§7

McLelland, 2001 WL 910934, at *2–5.27 27 The Third Circuit also discussed the question of whether the demand requirement should be superseded by section 7.01(d) of the ALI Principles.

39.45-1 (1953)), which related to section 45 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939, continued to be effective as to section 482 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 until section 39.45-1 of Regulations 118 was superseded by new regulations.111 It took time for the Treasury Department to promulgate regulations relating to the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.

485, 493 (2017), supplementing and overruling in part 147 T.C.

485, 492-493 (2017), supplementing and overruling in part 147 T.C.

485 (2017), supplementing and overruling in part Graev v.

485 (2017), supplementing and overruling in part Graev v.

7-308(a)(1) and (4) and 7-308(b) with the apparent purpose ofadding an interpretive gloss on those provisions that overruled Shepter.¹ª Moreover, as previously noted, the first revision ofthe Uniform Act adopted after 1976 specifically declines to apportion estate tax liability to the recipient ofa gift received within three years ofthe decedent's death because ofthe inclusion ofthe gift tax in the decedent's gross estat

447, has been superseded by Rev.

It has been superseded by Revenue Procedure 2003-61, 2003-2 C.B.

(That distinction wouldn’t matter here, because general authority tax regulations are intended to have the force of law.) -139- and the rule is that we are bound to follow the cases that more directly control until and unless they are expressly overruled.

447.1 We have upheld 1 This revenue procedure was superseded by Rev.

Because the Tax Court at the relevant time did not permit petitions (unlike other papers) to be filed electronical- ly,5 petitioner could not efile his petition with the Court on February 17.

- 47 - Section 6664(c) provides a reasonable cause exception to the accuracy-related penalty. Generally, under section 6664(c) (1), no penalty is imposed under section 6662 with respect to any portion of an underpayment if it is shown -that there was reasonable cause for such portion and that the taxpayer acted in good faith with respect to such portion. The reasonable cause exception does not apply, however, in the case of a substantial or gross valuation overstatement with respect to property

- 42 - Petitioners do not contend that section 7491(a) (1) applies. In addition, petitioners have not established that they satisfied the requirements of section 7491(a) (2). We hold that section 7491(a) (1) does not apply to shift the burden of proof to respondent.

This case is distinguishable from Senda because petitioners did not contribute the Dell shares to the partnership on the same day they made the 1999 gift; indeed, almost 1 week passed between 6 The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit is the court to which, barring the parties' stipulation to the contrary, any appeal in this case would lie. See sec. 7482(b).

Because the Code allows a deduction for NOL carrybacks for purposes of determining the tax imposed for the taxable year, the tax imposed by the Code for the year in issue was $63,573. Held, further: For purposes of sec. 6621(c), I.R.C., threshold underpayments of tax are generally determined only when an assessment is made with respect to a taxable period. Sec. 301.6621-3(b)(2)(iii)(A), Proced. & Admin. Regs. The interest rate under sec. 6621(c), I.R.C., “hot interest”, does not apply if, after

The Commissioner had the authority to create guidelines to accept offers-in-compromise pursuant to section 7122(d) and did so.7 The 6 We express no view on whether the Commissioner could create a similar public policy rationale absent a congressional enactment such as 280E.

We need not decide what constitutes the "amount in dispute" at this time.

Ifsection 1034 doesn't save Gaggero from a deficiency for 1997, we then need to determine whether he is liable for an accuracy-related penalty under section 6662.5 5 Because we depide this case on a preponderance ofthe evidence, we need not decide whether the burden ofproofshifts to the Commissioner under section 7491.

We need not decide whether section 7491(a) applies to the material factual issue in these consolidated cases (the viability of Robucci P.C.

We disagree with both arguments.

We disagree with respondent's contention that Holdings did not have a liquidation preference under Companies' operating agreement.

We disagree with petitioners ' contention .

7623 has been confined to contractual claims brought under 'the Tucker Act,(28 U.S.C.

5 An SBLC “is a non-depository lending institution that is SBA-licensed and is authorized by SBA to make loans pursuant to section 7(a) of the Small Business Act and loans to intermediaries in SBA’s Microloan program.” 13 C.F.R.

SUMMARY OPINION PANUTHOS, Special Trial Judge: This case was heard pursuant to the provisions of section 7463 of the Internal Revenue Code in effect when the petition was filed.1 Pursuant to section 7463(b), the decision to be entered is not reviewable by any other court, and this opinion shall not be treated as precedent for any other case.

§ 6221(a) and Tax Court Rule 240(c), we have jurisdiction to determine whether WTS and PLI were engaged in a joint venture constituting a partnership for federal income tax purposes, and we hold that they were not so engaged.

Held: CRC distributed client-based intangible assets to N and T when they withdrew from CRC, and the value of the assets so distributed are properly valued under the terms of CRC’s partnership agreement. Held, further, CRC failed to maintain capital accounts in accordance with Treas.

Consequently, we hold that the Civil Penalty Approval Form does not manifest Ms.

SUMMARY OPINION MORRISON, Judge: This case was heard pursuant to section 7463 ofthe Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, in effect when the petition was filed.¹ ¹All subsequent section references are to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, in effect for the year at issue, 2013.

relevant.7 Respondent does not argue that, ifDTDV validly made a section 754 election with its 2000 return, the section 743(b) adjustment allocated to Square Leg should have been less than $12,150,000.8 Instead, respondent challenges the validity ofthe election on the grounds that "Square Leg never held a bona fide partnership interest in DTDV." 3. Petitioner's Failure To Sign DTDV's Purported Section 754 Election Section 754 allows a partnership to elect, "in accordance with regulations prescri

Pursuant to section 7.2 any partner who assigned his or her interest remained liable to the partnership for promised contributions or excessive distributions unless and until the assignee was admitted as a substituted limited partner.

OPINION GERBER, Judge: This whistleblower award case, brought pursuant to section 7623(b)(4),¹ is before the Court on the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment.

SUMMARY OPINION GUY, Special Trial Judge: This case was heard pursuant to the provisions ofsection 7463 in effect when the petition was filed.¹ Pursuant to section 7463(b), ¹Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal (continued...) SERVED Nov 09 2016 - 2 - the decision to be entered is not reviewable by any other court, and this opinion shall not be treated as precedent for any other case.

Closing Agreements Generally The Secretary is authorized to enter into closing agreements with taxpayers pursuant to section 7121(a).

Adjustment to Fair Market Value Upon Transfer ofPartnership Interest Ifan existing or new Partner acquires an Interest, the Capital Accounts ofthe Partners shall be adjusted to reflect fair market value ofall properties held by the Partnership. d. Adjustment for Constructive Termination of Partnership Capital Accounts shall be adjusted to reflect fair market value ofall properties held by the Partnership as required by Treasury Regulation Section 1.704-1(b)(2)(iv)(b) upon the constructive - 51

Pursuant to section 7.4(b) ofthe plan document Heidi was fully vested in her ESOP account in 2009.

