§541 — Imposition of personal holding company tax

on ofan affiliated group's tax liability shall be determined by adding together the following categories oftax: - 8 - (a) The tax imposed by section 11 on the consolidatedtaxable income for such year (see §1.1502-11 for the computation of consolidatedtaxable income); (b) The tax imposed by section 541 on the consolidated undistributed personal holding company income; (c) Ifparagraph (b) ofthis section does not apply, the aggregate ofthe taxes imposed by section 541 on the separate undistributed

ty shall be determined by adding together the following categories of tax: (a) The tax imposed by section 11 on the consolidated taxable income for such year (see §1.1502-11 for the computation of consolidated taxable income); (b) The tax imposed by section 541 on the consolidated undistributed personal holding company income; (c) If paragraph (b) of this section does not apply, the aggregate of the taxes imposed by section 541 on the separate undistributed personal holding company income of the

541(c)(2)(2000). In re Yuhas, 104 F.3d at 613. In re Yuhas did not involve a Federal tax lien or levy, nor did it involve post-discharge collection activity. Moreover, even if the holding of In re Yuhas were applicable and required the exclusion of petitioner’s section 401(k) retirement account from the chapter 7 bankruptcy estate, a Federal t

We must decide whether petitioner is subject to the personal holding company tax imposed by section 541 for its taxable years ending January 31, 1996, and 1997.

They argue that petitioner should be considered an employee paid on a “fee basis” within the meaning of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), see 29 C.F.R.

494, 887. The amendment changing the phrase “shall be recognized” to the subjunctive phrase “which would be recognized as long-term capital gain” was made by the Tax Reform Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-514, § 1854(a)(1)(A), 100 Stat. 2085, 2872. 33 As noted supra p. 17, section 453 was substantially revised in 1980 to reverse the

And NOLs might not come out of bankruptcy untouched--a taxpayer who files for bankruptcy may elect to terminate his tax year after he files his bankruptcy petition. Sec. 1398(d)(2). If so, the bankruptcy estate gets to use any existing NOLs to offset income earned during the debtor’s own pre-petition tax year. See sec. 1398(d)(2),

This tax classification was disad- vantageous: Section 541 imposes, in addition to applicable income taxes, "a per- sonal holding company tax equal to 20 percent" ofundistributed personal holding company mcome.

This tax classification was disad- vantageous: Section 541 imposes, in addition to applicable income taxes, "a per- sonal holding company tax equal to 20 percent" ofundistributed personal holding company mcome.

This tax classification was disad- vantageous: Section 541 imposes, in addition to applicable income taxes, "a per- sonal holding company tax equal to 20 percent" ofundistributed personal holding company mcome.

This tax classification was disad- vantageous: Section 541 imposes, in addition to applicable income taxes, "a per- sonal holding company tax equal to 20 percent" ofundistributed personal holding company mcome.

This tax classification was disad- vantageous: Section 541 imposes, in addition to applicable income taxes, "a per- sonal holding company tax equal to 20 percent" ofundistributed personal holding company mcome.

This tax classification was disad- vantageous: Section 541 imposes, in addition to applicable income taxes, "a per- sonal holding company tax equal to 20 percent" ofundistributed personal holding company mcome.

This tax classification was disad- vantageous: Section 541 imposes, in addition to applicable income taxes, "a per- sonal holding company tax equal to 20 percent" ofundistributed personal holding company mcome.

This tax classification was disad- vantageous: Section 541 imposes, in addition to applicable income taxes, "a per- sonal holding company tax equal to 20 percent" ofundistributed personal holding company mcome.

This tax classification was disad- vantageous: Section 541 imposes, in addition to applicable income taxes, "a per- sonal holding company tax equal to 20 percent" ofundistributed personal holding company mcome.

