§1312 — Circumstances of adjustment

53 cases·11 followed·4 distinguished·2 questioned·4 criticized·32 cited21% support

The circumstances under which the adjustment provided in section 1311 is authorized are as follows:

(1)Double inclusion of an item of gross income

The determination requires the inclusion in gross income of an item which was erroneously included in the gross income of the taxpayer for another taxable year or in the gross income of a related taxpayer.

(2)Double allowance of a deduction or credit

The determination allows a deduction or credit which was erroneously allowed to the taxpayer for another taxable year or to a related taxpayer.

(3)Double exclusion of an item of gross income
(A)Items included in income

The determination requires the exclusion from gross income of an item included in a return filed by the taxpayer or with respect to which tax was paid and which was erroneously excluded or omitted from the gross income of the taxpayer for another taxable year, or from the gross income of a related taxpayer; or

(B)Items not included in income

The determination requires the exclusion from gross income of an item not included in a return filed by the taxpayer and with respect to which the tax was not paid but which is includible in the gross income of the taxpayer for another taxable year or in the gross income of a related taxpayer.

(4)Double disallowance of a deduction or credit

The determination disallows a deduction or credit which should have been allowed to, but was not allowed to, the taxpayer for another taxable year, or to a related taxpayer.

(5)Correlative deductions and inclusions for trusts or estates and legatees, beneficiaries, or heirs

The determination allows or disallows any of the additional deductions allowable in computing the taxable income of estates or trusts, or requires or denies any of the inclusions in the computation of taxable income of beneficiaries, heirs, or legatees, specified in subparts A to E, inclusive (secs. 641 and following, relating to estates, trusts, and beneficiaries) of part I of subchapter J of this chapter, or corresponding provisions of prior internal revenue laws, and the correlative inclusion or deduction, as the case may be, has been erroneously excluded, omitted, or included, or disallowed, omitted, or allowed, as the case may be, in respect of the related taxpayer.

(6)Correlative deductions and credits for certain related corporations

The determination allows or disallows a deduction (including a credit) in computing the taxable income (or, as the case may be, net income, normal tax net income, or surtax net income) of a corporation, and a correlative deduction or credit has been erroneously allowed, omitted, or disallowed, as the case may be, in respect of a related taxpayer described in section 1313(c)(7).

(7)Basis of property after erroneous treatment of a prior transaction
(A)General rule

The determination determines the basis of property, and in respect of any transaction on which such basis depends, or in respect of any transaction which was erroneously treated as affecting such basis, there occurred, with respect to a taxpayer described in subparagraph (B) of this paragraph, any of the errors described in subparagraph (C) of this paragraph.

(B)Taxpayers with respect to whom the erroneous treatment occurred

The taxpayer with respect to whom the erroneous treatment occurred must be—

(i)

the taxpayer with respect to whom the determination is made,

(ii)

a taxpayer who acquired title to the property in the transaction and from whom, mediately or immediately, the taxpayer with respect to whom the determination is made derived title, or

(iii)

a taxpayer who had title to the property at the time of the transaction and from whom, mediately or immediately, the taxpayer with respect to whom the determination is made derived title, if the basis of the property in the hands of the taxpayer with respect to whom the determination is made is determined under section 1015(a) (relating to the basis of property acquired by gift).

(C)Prior erroneous treatment

With respect to a taxpayer described in subparagraph (B) of this paragraph—

(i)

there was an erroneous inclusion in, or omission from, gross income,

(ii)

there was an erroneous recognition, or nonrecognition, of gain or loss, or

(iii)

there was an erroneous deduction of an item properly chargeable to capital account or an erroneous charge to capital account of an item properly deductible.

