§59 — Other definitions and special rules

It then examined and rejected the taxpayer's argument that the Third and Fourth Protocols reestablished the U .S .-Canada Convention as the last expression of the sovereign will, holding that it could not read the protocols as implicitly reviving original treaty provisions that had been superseded by section 59(a)(2) .

Unlike our decision in First Chicago, where the Court reluctantly felt it necessary to do the Secretary's job, the discretionary nature of section 59(g) relieves us of that awkward responsibility.

Whether or not section 56(b)(1)(A)(ii) has that effect, we do not agree that that reading precludes respondent's claim here; i.e., that a deduction under section 216(a)(1) based on taxes paid by a cooperative housing corporation is a deduction for taxes "described in" section 164(a).

On one of the Forms 8833, petitioners asserted that section 59 is overruled or modified by article XXIV of the U.S.-Canada treaty.

Section 59-20 of the Pawtucket City Code provides that a firefighter may retire after completing 20 years of service and receive a regular service pension equal to 50 percent of his or her average 3 highest years' salary. Firefighters who retire after more than 20 years of service may receive an additional retirement benefit under section 59-21 of

tioners acknowledge that, but for the tax treaty between the United States and the Czech Republic, the above AMT foreign tax credit limitation available to reduce petitioners’ TMT would be controlling. Petitioners argue, however, that any such 90- 1 Sec. 59 was added to the Internal Revenue Code by the Tax Reform Act of 1986, Pub. L. 99-514, sec. 701(a), 100 Stat. 2336, and sec. 59(a)(2) was deleted from the Internal Revenue Code by the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004, Pub. L. 108-357, sec. 4

There is no mention in the Third or the Fourth Protocol of the enactment of section 59 by the Tax Reform Act of 1986 or the enactment of section 1012(aa)(2) by TAMRA.

otherwise indicated, section references are to the Internal Revenue Code. Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. 4 For fiscal year 1988, respondent determined that petitioner was liable for the environmental tax under sec. 59A in the amount of $1,177. Petitioner offered no evidence or argument relating to this issue. Respondent contends that it is merely computational. We leave resolution of the amount petitioner owes to the Rule 155 computations. -3- 2. The Dairy

whether LTD is liable for environmental tax pursuant to section 59A for its taxable years ended June 30, 1988 and 1989; 5.

whether LTD is liable for environmental tax pursuant to section 59A for its taxable years ended June 30, 1988 and 1989; 5.

319 (1972). -6- [*6] III. Worthless Securities As we'll see, Riley's loss comes from what she calls an investment. This creates another possible deduction for her--a worthless security. Ifa security that is a capital asset becomes worthless, section 165(g) allows a taxpayerto treat it as a capital loss. Ifthe security is not a capital as

the facts relied on by, and the reasoning of, those specialists, which prevents us from properly evaluating both their and his conclusions. See Estate ofPalmer v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1992-48 (quoting 15 Mertens, Law of Federal Income Taxation, sec. 59.08, ät 26 (1989)).15 "Mr. Roddewig's testimony with respect to how many specialists he relied on is inconsistent. Note 5 to the table in his written report labeled "Segregated Cost Analysis: Before Preservation Easement Maison Blanche Hotel C

59-8-407 (2002). The Tennessee State Board of Examiners for Architects and Engineers has adopted the following delineation of engineering and surveying: 1. Land surveying, measurement and calculation of areas, boundaries, property lines, the subdivision of property and the plotting thereof must be done by a surveyor and his drawing must bear h

the facts relied on by, and the reasoning of, those specialists, which prevents us from properly evaluating both their and his conclusions. See Estate of Palmer v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1992-48 (quoting 15 Mertens, Law of Federal Income Taxation, sec. 59.08, at 26 (1989))." The estimated cost of $42.025 million to reproduce the terra cotta portion of the facade is the major element of his reproduction cost estimate. Without adequate support for a terra cotta cost of $42.025 million, we give n

at 772.] See also Estate of Chenoweth v. Commissioner, supra at 1589, where an asset was to be valued differently for gross estate purposes than it was to be valued for marital deduction purposes; and see 15 Mertens, Law of Federal Income Taxation, sec. 59.54, at 154 (2002 rev.), which provides as follows: for estate tax valuation purposes a block of stock may be treated as a single controlling block of stock, even though the block is bequeathed to the decedent’s survivors and his spouse in sep

59, which, although not specifically mentioned in section 55, provides definitions and special rules that apply in the setting of AMT. As to the meaning of the term "taxable income", Congress has provided unambiguously and with sweeping breadth that "for purposes of this subtitle, the term 'taxable income' means gross income [see sec. 61(a) fo

taxpayer for purposes of the preceding sentence). From this text, we understand explicitly that the base of AMTI is "taxable income", and that this base may be affected by the items described in sections 56, 57, and 58. Sec. 55(b)(2). See generally sec. 59, which, although not specifically mentioned in section 55, provides definitions and special rules that apply in the setting of AMT. As to the meaning of the term "taxable income", Congress has provided unambiguously and with sweeping breadth

axpayer for purposes of the preceding sentence) . From this text, we understand explicitly that the base of AMTI is "taxable income", and that this base may be affected by the items described in sections 56, 57, and 58. Sec. 55(b)(2). See generally sec. 59, which, although not specifically mentioned in section 55, provides definitions and special rules that apply in the setting of AMT. As to the meaning of the term "taxable income", Congress has provided unambiguously and with sweeping breadth t

