§1052 — Basis established by the Revenue Act of 1932 or 1934 or by the Internal Revenue Code of 1939

9 cases·1 followed·8 cited11% support

(a)Revenue Act of 1932

If the property was acquired, after February 28, 1913, in any taxable year beginning before January 1, 1934, and the basis thereof, for purposes of the Revenue Act of 1932 was prescribed by section 113(a)(6), (7), or (9) of such Act (47 Stat. 199), then for purposes of this subtitle the basis shall be the same as the basis therein prescribed in the Revenue Act of 1932.

(b)Revenue Act of 1934

If the property was acquired, after February 28, 1913, in any taxable year beginning before January 1, 1936, and the basis thereof, for purposes of the Revenue Act of 1934, was prescribed by section 113(a)(6), (7), or (8) of such Act (48 Stat. 706), then for purposes of this subtitle the basis shall be the same as the basis therein prescribed in the Revenue Act of 1934.

(c)Internal Revenue Code of 1939

If the property was acquired, after February 28, 1913, in a transaction to which the Internal Revenue Code of 1939 applied, and the basis thereof, for purposes of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939, was prescribed by section 113(a)(6), (7), (8), (13), (15), (18), (19), or (23) of such code, then for purposes of this subtitle the basis shall be the same as the basis therein prescribed in the Internal Revenue Code of 1939.

  • Treas. Reg. §Treas. Reg. §1.1052-1 Basis of property established by Revenue Act of 1932
  • Treas. Reg. §Treas. Reg. §1.1052-2 Basis of property established by Revenue Act of 1934
  • Treas. Reg. §Treas. Reg. §1.1052-3 Basis of property established by the Internal Revenue Code of 1939

9 Citing Cases

1647-48. - 104 - their view ofgood tax policy. They simply tell us to treat things as what they really are, no matter what taxpayers call them. When Congress created FSCs and Roth IRAs, it said they didn't need economic substance and taxpayers who used them didn't need to have a nontax purpose. As long as taxpayers comply with

1647-48. - 104 - their view ofgood tax policy. They simply tell us to treat things as what they really are, no matter what taxpayers call them. When Congress created FSCs and Roth IRAs, it said they didn't need economic substance and taxpayers who used them didn't need to have a nontax purpose. As long as taxpayers comply with

John Bauer v. Summit Bancorp 325 F.3d 155 · Cir.
Induni v. Commissioner 98 T.C. 618 · 1992
The Last Best Beef, LLC v. Dudas 506 F.3d 333 · Cir.
Edes v. Verizon Communications, Inc. 417 F.3d 133 · Cir.
The Board of Trustees of the Equity-League Pension Trust Fund v. Cheryl Royce, and Kate MacLeod 238 F.3d 177 · Cir.
Harrods Limited v. Sixty Internet Domain Names 302 F.3d 214 · Cir.