The initial "premium," less various charges, was deposited into a separate account held by a custodian. The custodian invested the funds in accordance with the taxpayer's directions but only in assets from an approved list.

SUMMARY OPINION GUY, Special Trial Judge: This case was heard pursuant to the provisions ofsection 7463 in effect when the petition was filed.¹ Pursuant to section 7463(b), IUnless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal (continued...) SERVED AUG - 6 2015 - 2 - the decision to be entered is not reviewable by any other court, and this opinion shall not be treated as precedent for any other case.

Pursuant to section 7122(a) the Secretarymay compromise any civil or criminal case arising under the internal revenue laws before its referral to the Department ofJustice.

We hold that the parties must calculate the value ofthe remainder interest for each trust using a distribution amount equal to the fixed percentage.

2 - petition was filed.' Pursuant to section 7463(b), the decision to be entered is not reviewable by any other court, and this opinion shall not be treated as precedent for any other case.

SUMMARY OPINION GUY, Special Trial Judge: This case was heard pursuantto the provisions ofsection 7463 in effect when the petition was filed.¹ Pursuant to section 7463(b), ¹Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal (continued...) SERVED JUN 1 1 2014 - 2 - the decision to be entered is not reviewable by any other court, and this opinion shall not be treated as precedent for any other case.

SERVED JAN 1 5 2014 - 2 - Pursuant to section 7463(b), the decision to be entered is not reviewable by any other court, and this opinion shall not be treated as precedent for any other case.

SUMMARY OPINION KERRIGAN, Judge: This case was heard pursuant to section 7463 ofthe Internal Revenue Code in effect when the petition was filed.

SUMMARY OPINION GUY, Special Trial Judge: This case was heard pursuant to the provisions ofsection 7463 ofthe Internal Revenue Code in effect when the petition was SERVED APR 29 2013 - 2 - filed.' Pursuant to section 7463(b), the decision to be entered is not reviewable by any other court, and this opinion shall not be treated as precedent for any other case.

Pursuant to section 7 63(b), the decision to be entered;is not reviewable by any other court, and this o inion shall not be treated as precedent j$yED JUÑ*8 200 - 2 - for any other case.

We hold that the term "indebtedness" as it is used in section 965(b)(3) means the condition ofowing money or being indebted.

SERVED FEB - 1 2012 -2- SUMMARY OPINION LARO, Judge: This case was heard pursuantto the provisions ofsection 7463 ofthe Internal Revenue Code (Code) in effect when the petition was filed.' Pursuant to section 7463(b), the decision to be entered is not reviewable by any other court, and this opinion shall not be treated as precedent for any other case.

GERBER, Judge: This case was heard pursuant to the provisions of section 7463 of the Internal Revenue Code in effect when the petition was filed.1 Pursuant to section 7463 (b) , the decision to be entered is not reviewable by any Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the year in issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure .

Pursuant to section 7463 (b) , the decision to be entered is not reviewable by any other court, and this opinion shall not be treated as precedent for any other case.

MORRISON, Judge: This case was heard pursuant to the provisions of section 7463 of the Internal Revenue Code in effect at the time the petition was filed.1 Pursuant to section 7463 (b) , the decision to be entered is not reviewable by any Unless otherwise indicated, all ssection references are to the Internal Revenue Code (Code) in effect for the years at issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.

Pursuant to section 7'463 (b), the decision to be'entered is not reviewable by any other court , and this opinion shall not be treated as`precedent for any other case .

The parties have settled all issues in the case except petitioner's entitlement to administrative and litigatio n costs pursuant to section 7430 .

MORRISON, Judge : This case was heard pursuant to the provisions of section 7463 of the Internal Revenue Code in effect when the petition was filed.' Pursuant to section 7463(b), the .decision to be entered is not reviewable by any other court, and 'All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code (Code) in effect for the year in issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, unless otherwise indicated .

3°Because we hold respondent's determination to proceed with the levy on the Poland property was ar abuse of discretion, we need not consider petitioners' argumer t that respondent disregarded our order to create a proper record and instead conducted a de novo review of the groi.nds for asserting a nominee ownership

Pursuant to section 7.463(b), the decision to be entered is not reviewable by any other court, and this opinion shall not be treated as precedent for any other case .

CARLUZZO, Special Trial Judge : This case was heard pursuant to the provisions of section 7 .463 of ,the Internal Revenue Code (cid:127)in effect "when the petition was filed .' Pursuant to section 7463(b) ., the decision to be-entered is not .

Pursuant to section 7.2, a taxpayer includes'IRA distributions'in gross income but may exclude from gross income that portion of his IRA distribution which reflects nondeductible contributions to his IRA .

and (2) the $2,000'-a-month payments were guaranteed payments pursuant to section 736(a)(2) .

GERBER, Judge : This case was heard pursuant to the provisions of section 7"463 of the Internal Revenue Code in effect when the petition was filed'.' Pursuant to section 7463(b), the 'Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the year in issue, and, all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure .

We hold that he is not .

Pursuant to section 7463(b), the decisi n to be entered is no t 1 Petitioner married after filing e petition .

Pursuant to section 7463(b), the decisions to be entered are not reviewable by any other court, and this opinion shall not b e 'Cases of the following petitioners are consolidated herewith : Timothy A .

DAWSON, Judge : This case was heard pursuant to the provisions of section 7463 of the Internal Revenue Code in effect when the petition was filed .' Pursuant to section 7463(b) the decision to be entered is not reviewable by any other court, and this opinion shall not be treated as precedent for any other case .

Pursuant to section 7 63(b), the decision to be entered is not reviewable by any other court, and this opinion should not be treated as precedent for any other case .

DAWSON, Judge: This case was heard pursuant to section 7463 of the Internal Revenue Code in effect when the petition was 1Prof.

State of California’s Actions In April 1988, American Stores provided the State of California with the filings it had made with the FTC pursuant to section 7 of the Clayton Act.

The effect of"future tweaking" ofhomesite boundaries on conservation purposes implicates section 7The Court ofAppeals appears to have overstated the case.

