, Inc. v. Trustees of the Ohio Operating Eng'rs Pension Fund 15 F.4th 407 · Cir.

Donna Browe v. CTC Corp. · Cir.

In Re Citigroup ERISA Litigation 662 F.3d 128 · Cir.

Reg G. Garratt v. James E. Knowles, Nancy Knowles, Charles L. Knowles, Katherine Knowles Strasburg, Margaret Knowles Schink, E. Lawrence Keyes, R. Euguene Goodson, Defrees & Fisk and John W. Hupp 245 F.3d 941 · Cir.

Eastman Kodak Company v. Stwb, Inc. 452 F.3d 215 · Cir.

National Security Systems, Inc. v. Iola 700 F.3d 65 · Cir.

Eastman Kodak Co. v. STWB, Inc. 452 F.3d 215 · Cir.

§1021 — Sale of annuities

18 Citing Cases

New cases, delivered.