  • Treas. Reg. §Treas. Reg. §1.1312-1 Double inclusion of an item of gross income
  • Treas. Reg. §Treas. Reg. §1.1312-1(a) Paragraph (1) of section 1312 applies if the determination requires the inclusion in a taxpayer's gross income of an item which was erroneously included in the gross income of the same taxpayer for another taxable year or of a related taxpayer for the same or another taxable year.
  • Treas. Reg. §Treas. Reg. §1.1312-1(b) §1.1312-1(b)
  • Treas. Reg. §Treas. Reg. §1.1312-2 Double allowance of a deduction or credit
  • Treas. Reg. §Treas. Reg. §1.1312-2(a) Paragraph (2) of section 1312 applies if the determination allows the taxpayer a deduction or credit which was erroneously allowed the same taxpayer for another taxable year or a related taxpayer for the same or another taxable year.
  • Treas. Reg. §Treas. Reg. §1.1312-2(b) §1.1312-2(b)
  • Treas. Reg. §Treas. Reg. §1.1312-3 Double exclusion of an item of gross income
  • Treas. Reg. §Treas. Reg. §1.1312-3(a) Items included in income or with respect to which a tax was paid.
  • Treas. Reg. §Treas. Reg. §1.1312-3(b) Items not included in income and with respect to which the tax was not paid.
  • Treas. Reg. §Treas. Reg. §1.1312-4 Double disallowance of a deduction or credit
  • Treas. Reg. §Treas. Reg. §1.1312-4(a) Paragraph (4) of section 1312 applies if the determination disallows a deduction or credit which should have been, but was not, allowed to the same taxpayer for another taxable year or to a related taxpayer for the same or another taxable year.
  • Treas. Reg. §Treas. Reg. §1.1312-4(b) §1.1312-4(b)
  • Treas. Reg. §Treas. Reg. §1.1312-5 Correlative deductions and inclusions for trusts or estates and legatees, beneficiaries, or heirs
  • Treas. Reg. §Treas. Reg. §1.1312-5(a) Paragraph (5) of section 1312 applies to distributions by a trust or an estate to the beneficiaries, heirs, or legatees.
  • Treas. Reg. §Treas. Reg. §1.1312-5(b) §1.1312-5(b)
  • Treas. Reg. §Treas. Reg. §1.1312-5(c) §1.1312-5(c)
  • Treas. Reg. §Treas. Reg. §1.1312-5(d) §1.1312-5(d)
  • Treas. Reg. §Treas. Reg. §1.1312-5(e) §1.1312-5(e)
  • Treas. Reg. §Treas. Reg. §1.1312-6 Correlative deductions and credits for certain related corporations
  • Treas. Reg. §Treas. Reg. §1.1312-6(a) Paragraph (6) of section 1312 applies if the determination allows or disallows a deduction (including a credit) to a corporation, and if a correlative deduction or credit has been erroneously allowed, omitted, or disallowed in respect of a related taxpayer described in section 1313(c)(7).
  • Treas. Reg. §Treas. Reg. §1.1312-6(b) §1.1312-6(b)
  • Treas. Reg. §Treas. Reg. §1.1312-7 Basis of property after erroneous treatment of a prior transaction
  • Treas. Reg. §Treas. Reg. §1.1312-7(a) §1.1312-7(a)
  • Treas. Reg. §Treas. Reg. §1.1312-7(b) §1.1312-7(b)
  • Treas. Reg. §Treas. Reg. §1.1312-7(c) §1.1312-7(c)

53 Citing Cases

CRIT. G. Steven & Carrie J. Neff, Petitioner T.C. Memo. 2012-244 · 2012

Again, we disagree with petitioners.

FOLLOWED Louisiana Housing Development Corp., Petitioner T.C. Memo. 2024-3 · 2024

§ 12:1311 (2007), while section 1312 provides that the articles of organization can require that the LLC be managed by “one or more managers who may, but need not, be members.” La.

FOLLOWED Frank R. Sanchez, Petitioner · 2003

the mitigation provisions of sections 1311 through 1314 apply because (1) respondent’s determination to disallow the NOL deduction claimed on the 1995 tax return, and (2) respondent’s refusal to correct the error by allowing the NOL carryback to 1987, constitute a double disallowance of a deduction pursuant to section 1312(4).