Section 7 .4 of the 1995 Plan states that an optionee may exercise his or her stock options "by written notice to the Company, in accordance with procedures established by the Plan Administrator, setting forth the number of shares with respect to which the Option is being exercised and accompanied by payment in full as described in Section 7 .5 of

oc. 2003- 61, which is effective either for requests for relief filed on or after Nov. 1, 2003, or for requests for relief pending on Nov. 1, 2003, for which no preliminary determination letter has been issued as of Nov. 1, 2003. Rev. Proc. 2003-61, sec. 7, 2003-32 I.R.B. 296, 299. - 7 - Commissioner will consider a request for equitable relief under section 6015(f). Respondent concedes that these seven threshold conditions are satisfied in the present case. Rev. Proc. 2000-15, sec. 4.02, provid

oc. 2003- 61, which is effective either for requests for relief filed on or after Nov. 1, 2003, or for requests for relief pending on Nov. 1, 2003, for which no preliminary determination letter has been issued as of Nov. 1, 2003. Rev. Proc. 2003-61, sec. 7, 2003-32 I.R.B. 296, 299. - 8 - respect to the requesting spouse”.4 See Rev. Proc. 2000-15, sec. 4.01(3), 2000-1 C.B. at 448. Respondent contends that petitioner failed to satisfy this threshold condition. We need not address respondent’s cont

(continued...) - 13 - [*13] requirements for alimony under section 71(b)(1) and is not deductible under section 215(a). III. Section 6662(a) Accuracy-Related Penalty We next address the accuracy-relatedpenalty under section 6662(a) determined in the notice. Section 6662(a) and (b)(1) and (2) imposes a penalty equal to 20% ofany portion ofan underpayment that is attributable to negligence or disregard ofrules or regulations or to any substantial understatement ofincome tax. Section 6662(d)(1)(A)

- 8 - [*8] [T]here shall be excluded the distributive share ofany item ofincome or loss ofa limited partner, as such, other than guaranteed payments described in section 707(c) to that partner for services actually rendered to or on behalfofthe partnership to the extent that those payments are established to be in the nature ofremuneration for those services * * *. Petitioners contend that this exclusion applies to the amounts ofthe members' distributive shares in excess oftheir guaranteed payme

- 8 - [*8] [T]here shall be excluded the distributive share ofany item ofincome or loss ofa limited partner, as such, other than guaranteed payments described in section 707(c) to that partner for services actually rendered to or on behalfofthe partnership to the extent that those payments are established to be in the nature ofremuneration for those services * * *. Petitioners contend that this exclusion applies to the amounts ofthe members' distributive shares in excess oftheir guaranteed payme

- 8 - [*8] [T]here shall be excluded the distributive share ofany item ofincome or loss ofa limited partner, as such, other than guaranteed payments described in section 707(c) to that partner for services actually rendered to or on behalfofthe partnership to the extent that those payments are established to be in the nature ofremuneration for those services * * *. Petitioners contend that this exclusion applies to the amounts ofthe members' distributive shares in excess oftheir guaranteed payme

- 5 - [*5] does he dispute that the 10% additional tax imposed by section 72(t) applies to this distribution.4 Martin claimed a deduction for the section 72(t) additional tax on his 2010 Form 1040. The IRS disallowed this deduction. The IRS contends that taxpayers may not deduct the additional tax imposed by section 72(t). Martin argues that the additional tax imposed by section 72(t) is deductible under section 62(a)(9). We disagree. Section 62(a)(9) provides a deduction for an amount "forfeite

IRS Examination Petitioners timely filedjoint Federal income tax returns for 2007 and 2008 on Forms 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, on which they reported royal- ties received under the 1998 license agreement as long-term capital gain. The IRS examined those returns and issued petitioners a timely a notice ofdeficiency. That notice determined that the royalties received were not subject to section 1235 and should have been reported as ordinary income. OPINION The Commissioner's determin

- 5 - [*5] does he dispute that the 10% additional tax imposed by section 72(t) applies to this distribution.4 Martin claimed a deduction for the section 72(t) additional tax on his 2010 Form 1040. The IRS disallowed this deduction. The IRS contends that taxpayers may not deduct the additional tax imposed by section 72(t). Martin argues that the additional tax imposed by section 72(t) is deductible under section 62(a)(9). We disagree. Section 62(a)(9) provides a deduction for an amount "forfeite

Unlike subsection (a), which requires that an award "shall be paid from" a specific funding source, subsection (b) sets forth how to calculate the whistleblower's award. Paragraph (1) directs that the whistle- blower "shall * * * receive as an award at least 15 percent but not more than 30 percent ofthe collected proceeds * * * resulting from the action (including any related actions) or from any settlement in response to such action." The difference in wording between subsections (a) and (b) of

Unlike subsection (a), which requires that an award "shall be paid from" a specific funding source, subsection (b) sets forth how to calculate the whistleblower's award. Paragraph (1) directs that the whistle- blower "shall * * * receive as an award at least 15 percent but not more than 30 percent ofthe collected proceeds * * * resulting from the action (including any related actions) or from any settlement in response to such action." The difference in wording between subsections (a) and (b) of

That is, tax "sh wn" under section 6201(a) (3)) must - 73 - mean tax reduced by excess credits- (as^ the regulation provides under section 6664(a)). -Concurring op. p. 29. It is su el proper to attempt to bring these other sections to bear on the meaning of tax ishoun" in section 6664(a), but I submit that there are skips and fiaws "in this an'alysis of sections 6201(a) (3) and 6213(b). The House Report that the concurring opinion cites'clearly states that then-current law (before section 6201(

72(t) (2) (A) (iii)-and .to pay health insurance premiums for the taxpayer during certainperiods of unemployment, sec . 72(t)(2 (D) , In 1997, as part of t e Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 ; Pub . L . 105-34, secs 203, 303, 11 Stat 809, 829, Congress enacted two more exceptions to the 10- ercent additional tax : Premature distributions for ~qualifie educatio-i expenses,,sec . 72(t) (2) (E) , and, pertinent to this cas premature distributions for first- time home buyers, sec . 72( (2) (F) These two

23, 1992) (redesignating section 7.0(d), Temporary Income Tax Regs., 42 Fed.

Alimony Deduction Section 71, as amended by the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984, Pub . L . 98-369, sec . 422, 98 Stat . 795, (DEFRA), applies to divorce or separation instruments'executed after December 31, 1984 . Sec . 1 .71-1T(e), Temporary Income Tax Regs ., 49 Fed . Reg. 34458 (Aug . 31, 1984) . Mr . Heydt and his former spouse's stipulation was incorporated into the superior court's order in August 1980 . Accordingly, the tax consequences of petitioners' payments are governed by relevant sect

59-60, including its later modification and amplifications; (b) the Appraisal must be made as of a date no more than sixty (60) days prior to the Closing Date (as defined in Section 7.01); (c) the claimed fair market value of Seller's charitable contribution must not exceed the Contribution, as determined by the Appraisal.

59-60, including its later modification and amplifications; (b) the Appraisal must be made as of a date no more than sixty (60) days prior to the Closing Date (as defined in Section 7.01); (c) the claimed fair market value of Seller's charitable contribution must not exceed the Contribution, as determined by the Appraisal.

59-60, including its later modification and amplifications; (b) the Appraisal must be made as of a date no more than sixty (60) days prior to the Closing Date (as defined in Section 7.01); (c) the claimed fair market value of Seller's charitable contribution must not exceed the Contribution, as determined by the Appraisal.

59-60, including its later modification and amplifications; (b) the Appraisal must be made as of a date no more than sixty (60) days prior to the Closing Date (as defined in Section 7.01); (c) the claimed fair market value of Seller's charitable contribution must not exceed the Contribution, as determined by the Appraisal.

59-60, including its later modification and amplifications; (b) the Appraisal must be made as of a date no more than sixty (60) days prior to the Closing Date (as defined in Section 7.01); (c) the claimed fair market value of Seller's charitable contribution must not exceed the Contribution, as determined by the Appraisal.