541(a) (2006); Williams v. Commissioner, 123 T.C. 144, 147-148 (2004). During 2007 Charles Sisson, a United States citizen, performed services in the United States as an employee ofthe International Monetary Fund, or IMF. He received wages from the IMF of$207,422 that included a $8,739 "gross up" to help him pay the self-employmenttax on his e

541.300(a) (2009). These regulations also provide that [a]n employee will be considered to be paid on a "fee basis" within the meaning ofthese regulations ifthe employee is paid an agreed sum for a singlejob regardless ofthe time required for its completion. These payments resemble piecework payments with the important distinction that general

the decedent) owned a total of59.20% ofthe shares. PHC's maximizing ofdividends Through the date ofthe decedent's death, PHC followed its stated philosophy ofmaximizing dividend income. As a holding company subject to tax on undistributed income, se sec. 541, PHC has a strong incentive to pay out most ofthe dividend income generated by the securities held in its portfolio, and the ultimate objective ofthe company was to provide a steady stream ofincome to the descendants ofFrederick Pearson whil

s or assets he has retained after the bankruptcy discharge for the years 2000 and 2001 . The government, however, is not precluded from attaching (or -levying) assets excluded from the bankruptcy, in this case, Wadleigh's pension plan . See 11 USC section 541 ; . certain retirement savings accounts or pension plans may be excluded from the bankruptcy estate . This issue has been discussed-in 2006 TNT 167-19, and IRM 5 .9 .2.9 .1 .1 in that it is not even required that a Notice of Federal Tax Lie

See 11 USC section 541 ; certain retirement savings accounts or pension plans may be excluded from the bankruptcy estate .

See, e.g., Schreiber v. United States, 163 Bankr. 327, 334 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1994); Crystal Bar, Inc. v. Cosmic, Inc., 758 F. Supp. 543, 544, 551 (D.S.D. 1991); Deppisch v. United States, 227 Bankr. 806, 808-09 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 1998). This gives the IRS the power to seize taxpayers’ property held in an IRA. See secs. 6331-6334; Ka

541 (2000); Brown v. O’Keefe, 300 U.S. 598, 602 (1937); Mason v. Commissioner, 646 F.2d 1309, 1310 (9th Cir. 1980), affg. 68 T.C. 163 (1977). Even assuming that petitioner initially thought such interest passed to the bankruptcy estate, petitioner was aware by the time of his discharge in November 1999 that the bankruptcy court did not adminis

6The record does not reflect financing information for Kuma. We assume that petitioner used portions of the Citibank loan to finance the operation of Kuma as well. 7The pro rata portion is computed by assigning to each day an equal share of the loss for the year. Sec. 1377(a)(1). - 5 - Petitioner reported on his Federal income tax

II, 1978), which allows a debtor in bankruptcy to exclude exempt title 11 property from property of the debtor’s bankruptcy estate, provides: (b) Notwithstanding section 541 of this title, an individual debtor may exempt from property of the [bankruptcy] estate either–- (1) property that is specified under subsec- tion (d) of this section, unless the State law that is applicable to the debtor under paragraph (2)(A) of this subsection specifically does not so authorize; or, in the alternative, (2

II, 1978), which allows a debtor in bankruptcy to exclude exempt title 11 property from property of the debtor’s bankruptcy estate, provides: (b) Notwithstanding section 541 of this title, an individual debtor may exempt from property of the [bankruptcy] estate either— (1) property that is specified under subsection (d) of this section, unless the State law that is applicable to the debtor under paragraph (2)(A) of this subsection specifically does not so authorize; or, in the alternative, (2)(A

section 541.118 (1991) and sought “unpaid overtime compensation, * * * liquidated damages, * * * attorney’s fee * * * and costs” under - 4 - 29 U.S.C. section 216(b). A subsequent pretrial order contained further details of the parties’ factual contentions and legal theories and bifurcated the action to arrange for separate trials on the liability

541.4 Petitioner argues that his residence was effectively abandoned by the estate when the bankruptcy court granted Wells Fargo’s motion for a relief from stay. Both parties agree that the disposition of property abandoned by a trustee in bankruptcy will produce no tax consequences for the bankruptcy estate. See 3Sec. 1398 was added by sec. (

section 541.118 (1991) and sought “unpaid overtime compensation, * * * liquidated damages, * * * attorney’s fee * * * and costs” under - 4 - 29 U.S.C. section 216(b). A subsequent pretrial order contained further details of the parties’ factual contentions and legal theories and bifurcated the action to arrange for separate trials on the liability

The issues for decision are: (1) Whether petitioner is subject to the personal holding company tax imposed by section 541 for the years in issue; (2) whether petitioner incurred passive activity losses, as defined by section 469(d), in 1992 and 1993, that are disallowed as deduc- tions in those years, as determined by respondent; and (3) whether petitioner is liable for the accuracy-related penalty under section 6662(a) because of a substantial understatem