§122 — Certain reduced uniformed services retirement pay
157 cases·20 followed·12 distinguished·2 criticized·1 limited·4 overruled·118 cited—13% support
Statute Text — 26 U.S.C. §122
In the case of a member or former member of the uniformed services of the United States, gross income does not include the amount of any reduction in his retired or retainer pay pursuant to the provisions of chapter 73 of title 10, United States Code.
In the case of any individual referred to in subsection (a), all amounts received as retired or retainer pay shall be excluded from gross income until there has been so excluded an amount equal to the consideration for the contract. The preceding sentence shall apply only to the extent that the amounts received would, but for such sentence, be includible in gross income.
For purposes of paragraph (1) and section 72(n), the term “consideration for the contract” means, in respect of any individual, the sum of—
the total amount of the reductions before
January 1, 1966
, in his retired or retainer pay by reason of an election under chapter 73 of title 10 of the United States Code, and
any amounts deposited at any time by him pursuant to section 1438 or 1452(d) of such title 10.
Treasury Regulations
- Treas. Reg. §Treas. Reg. §1.122-1 Applicable rules relating to certain reduced uniformed services retirement pay
- Treas. Reg. §Treas. Reg. §1.122-1(a) §1.122-1(a)
- Treas. Reg. §Treas. Reg. §1.122-1(b) §1.122-1(b)
- Treas. Reg. §Treas. Reg. §1.122-1(c) Special rules.
- Treas. Reg. §Treas. Reg. §1.122-1(d) Examples with respect to the Retired Serviceman's Family Protection Plan.
- Treas. Reg. §Treas. Reg. §1.122-1(e) Principles applicable to the Survivor Benefit Plan.
- Treas. Reg. §Treas. Reg. §1.122-1(i) An election made under the Retired Serviceman's Family Protection Plan (10 U.
157 Citing Cases
In Reise we thereupon overruled Aaron and reaffirmed the position we took in Polk that the interest on the tax underpayment was attributable to the taxpayer’s trade or business.
We applied the rationale of Polk and Standing, and we overruled Aaron as an improper and incorrect construction of section 122(d)(5) of the 1939 Code.4 Id.
Section 122 provides for an exclusion for the amount ofany reduction in an individual's military retirement pay pursuant to the individual's survivor's annuity election.
The offer-in-compromise was a 24-mont short-term periodic payment offer made pursuant to section 122(c) (1) (B).
We hold that the excess lots were-held for investment purposes and the proceeds are capital gains and losses .
ection with this case. 3The Court held a telephone conference with the parties on June 29, 2016, to clarify the issues in the case. Petitioner conceded the military retirement pay at issue was not excludable from gross income under sec. 104(a)(4) or sec. 122. Respondent conceded the accuracy-related penalty for an underpayment due to a substantial understatement ofincome tax under sec. 6662(a) and (b)(2). The Court issued an order dated June 30, 2016, confirming the sole remaining issue. 3 Backg
122 (2011) (emphasis added). Uniband does not explain what might trump this statutory provision. Moreover, Uniband was established as a Delaware corporation in 1987 by TMBCI and a third-party not affiliated with TMBCI, and for three years TMBCI held only 51% ofUniband. Thus, TMBCI did not establish Uniband by itself; at its inception Uniband w
122 (2011) (emphasis added). Uniband does not explain what might trump this statutory provision. Moreover, Uniband was established as a Delaware corporation in 1987 by TMBCI and a third party not affiliated with TMBCI, and for three years TMBCI held only 51% of Uniband. Thus, TMBCI did not establish Uniband by itself; at its inception Uniband
Bank of San Diego, 48 P.2d 39 (Cal. 1935); Cal. Natl. Bank of Sacramento v. El Dorado Lime & Minerals Co., 2 P.2d 785, 786 (Cal. 1931); H.D. Roosen -Co. v. Pac. Radio Publq. Co., 11 P.2d 873, 876 (Cal. Ct. App. 1932); see also 75 C.J.S.,.Receivers, sec. 122 (2002). While a debtor's assets are in receivership, creditors are prohibited from taking any action that would interfere with a receiver's possession or - 4 - control of the assets, but creditors are permitted.to take action that does not i
122(c) of the Act. The Internal Revenue Code of 1954 substituted for this a formula deduction resulting in a 14- percentage-point tax rate reduction. See sec. 922, I.R.C. 1954. The WHTC provisions, I.R.C. 1954 secs. 921 and 922, were repealed by sec. 1052(b) of the Tax Reform Act of 1976, Pub. L. 94-455, 90 Stat. 1520, 1648. Several opinions o
122(c) of the Act. The Internal Revenue Code of 1954 substituted for this a formula deduction resulting in a 14- percentage-point tax rate reduction. See sec. 922, I.R.C. 1954. The WHTC provisions, I.R.C. 1954 secs. 921 and 922, were repealed by sec. 1052(b) of the Tax Reform Act of 1976, Pub. L. 94-455, 90 Stat. 1520, 1648. Several opinions o
122(c) of the Act. The Internal Revenue Code of 1954 substituted for this a formula deduction resulting in a 14-percentage-point tax rate reduction. See sec. 922, I.R.C. 1954. The WHTC provisions, secs. 921 and 922, I.R.C. 1954, were repealed by section 1052(b) of the Tax Reform Act of 1976, Pub. L. 94-455, 90 Stat. 1520, 1648. Several opinion
We would not be faithful to the statutory scheme, as revealed by the words employed, if we gave “paid or accrued” a different meaning for the purposes of section 122(d)(6) [I.R.C.
We would not be faithful to the statutory scheme, as revealed by the words employed, if we gave “paid or accrued” a different meaning for the purposes of section 122(d)(6) [I.R.C.
286, 343, current version at 42 U.S.C. secs. 1396-1396v (1994). It provides medical assistance for certain low-income people who meet specific eligibility criteria. Medicare is Federal health insurance for the aged and disabled under tit. XVIII of the SSA, secs. 1801-1815, 79 Stat. 291-297, current version at 42 U.S.C. secs. 1395
ny or affidavits alleging any intent by Bergman to mislead. 3 Generally, the loss of capacity by a principal has the same effect upon the authority of the agent during the period of incapacity as has the principal's death. 1 Restatement, Agency 2d, sec. 122 (1957). - 9 - See also Kuder v. United Natl. Bank, 497 A.2d 1105, 1108 (D.C. App. 1985); In re Berry's Estate, 329 N.Y.S.2d 915, 916 (N.Y. Sur. 1972); cf. In re Estate of Head, 94 N.M. 656, 615 P.2d 271, 274 (App. 1980) (trial court's finding