59-60, including its later modification and amplifications; (b) the Appraisal must be made as of a date no more than sixty (60) days prior to the Closing Date (as defined in Section 7.01); (c) the claimed fair market value of Seller's charitable contribution must not exceed the Contribution, as determined by the Appraisal.

59-60, including its later modification and amplifications; (b) the Appraisal must be made as of a date no more than sixty (60) days prior to the Closing Date (as defined in Section 7.01); (c) the claimed fair market value of Seller's charitable contribution must not exceed the Contribution, as determined by the Appraisal.

However, in certain circumstances, if the taxpayer introduces credible evidence with respect to any factual issue relevant to ascertaining the proper tax liability, section 7491 places the burden of proof on the Commissioner. Sec. 7491(a)(1). Section 7491(a)(1) applies only if an individual taxpayer complies with substantiation requirements, maintains all required records, and cooperates with reasonable requests by the Commissioner for witnesses, information, documents, meetings, and interviews.

Commissioner, 370 F.2d 178, 180 (6th Cir. 1966), affg. T.C. Memo. 1964-278. Debt for Federal income tax purposes connotes an existing, unconditional, and legally enforceable obligation to repay. See Roth Steel Tube Co. v. Commissioner, supra at 630; First Natl. Co. v. Commissioner, 289 F.2d 861, 864-865 (6th Cir. 1961), revg. and remanding 32 T.C. 798 (1959); Burrill v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 643, 666 (1989); see also AMW Invs., Inc. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1996-235. Transfers between related

Prior to 1951, the then-existing statutory predecessor of Family Code section 4337, former California Civil Code section 139, was phrased in terms of the husband’s obligation to support the wife. Taliaferro v. Taliaferro, 270 P.2d 1036, 1039 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 1954); see Cal. Civ. Code sec. 139, as amended by 1933 Cal. Stat. ch. 412, sec.

Petitioners seek a contrary result, focusing on the deficit capital account restoration provision in section 7.7 of the revised LCL operating agreement.

Respondent's - 4 - determination had the effect of reducing the amount available for carryover to the 1998 year from $118,960 to $27,424. After obtaining evidence of petitioner's filing for 1993, respondent moved to increase the deficiency in this case due to the carryback of the 1996 loss to 1993 as well as the 2 subsequent years.1 Discussion The parties agree that petitioner incurred an operating loss. The only issue for the Court to decide with respect to the NOL is whether petitioner must c

117 T.C. No. 24 UNITED STATES TAX COURT SAMUEL T. SEAWRIGHT AND CAROL A. SEAWRIGHT, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent Docket No. 1796-00. Filed December 18, 2001. R's examination of Ps' tax liability commenced no later than July 16, 1998. After Ps petitioned this Court to redetermine the deficiency, R's trial counsel informally contacted potential third-party witnesses . without providing advance notice to Ps. 1. Held: Sec. 7602(c), I.R.C., which requires that R give th

e KFLP and KILP partnership agreements, which states that the partnerships shall liquidate upon the earlier of December 31, 2043, or the consent of all the partners, contains restrictions on the liquidation of the partnerships that constitute “applicable restrictions” within the meaning of section 2704(b). Respondent maintains that these restrictions must be disregarded in valuing the interests petitioners transferred to the GRAT’s trustees and to their children. Petitioners contend that section

st on - 16 - the share from the date of the order directing the personal representative to pay, id. The elective share retains many fundamental attributes of statutory dower. See Hanley, Elective Share, in Basic Practice Under Florida Probate Code, sec. 7.1, at 275 (3d ed. 1987); Redfearn, Wills and Administration in Florida, sec. 19.3 (6th ed. 1986 & Supp. 1996). The Florida statutes governing the current elective share and statutory dower provide a virtually absolute right to the surviving spo

7-80-702 governing the transferability of LLC interests, and (2) as the sole member of the LLC, "the Trustee now controls * * * all governance of that entity, including decisions regarding liquidation of the entity's assets." In re Albright, supra at 540-541. Petitioners' reliance upon Albright is misplaced. That case does not involve a credit

in fact, illustrated by the 2000 sale of membership interests in the LLC to Surgicoe. Sec. 3.5 of the Surgicoe purchase agreement specifically requires that “the Sellers’ interests * * * [be] fully paid and assessable”, which, in effect, supersedes sec. 7.6 of the LLC operating agreement to the extent that it provides that that agreement “shall not be construed as creating a [capital account] deficit restoration obligation”. See also sec. 12.3 of the LLC operating agreement, which limits the di

.5 During 1996, petitioners also had these other gambling winnings and losses: 4 Forms W-2G, Certain Gambling Winnings, are required to be issued for table game winnings of $600 or more and for slot machine winnings of $1,200 or more. Sec. 6041(a); sec. 7.6041-1, Temporary Income Tax Regs., 42 Fed. Reg. 33286 (June 30, 1977). 5 The record does not indicate the amounts of bets placed with respect to these Biloxi Casino Magic winnings. - 6 - Winnings Losses Boomtown Casino $2,645 $1,690 Jubilation

7-114-105(2)(e). Thus, Petitioner, is not barred from commencing this proceeding simply because its corporate status has been dissolved; if actual tax dollars were involved, there would be no question it would have a right to proceed. * * * In respondent’s reply, respondent agrees with petitioner that “state law controls whether a dissolved co

Section 7 .2 of MFV's operati g agreement provided: 7 .2 . Procedure for Winding Up and Dissolution. If the Company is dissolved, the General Manager shall wind up its affairs . On winding up of the Company, the assets of the Company shall be distributed , (i) to creditors of the Company, including Interest Holders who are creditors, in sa isfactio

Instead, on November 17, 1994, petitioner delivered a written notice to RHB - 8 - that, pursuant to section 7 of the employment agreement, he was terminating the employment agreement .

The commissioner of education, in turn, heads the administrative agency, the Texas Education Agency (TEA or the agency), charged with administering and monitoring compliance with educational programs. Tex. Educ. Code Ann. secs. 7.002, 7.021 (Vernon 1996). In February of 1999, the commissioner of education directed the TEA to conduct a f

General Rule.-–Where it is not otherwise provided by this title, the Secretary shall, as soon as practicable, and within 60 days, after the making of an assessment of a tax pursuant to section 7 To the extent that petitioner may still be arguing that the Appeals officer failed to provide him with a copy of the verification, we note that sec.