59, which, although not specifically mentioned in section 55, provides definitions and special rules that apply in the setting of AMT. As to the meaning of the term "tagable income", Congress has provided unambiguously and with sweeping breadth that "for purposes of this subtitle, the term 'taxable income' means gross income [see sec. 61(a) fo

59, which, although not specifically mentioned in section 55, provides definitions and special rules that apply in the setting of AMT. As to the meaning of the term "tagable income", Congress has provided unambiguously and with sweeping breadth that "for purposes of this subtitle, the term 'taxable income' means gross income [see sec. 61(a) fo

reign, real property taxes. -- 33 -- (2) State and local personal property taxes. (3) State and local, and foreign, income, war profits, and excess profits taxes. (4) The GST tax imposed on income distributions. (5) The environmental tax imposed by section 59A. In addition, there shall be allowed as a deduction State and local, and foreign, taxes not described in the preceding sentence which are paid or accrued within the taxable year in carrying on a trade or business or an activity described i

ort more reliable than Dr. Cortelezzi’s report. See Buffalo Tool & Die Manufacturing Co. v. Commissioner, 74 T.C. 441 (1980); Estate of Hinz v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-6 (slip op. at 27 n.15) (citing 15 Mertens, Law of Federal Income Taxation, sec. 59.08 at 22 (1999)). Ms. McMahon-King did not value three horses in the herd, La Sensacion de Norco, Presumida de Besilu, and Adelita LaCe. Dr. Cortelezzi valued these horses at $6,000, $15,000, and $3,500, respectively. We find that the horses

to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise. [Emphasis added.] 15 See 15 Mertens, Law of Federal Income Taxation, sec. 59.08, at 22 (1999). A common fallacy in offering opinion evidence is to assume that the opinion is more important than the facts. To have any persuasive force, the opinion should be expressed by a person qualified in background, experience, and

1778, 1779 (the U.S.-Germany treaty). This was the same argument made in Pekar v. Commissioner, 113 T.C. 158 (1999). In that case, we found that the treaty provision had been written to allow for the preexisting alternative minimum tax provision in section 59. See id. at 163- 164. The treaty provision, which was written 5 years after section 59 was enacted, states that the double taxation prohibition is “‘subject to the limitations of the law of the United States.’” Id. at 163 (quoting the U.S.

ported U.S. income tax liability. P claimed a foreign tax credit that reduced his U.S. income tax to zero. P did not compute or report liability for the alternative minimum tax (AMT) under sec. 55, I.R.C., or the foreign tax credit limitations under sec. 59, I.R.C. P claimed that the sec. 59, I.R.C., limit on foreign tax credits violated the double taxation prohibitions of the U.S. income tax treaties with Germany and the United Kingdom. Held: The U.S.-Germany treaty and the U.S.-United Kingdom

The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently addressed a similar issue with respect to interest deductions under section 59(...continued) v.

Section 59A controls the environmental tax deduction, and that deduction will be calculated based on the Court's final determination as to the taxable income for years ending June 30, 1989, 1990, 1991, and 1992. 20. For the years in issue, petitioner was a member of a controlled group, as defined in section 1563. The income tax brackets, environmen

credit. Respondent examined petitioner’s 1995 return and determined that petitioner had negligently failed to report that he owed the AMT. Respondent determined that petitioner owed $3,893 in AMT after allowing a foreign tax credit, as permitted by section 59. Respondent also determined a $778.60 penalty for negligence for failing to report and pay the amt and that petitioner was liable for a $194.65 late filing addition to tax because his return was received and filed after the required date.

al, and foreign, real property taxes. (2) State and local personal property taxes. (3) State and local, and foreign, income, war profits, and excess profits taxes. (4) The GST tax imposed on income distributions. (5) The environmental tax imposed by section 59A. In addition, there shall be allowed as a deduction State and local, and foreign, taxes not described in the preceding sentence which are paid or accrued within the taxable year in carrying on a trade or business or an activity described

al, and foreign, real property taxes. (2) State and local personal property taxes. (3) State and local, and foreign, income, war profits, and excess profits taxes. (4) The GST tax imposed on income distributions. (5) The environmental tax imposed by section 59A. In addition, there shall be allowed as a deduction State and local, and foreign, taxes not described in the preceding sentence which are paid or accrued within the taxable year in carrying on a trade or business or an activity described

al, and foreign, real property taxes. (2) State and local personal property taxes. (3) State and local, and foreign, income, war profits, and excess profits taxes. (4) The GST tax imposed on income distributions. (5) The environmental tax imposed by section 59A. In addition, there shall be allowed as a deduction State and local, and foreign, taxes not described in the preceding sentence which are paid or accrued within the taxable year in carrying on a trade or business or an activity described