Bradley T. & Terri Jensen, Petitioner T.C. Memo. 2012-244 · 2012

harge petitioners with the income in dispute, it would appear that responden would be allowed to open up petitioners' 2004 tax years for the appropriate inco e adjustments under the mitigation provisions ofthe Code. See secs. 1311 1314, particularly sec. 1312(3)(B). - 28 - [*281Petitioners contend that the income adjustments regarding the $710,376 should have been charged notjust to them but also to GSN and TerSen, the family limited partnerships that owned four ofthe life insurance policies. Ag

The following requirements must be met for reliefunder the mitigation provisions: (1) there must have been a "determination" as defined in section 1313(a); (2) that determination caused one ofthe errors described in section 1312; and (3) on the date ofthat determination, any adjustment to correct the error is - 9 - [*9] barred by operation oflaw (other than a section 7122 compromise or these mitigation provisions).

The following requirements must be met for reliefunder the mitigation provisions: (1) there must have been a "determination" as defined in section 1313(a); (2) that determination caused one ofthe errors described in section 1312; and (3) on the date ofthat determination, any adjustment to correct the error is - 9 - [*9] barred by operation oflaw (other than a section 7122 compromise or these mitigation provisions).

be applied may be described generally as follows: (1) There has been a determination (as defined in section 1313(a)); (2) the determination must fall within one of the specified "circumstances of adjustment" or "doubling-up" situations described in section 1312; (3) with respect to the treatment of the item in question for the determination year, the party against whom the mitigation provisions are invoked must have maintained a position inconsistent with the treatment of the item in another ye

(a) General Rule.--If a determination (as defined in section 1313) is described in one or more of the paragraphs of section 1312 and, on the date of the determination, correction of the effect of the error referred to in the applicable paragraph of section 1312 is prevented by the operation of any law or rule of law, other than this part [i.e., secs.

Alan B. & Barbara W. Steiner, Petitioner T.C. Memo. 1997-140 · 1997

(a) General Rule.--If a determination (as defined in section 1313) is described in one or more of the paragraphs of section 1312 and, on the date of the determination, correction of the effect of the error referred to in the applicable paragraph of section 1312 is prevented by the operation of any law or rule of law, other than this part [i.e., secs.

To claim the benefits of the mitigation provisions, a taxpayer must show that (1) there was a determination as defined by section 1313(a); (2) the determination falls within specified circumstances of adjustment set forth in section 1312; and (3) the party against whom the mitigation provisions are being invoked has maintained a position inconsistent with the challenged erroneous inclusion, exclusion, recognition, or nonrecognition of income as described by section 1311(b).

Frontier Custom Builders, Inc., Petitioner T.C. Memo. 2013-231 · 2013

Mitigation Section 1311 provides for the corr etion ofthe effect ofcertain errors under circumstances specified in section 1312 hen one or more provisions oflaw, such as the statute oflimitations, would otherv ise prevent such correction.

Michael L. Conn, Petitioner T.C. Memo. 2011-166 · 2011

between the two inconsistent positions· is described in section 1312; and (4)4 the other tax years are closed for adjustment -under the applicable -period of -limitations Respondent disagrees Respondent asserts thatspetitioner does not correctly state the conditions for mitigation;- and that even ifrhe did accurately state, the conditions, she failed to demonstrate that he mét all of the required condit

Hugh G. & Norma J. King, Petitioner T.C. Memo. 2006-112 · 2006

th exceptions not applicable here) if: (1) The Commissioner has made a final determination, as defined in section 1313(a); (2) the determination falls within one of the specified “circumstances of adjustment” or “doubling-up” situations described in section 1312; (3) the party against whom the mitigation provisions are invoked or a related party must have maintained, with respect to the treatment of the item in question for the determination year, a position inconsistent with the treatment of th