Myers, the contribution for that year to a qualified retirement plan for their benefit, and the deferred compensation agreements being entered into with them: We, all the Directors of B & D FOUNDATIONS, INC., a Colorado corporation, pursuant to Section 7-108-202 of the Colorado Business Corporation Act, take the following action(s), by consent and without a meeting, as if by unanimous vote, and waive all notice of such meeting pursuant to Section 7-108-203 of that Act: * * * * * * * - 11 - 2.

inued to attend to his accounting business and his other aviation activities. Petitioner alleges that he would typically spend “two, three, and sometimes four consecutive days in Nashville” and then return to Minneapolis.20 17(...continued) 90-60 at sec. 7.01, 1989-2 C.B. at 799; Rev. Proc. 89-67 at sec. 7.01, 1990-2 C.B. at 656. 18 On his 1991 Federal income tax return, petitioner reported wages from Flagship Airlines in the amount of $11,226. 19 For purposes of simplicity and clarity, and beca

1900, 5 U.S.C. sec. 552a & note (1994). Section 151(a) provides that in the case of an individual, a deduction shall be allowed for each exemption allowed under section 151. However, section 151(e) provides: “No exemption shall be allowed under this section with respect to any individual unless the taxpayer identification number of

A Person who acquires one or more Units but who is not admitted as a Substituted Limited Partner pursuant to Section 7.06 hereof (1) shall be entitled only to allocations and distributions with respect to such Units in accordance with these Articles, (2) shall have no right to any information or accounting of the affairs of the Partnership, (3) shall not be entitled to inspect the books or records of the Partnership, (4) shall not have any of the rights o

that taxable year. The regulations, in accord with the statute, provide that the "election must be made by the later of the time, including extensions thereof, prescribed by law for filing income tax returns for such taxable year or March 8, 1977." Sec. 7.0(b)(1), 5 Temporary Income Tax Regs., 42 Fed. Reg. 1469 (Jan. 7, 1977), which regulation is entitled Various Elections Under the Tax Reform Act of 1976. As to the manner in which the election is to be effected, section 2, Temporary Income Tax

missioner, supra at 979-980; Petersen v. Commissioner, supra at 151-152; Hardin v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-202; Martinez v. Commissioner, 4 The Nebraska provision as set forth in Petersen v. Commissioner, 38 T.C. 137, 152 n.9 (1962), provided: §7-108. Attorney's liens. An attorney has a lien for a general balance of compensation upon any papers of his client which have come into his possession in the course of his professional employment; and upon money in his hands belonging to his client

In addition, section 7, paragraph 11 of the Settlement Agreement states that the ranch land is the "sole and separate property" of the petitioner.

7 Expenditures for services rendered and materials purchased for the conduct of bingo by the organization are not considered distributions for charitable purposes. Tex. Admin. Code tit. 34, sec. 3.544 (1987); Tex. Admin. Code tit. 34, sec. 3.544 (1988); Tex. Admin. Code tit. 34, sec. 3.544 (1989); Tex. Admin. Code tit. 34, sec. 3.544 (1990).

7 Expenditures for services rendered and materials purchased for the conduct of bingo by the organization are not considered distributions for charitable purposes. Tex. Admin. Code tit. 34, sec. 3.544 (1987); Tex. Admin. Code tit. 34, sec. 3.544 (1988); Tex. Admin. Code tit. 34, sec. 3.544 (1989); Tex. Admin. Code tit. 34, sec. 3.544 (1990).

A qualified board or exchange is defined as: (1) A national securities exchange which is registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission; (2) a domestic board of trade designated as a contract market by the - 9 - involving contracts of sale of a commodity for future delivery, traded or executed on a contract market designated pursuant to section 7 of this title or any other board of trade, exchange, or market".

These are important obligations to be sure, but they are not obligations with respect to property within the meaning of section 1234A(1).

We only have jurisdiction over the proposed collection action in connection with the 2005 section 7 [*7] 6702(a) penalty (along with the 2017 penalty we resolved above) and will enter an order in accordance with respondent’s concession that the proposed levy for the 2005 penalty should not be sustained.

-15, 2001-1 C.B. 447, applies to requests for equitable relief under section 6015(f) that were filed on or after September 16, 2013, or, as is the case here, that were pending in a case docketed with a federal court on that date. Rev. Proc. 2013-34, § 7, 2013-43 I.R.B. at 403. 52 [*52] 118 T.C. at 119. We therefore begin our analysis by discussing the application of these two factors. 1. Significant Benefit A significant benefit is any benefit in excess of normal support. Treas. Reg. § 1.6015-2(

Therefore, our holding that the section 7 Section 7602 grants authority to “the Secretary,” which section 7701(a)(11)(B) defines as the Secretary of the Treasury or his delegate.

er December 31, 2001. However, if the tax year ended before that date and began on or after January 1, 1996, the taxpayer could make the deferral election by satisfying either Revenue Procedure 89-45 or Revenue Procedure 2003-23. Rev. Proc. 2002-23, § 7. To elect deferral under this revenue procedure, taxpayers were required to attach a written statement to a timely filed tax return for the respective year. Id. § 4.02, 2002-1 C.B. at 745. The statement had to include the following information: a

be quite attenuated. - 35 - [*35] clear rules in the frequent use by advocates of the Second Restatement of adjectives like “inflexible” and “rigid”. See, e.g., Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 995 P.2d 1002, 1006-07 (Mont. 2000); Second Restatement, sec. 7. The Second Restatement allows courts to be more flexible in choosing which law should apply. Senne, 934 F.3d at 954 (Ikuta, J., dissenting); Hoffman v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc. (In re Bendectin Litig.), 857 F.2d 290, 304 (6th Cir. 1988); Hard

Section 7 of each of the GMAC deeds of trust requires the partnership to insure the Building and provides: - 6 - [*6] [I]f the premises covered hereby, or any part thereof, shall be damaged by fire or other hazard against which insurance is held * * * the amounts paid by any insurance company in pursuance of the contract of insurance to the extent

7, 2013-43 I.R.B. at 403. -17- [*17] Notwithstanding the Court’s finding above, actual or constructive knowledge may be negated if the nonrequesting spouse abused the requesting spouse or maintained control over the household finances by restricting the requesting spouse’s access to financial information such that the nonrequesting spouse’s a

be quite attenuated. - 35 - [*35] clear rules in the frequent use by advocates of the Second Restatement of adjectives like “inflexible” and “rigid”. See, e.g., Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 995 P.2d 1002, 1006-07 (Mont. 2000); Second Restatement, sec. 7. The Second Restatement allows courts to be more flexible in choosing which law should apply. Senne, 934 F.3d at 954 (Ikuta, J., dissenting); Hoffman v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc. (In re Bendectin Litig.), 857 F.2d 290, 304 (6th Cir. 1988); Hard

n described in paragraph (7), (8), (9), or (10) of section 5112(a) of title 31, United States Code, (ii) a silver coin described in section 5112(e) of title 31, United States Code, [or] * * * * * * * (B) any gold, silver, platinum, or palladium bullion of a fineness equal to or exceeding the minimum fineness that a contract market (as described in section 7 of the Commodity Exchange Act, 7 U.S.C.

7.6041-1, Temporary Income Tax Regs., 42 Fed. Reg. 33286 (June 30, 1977); Rev. Proc. 77-29, 1977-2 C.B. 538. All four casinos kept records ofevery instance in which petitioner won a prize of$1,200 or more. When that happened, the machine petitioner was using would lock and an attend- ant would collect petitioner's information before bringing h

y to have an office building that blocks those views appear on a lot between the HOA homes and the mountain. A disgruntled homeowner might sue his HOA and urge that this change in condition should terminate the restriction. See 2 Restatement, supra, sec. 7.10. Termination ofa servitude for changed conditions benefits all the property owners that used to be bound by it, so the common law seldom requires any money damages when one is extinguished. R sec. 7.11 cmt. c. That general rule ofimplicit c

Since she indicated on the form that she was self-employed, petitioner completed section 7 ofthe form (pertaining to sole proprietorship information).

7, 2013-43 I.R.B. at 403. While the Court may consider the guidance set forth in Rev. Proc. 2013-34, supra, we are not bound by it; our detenmination ultimately rests on an evaluation ofall the facts and circumstances. - 6 - [*6] See Pullins v. Commissioner, 136 T.C. 432, 438-439 (2011); Johnson v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2014-240, at *10. R

7, 2013-43 I.R.B. at 403. - 111 - [*111] A threshold requirement for equitable reliefis that the taxpayers not have made a transfer ofa "disqualified asset" from the nonrequesting spouse to the requesting spouse, defined as any transfer "ifthe principal purpose ofthe transfer was the avoidance oftax or payment oftax." Rev. Proc. 2013-34, sec.

7, 2013-43 I.R.B. at 403. - 111 - [*111] A threshold requirement for equitable reliefis that the taxpayers not have made a transfer ofa "disqualified asset" from the nonrequesting spouse to the requesting spouse, defined as any transfer "ifthe principal purpose ofthe transfer was the avoidance oftax or payment oftax." Rev. Proc. 2013-34, sec.

7, 2013-43 I.R.B. at 403. - 111 - [*111] A threshold requirement for equitable reliefis that the taxpayers not have made a transfer ofa "disqualified asset" from the nonrequesting spouse to the requesting spouse, defined as any transfer "ifthe principal purpose ofthe transfer was the avoidance oftax or payment oftax." Rev. Proc. 2013-34, sec.

7, 2013-43 I.R.B. at 403. - 111 - [*111] A threshold requirement for equitable reliefis that the taxpayers not have made a transfer ofa "disqualified asset" from the nonrequesting spouse to the requesting spouse, defined as any transfer "ifthe principal purpose ofthe transfer was the avoidance oftax or payment oftax." Rev. Proc. 2013-34, sec.

7, 2013-43 I.R.B. at 403. - 111 - [*111] A threshold requirement for equitable reliefis that the taxpayers not have made a transfer ofa "disqualified asset" from the nonrequesting spouse to the requesting spouse, defined as any transfer "ifthe principal purpose ofthe transfer was the avoidance oftax or payment oftax." Rev. Proc. 2013-34, sec.

1202 (1927).2 Further, section 6512(b)(1) grants 2As established in these and other cases, we generally hold that we lack jurisdiction to determine an increased deficiency unless the Commissioner asserts such an increase before trial, i.e., as an affirmative allegation in his answer or a later amendment thereto. See, e.g., Koufman v. Com

7, 2013-43 I.R.B. at 403. While the Court may consider the guidance set forth in Rev. Proc. 2013-34, supra, we are not bound by it; our determination ultimately rests on an evaluation ofall the facts and circumstances. See Pullins v. Commissioner, 136 T.C. 432, 438-439 (2011); Johnson v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2014-240, at *10. - 11 - [*11]

Section 14 requires the plan administra- tor as a fiduciary to discharge his or her duties "with respect to the Plan and the Trust solely in the interests ofParticipants." Section 7.1 provides that an indi- vidual account shall be created in the name ofeach participant, and section 1.3 provides that the amounts in these accounts are held and invested by the trustee.

Section 14 requires the plan administra- tor as a fiduciary to discharge his or her duties "with respect to the Plan and the Trust solely in the interests ofParticipants." Section 7.1 provides that an indi- vidual account shall be created in the name ofeach participant, and section 1.3 provides that the amounts in these accounts are held and invested by the trustee.

Simultaneous Occurrence ofEvents at Closing. All ofthe events which are to occur at the Closing under this Agreement, including but not limited to, the delivery ofthe Share certificates and the payment ofthe Purchase Price and all other related exchanges shall be deemed to have occurred simultaneously. Section 7.2. Documents to be Deli

Section 7.5(a) ofthe plan required that a vested accrued benefit be paid "in the form ofa qualifiedjoint and survivor annuity."2 Per section 6.3.2 ofthe plan, ifa benefit was not a straight-life annuity, then the benefit "must be adjusted to an 2Citations ofspecific plan and adoption agreement sections reflect those sections as they appear in the 2

at 473. This provision, reenacted without much change as section 7623(a), authorizes the IRS to pay such sums as it "deems necessary" and mandates that such payments "shall be paid from the proceeds of 4Respondent has not sought summaryjudgment on his alternative basis for denying petitioner's claim, namely, that petitioner's infor

Simultaneous Occurrence ofEvents at Closing. All ofthe events which are to occur at the Closing under this Agreement, including but not limited to, the delivery ofthe Share certificates and the payment ofthe Purchase Price and all other related exchanges shall be deemed to have occurred simultaneously. Section 7.2. Documents to be Deli

Simultaneous Occurrence ofEvents at Closing. All ofthe events which are to occur at the Closing under this Agreement, including but not limited to, the delivery ofthe Share certificates and the payment ofthe Purchase Price and all other related exchanges shall be deemed to have occurred simultaneously. Section 7.2. Documents to be Deli

ies and supersedes Rev. Proc. 2003-61, 2003-2 C.B. 296, applies to requests for equitable reliefunder sec. 6015(f) filed on or after September 16, 2013, or that were pending in a case docketed with a Federal court as ofthat date. Rev. Proc. 2013-34, sec. 7, 2013-43 I.R.B. at 403. - 10 - [*10] requesting spouse satisfies the three elements listed in Rev. Proc. 2013-34, sec. 4.02, 2013-43 I.R.B. at 400. Ifthe requesting spouse does not qualify for a streamlined determination under Rev. Proc. 2013-

ation ofa determination letter or ruling, the appeal and conference procedures * * * [were] generally the same" as when the IRS proposed to deny an organization's exemption application ab initio. R sec. 12.02, 2014-2 I.R.B. at 292 (cross-referencing sec. 7). - 15 - The First Revocation Letter represented a final decision by the IRS to re- voke petitioner's tax-exempt status retroactively to Date 1. That letter was a written statement issued by the IRS National Office to a taxpayer; the letter an

For payment of$3,200 to Francine Marran from NSPA, we, Francine and Jay Marran (the "Marrans"), understand and agree to all ofthe conditions listed in section 7 ofthis Agreement.

Article VII ofthe Advantage Plan document, entitled "Miscellaneous Provisions", provides, in pertinent part, as follows: Section 7.01: Amendment or Termination.

24 (MOU 24) betweenthe City and the Los Angeles Police Protective League.2 MOU 24 is a collective bargaining agreement, and the league is the recognizedbargaining organization representing Los Angeles police officers from the rank ofpolice officer to lieutenant.3 Section 7.0 ofMOU 24, entitled "Benefits", is divided into 18 articles.