Mun Li Fong, Petitioner T.C. Memo. 1998-181 · 1998

limited exceptions not here applicable): 1. A final "determination", as defined in section 1313(a), must have occurred; 2. The determination must fall within one of the specified "circumstances of adjustment" or "doubling-up" situations described in section 1312; 3. The party against whom the mitigation provisions are invoked or a related party must have maintained, with respect to the treatment of the item in question for the determination year, a position inconsistent with the treatment of the

Rosalyn Deutsch, Petitioner T.C. Memo. 1997-470 · 1997

te, respondent lost the opportunity for a comprehensive resolution of the issues in this case in a consolidated proceeding that would have avoided any potential whipsaw. But see the provisions for statutory mitigation, secs. 1311-1314, particularly, sec. 1312(5); see also sec. 1.1312-5(a)(3), Income Tax Regs., and transferee liability, sec. 6901(h). As to petitioner's status as a nontransferee, see John Ownbey Co. v. Commissioner, 645 F.2d 540, 546 (6th Cir. 1981), revg. T.C. Memo. 1978-482; Sto

Grant K. Hagestad, Petitioner T.C. Memo. 1997-273 · 1997

1311(a); (3) the determination was within one of the categories enumerated in section 1312 as a circumstance of adjustment (e.g., a double allowance of a deduction, sec.

Harvey M. Pert, Transferee, Petitioner 105 T.C. No. 24 · 1995

227, 313. At least since 1934, the U.S. Treasury Department has had two forms on which closing agreements may be executed. XIII-1 C.B. 162, 162-163 (1934). Form 866 provides for a final and conclusive agreement between the Commissioner and the taxpayer to the total tax liability of the taxpayer. Form 906 provides for a final and

227, 313. At least since 1934, the U.S. Treasury Department has had two forms on which closing agreements may be executed. XIII-1 C.B. 162, 162-163 (1934). Form 866 provides for a final and conclusive agreement between the Commissioner and the taxpayer to the total tax liability of the taxpayer. Form 906 provides for a final and

Estate of Sorelle v. Commissioner 31 T.C. 272 · 1958
Patrick McGrogan v. Commissioner of Internal Reven 58 V.I. 804 · Cir.
Spruance v. Commissioner 60 T.C. 141 · 1973
Illinois Lumber & Material Dealers Ass'n Health Insurance Trust v. United States 794 F.3d 907 · Cir.
Chertkof v. Commissioner 66 T.C. 496 · 1976
Cotter v. Commissioner 40 T.C. 506 · 1963
Oden v. Commissioner 56 T.C. 569 · 1971
Yagoda v. Commissioner 39 T.C. 170 · 1962
Weinrich v. Commissioner 37 T.C. 365 · 1961
FMC Corp. v. Commissioner 100 T.C. 595 · 1993
Bolten v. Commissioner 95 T.C. 397 · 1990
Money v. Commissioner 89 T.C. 46 · 1987
Hollingsworth v. Commissioner 86 T.C. 91 · 1986
Estate of Kappel v. Commissioner 70 T.C. 415 · 1978
Kent Homes, Inc. v. Commissioner 55 T.C. 820 · 1971
Forrester v. Commissioner 49 T.C. 499 · 1968
Hoffman v. Commissioner 47 T.C. 218 · 1966
Feldman v. Commissioner 47 T.C. 329 · 1966
Frentz v. Commissioner 44 T.C. 485 · 1965
Perkins v. Commissioner 36 T.C. 313 · 1961
Estate of Gill v. Commissioner 35 T.C. 1208 · 1961
Bradford v. Commissioner 34 T.C. 1051 · 1960
Cory v. Commissioner 29 T.C. 903 · 1958
Citizens Coal v. EPA · Cir.
United States v. Hercules, Inc. 247 F.3d 706 · Cir.
Citizens Coal Council and Kentucky Resources Council, Inc. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency 447 F.3d 879 · Cir.

New cases, delivered.

Get notified when new Tax Court opinions drop.