For instance, section 7 ofthe Arrowhead contract stated in part: HHP's Improvements.

For instance, section 7 ofthe Arrowhead contract stated in part: HHP's Improvements.

397, 403, provides that the guidelines are effective for requests for relieffiled on or after September 16, 2013, and requests for equitable reliefpending on September 16, 2013, whether before the IRS, the Office ofAppeals, or a Federal court.

ons. Absent certain enumerated exceptions,¹5 the seventh condition is satisfied ifthe "income tax liability from which the requesting spouse seeks reliefis attributable (either in full or in part) to an item ofthe nonrequesting ¹dRev. Proc. 2013-34, sec. 7, 2013-43 I.R.B. 397, 403, is effective for requests for equitable reliefpending on September 16, 2013, before a Federal court. ¹5The Commissioner will consider granting reliefregardless ofwhetherthe understatementor deficiency is attributable

nd is effective for requests for relieffiled on or after September 16, 2013, or for requests for equitable reliefpending on September 16, 2013, whether with the IRS, its Office ofAppeals, or in a case docketed in a Federal court. Rev. Proc. 2013-34, sec. 7, 2013-43 I.R.B. at 403. - 11 - decide de novo whether equitable reliefis warranted under section 6015(f). Porter v. Commissioner, 132 T.C. at 210. Pursuant to his grant ofauthority under section 6015(f), the Commissioner has established guidel

see Washington v. Commissioner, 120 T.C. 137, 147-152 (2003), we are not bound by them inasmuch as our analysis and determination ultimatelyturn on an evaluation ofall the facts and circumstances, sm Pullins v. Commissioner, 136 6Rev. Proc. 2013-34, sec. 7, 2013-43 I.R.B. 397, 403, provides that the guidelines are effective for requests for relieffiled on or after September 16, 2013, and requests for equitable reliefpending on September 16, 2013, whether before the IRS, the Office ofAppeals, or

Section 7 ofthe employ ent agreement, captioned "Termination," provided that "[t]his Agreement may be terminated by * * * [UMLIC S-Corp.] at any time for cause." The Agreement ma es no provision for termination by the employee, and it makes no provision for t rmination by the employer on grounds other than "for cause." For purposes ofthe Agreement,

7:7A, Appendix 1 (2003), meaning the wood turtle might become endangered if - 13 - [*13] conditions surrounding it began to or continued to deteriorate, id. sec. 7:25- 4.1 (2001). E. Petitioner's Decision Not To Pursue Residential Development Petitioner did not revise the Irondale Manor plan or pursue preliminary or final approvals with respe

67, 122 (2011) ("[A] shareholder iri an S corporation has a separat: ta basis iñ loaris theishareholder makes to the S corporation equal to the cmo nt ofthe loans." (Emphasis added.));.see also Deborah H. Schenk, Federal Taxation of S Corporations, sec. 7.06[3] (2013) (LEXIS) ("The sharehoker' basis in corporate debt ordinarily is the amount of money loaned to the corpora ion."). In addition to the general rules for determi ing basis (i.e., those found in section 1011), there are spec al iules

ability may result from actual fraud. - 11 - [*11] The MUFCL provided for liability where either actual fraud or constructive fraud is present.·Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 109A, secs. 4 - 7 (repealed 1996). Specifically, with respect to actual fraud, MUFCL sec. 7 provided.that a debtor's conveyance made "with actual intent * * * to hindér, delay or defraud either present or future creditors, is fraudulent as.to-bothpresent and future creditors." Under MUFTA, transferee liability arises where there is ei

Section 7(c), Remedy Available in Event ofDefault, ofthe net gift agreement provides in pertinent part: ii. Default in Payment ofEstate Tax Liability. Ifthe Executor determines that a Donee is in default * * * the Executor shall give notice tc the Donee that the Donee is in default (Estate Tax Default Notice and Estate Tax Default Notice Date, resp

The first enumerated powergiven to Congress (and not to the Executive or the courts) is the "Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts - 37 - and Excises". Id., sec. 8, cl. 1.2 As the Supreme Court observed in Whitman v. Am. Trucking Ass'ns, 531 U.S. 457, 472 (2001): Article I, § 1, ofthe Constitution vests "[a]ll legislative

t 211-212; see also Mendes v. Commissioner, 121 T.C. 308, 324 (2003). The "required annual payment" is equal to the lesser of(1)90% ofthe tax shown on the individual's return for that year (or, ifno return is filed, 90% ofhis tax for such year), see sec. 7Unless a statutory exception applies, the sec. 6654(a) addition to tax is mandatory, see sec. 6654(a), (e); Recklitis v. Commissioner, 91 T.C. 874, 913 (1988), and sec. 6654 does not contain a general exception for reasonable cause or absence o

7:7A, Appendix 1 (2003), meaning the wood turtle might become endangered if - 13 - [*13] conditions surrounding it began to or continued to deteriorate, id. sec. 7:25- 4.1 (2001). E. Petitioner's Decision Not To Pursue Residential Development Petitioner did not revise the Irondale Manor plan or pursue preliminary or final approvals with respe

7:7A, Appendix 1 (2003), meaning the wood turtle might become endangered if - 13 - [*13] conditions surrounding it began to or continued to deteriorate, id. sec. 7:25- 4.1 (2001). E. Petitioner's Decision Not To Pursue Residential Development Petitioner did not revise the Irondale Manor plan or pursue preliminary or final approvals with respe

Section 7(c), Remedy Available in Event of Default, of the net gift agreement provides in pertinent part: ii. Default in Payment of Estate Tax Liability. If the Executor determines that a Donee is in default * * * the Executor shall give notice to the Donee that the Donee is in default (Estate Tax Default Notice and Estate Tax Default Notice Date,

7.03, 2006-2 C.B. at 1042. Petitionerdoes not alleg¢that she^or ány bther similarly situated taxpayerh s filed for compet nt authority assistance, nor has she convincingly shownthat there exists à probability ofdouble taxation as might warrantthe assistanbe ofthe U.S. con petent authority. We disagree that it is premáture to decide this case.

d properly substantiated any ofhis claimed traveling expenses under any ofthese methods, he could not deduct these expenses unless he could claim them as itemized deductions. See secs. 62(a)(2), 63(a), (d), 67(a) and (b), 162(a); Rev. Proc. 2007-63, sec. 7.06, 2007-2 C.B. at 817; Rev. Proc. 2008-59, sec. 7.06, 2008-2 C.B. at 865. To claim itemized deductions, a - 12 - [*12] taxpayermust make an election for the taxable year on his or her return. Sec. 63(e)(1) and (2). Because petitioner failed t

Petitioners do not contend that section 7 91(a) shifts the burden ofproofto respondent, and the record does not permit us to conclude that the requirements ofsection 7491(a)(2) are met.

Finally, the parties agreed in article VII, section 7.3 ofthe tock purchase agreement that- .

aff'g T.C. Memo. 1969-26. As a general matter, when gambling winnings of$1,200 or more from a bingo game or slot machine play are paid, the payor is required to inform the IRS -5 - ofthe payments. See Park v; Commissioner, 136 TtC. 569, 574 (2011); sec. 7.6041-1(a), Temporary Income Tax Regs., 42 Fed. Reg. 33286 (June 30, 1977). Petitioners received gambling winnings totaling $20,700; as indicated from the four separate Forms W-2G issued bythe casino. Petitioners credibly testified that these wi

employee and contributions made by a self- employed taxpayerto her pension plan "shall be considered to satisfy the conditions ofsection 162 or section 212".6 S. Rept. No. 87-992, supra, 1962-3 C.B. at 341-342; see sec. 404(a)(8). Further, 1962 Act sec. 7, 76 Stat. at 828, amended section 62 to provide that self-employed individuals were entitled to the deduction from gross income allowed by section 404. S. Rept. No. 87-992, supra, 1962-3 C.B. at 356; see sec. 62(a)(6). Thus, petitioner, for th

taxpayer has the burden of proving that those determinations are erroÉëous. See Rule 142(a); Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933). In some cases the burden of proof with respect to rélevant factual issues may shift to the -Commissioner under section 7 91(a). As petitioner did not argue or prove that the requirements of section 7491(a) have been met, the burden of pròof does not shift to respondent. 2The Court redacts the names of minor children. See Rule 27(a) (3). - 4 - Unreported Unemp

O, Inc. v. Commissioner, 503 U.S. 79, 84 (1992) . The Code and the régulations thereunder required Mr. Whipple to maintain records sufficient to establish the amount of sMr. Whipple does not älaim that the burden of proof shifts to respondent under sec. 7Î91(a) . On the record liefore us, we conclude that' the burden oft proof does not shift to respondent under that section. See id. - 7 - any dédüction claimed. See sec. 6001; sec. 1.6001-1(a) ," Income Tax Regs 2 keãpondent bears the burden of p

As to whether the notice of deficiency; is invalid behause it insufficiently sets forth respondent s pdsitior section 7522(a) requires that the notice "describe the basis for, änd identify the amoiints (if any) of, the taxsdue interest, additional amounts, additioris to the tax, and -assessable penalties included in such no'tice"." Theepurposes:of section 7-522 is ito provide the taxpayer with notice of the Commissioner's basis for determining a deficiency.

7:36-1.2 (2011). Those regulations provided that the partial driveway, by virtue of its status as parkland protected under the Green Acres laws, could not be conveyed to Mr. DiDonato without approval of the conveyance from the Office of Green Acres in the NJDEP, the NJDEP commissioner, and the State House Commission (commission). Id. sec. 7:36

and which amount included the approximate $225,000 MidCoast premium; (5) $1.4 million was transferred back to Shapiro in return of the purported loan Shapiro had made to MidCoast earlier that same day (see (2) above); and (6) $38,000 was transferred out of the trust account to Foley for legal and escrow fees.® Section 7.1 of the SPA states that the above cash transfers were to be treated as occurring simultaneously.

7.6041-1(b) ( ) and (2) Temporary Income Tax Regs . stipra. For nonresident aliens, sectione1441(a) generally requires the payer of gambling swinnings tNwithhold from such *items a tax equal to 30 percent and to submit the amounts withheld to the - 10 - IRS. The withholding entity also must file a Form 1042 S, Foreign Person's U.S. Source Inc

of written notification-of the withdrŠwal of the offer either by personal delivery or certified mail, or on issuance of a letter by the IRS confirming the taxpayer'siintent to withdraw the offer. 26 C.F.R. sec. 301.7122-1(d) (3); Sev. Proc. 2003-71, sec. 7.02, 2003-2 C.B. -at 519. While Mr. Johnson's representatives' letter did not use the term 'withdraw", it stated that "the $400,000 offer is no longer orkable" because Mr. Johnson "is no longer able to make the payments". If the letter withdrew

at 299. Revenue Procedure 2003-61 is applicable in the instant case because petitioner filed her request for innocent spouse relief on July 26, 2007. - 21 - 5. Divorce decree The property settlement states that the former spouse will hold the taxpayer harmless from any federal tax liability arising during their mar- riage. The

Revenue Procedure 2003-61 is applicable in this case because petitioner filed petitioner's innocent spouse relief request around Nov. 1, 2007. - 23 - DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS * * * * * * * 6015(f) Relief is provided io under §6015(f) if, taking into account all the facts and circumstances, it is inequitable to hold the individual liable for

and which amount included the approximate $225,000 MidCoast premium; (5) $1.4 million was transferred back to Shapiro in return of the purported loan Shapiro had made to MidCoast earlier that same day (see (2) above); and (6) $38,000 was transferred out of the trust account to Foley for legal and escrow fees.® Section 7.1 of the SPA states that the above cash transfers were to be treated as occurring simultaneously.

and which amount included the approximate $225,000 MidCoast premium; (5) $1.4 million was transferred back to Shapiro in return of the purported loan Shapiro had made to MidCoast earlier that same day (see (2) above); and (6) $38,000 was transferred out of the trust account to Foley for legal and escrow fees.® Section 7.1 of the SPA states that the above cash transfers were to be treated as occurring simultaneously.

and which amount included the approximate $225,000 MidCoast premium; (5) $1.4 million was transferred back to Shapiro in return of the purported loan Shapiro had made to MidCoast earlier that same day (see (2) above); and (6) $38,000 was transferred out of the trust account to Foley for legal and escrow fees.® Section 7.1 of the SPA states that the above cash transfers were to be treated as occurring simultaneously.

and which amount included the approximate $225,000 MidCoast premium; (5) $1.4 million was transferred back to Shapiro in return of the purported loan Shapiro had made to MidCoast earlier that same day (see (2) above); and (6) $38,000 was transferred out of the trust account to Foley for legal and escrow fees.® Section 7.1 of the SPA states that the above cash transfers were to be treated as occurring simultaneously.

In addition, section 7,4(a) .provides that the term "gross income" includes amounts received as prizes and awards .

Section 7 .3 of the partnership agreement, however, clearly makes such distributions discretionary : "Neither the partnership nor the general partner : shall have any obligation to distribute profits to enable the partners to pay taxes on the partnership's profits ." Because the timing and amount, of any distributions are matters of pure speculatio

In the event Buyer terminates this Agreement pur- suant to this Section 7(b), Buyer shall be entitled to immediate repayment of all Option Consideration paid for any Phases not then closed .

GOLDBERG, Special Trial Judge: This case was heard pursuant to the provisions of section 7.463 of the Internal Revenue Code in effect at the time the petition was filed.

Aside from section 7I91, HarÊis hàs píoviŠed no otlier reaso the nurddu of proof should be shifted to the IRS.

. Commissioner, supra at 189 ; Katz v . Commissioner , supra at 338 . Petitioner alternatively argues that the Appeals officer failed to properly verify that the requirements of any applicable law or administrative procedure were met as required by section 7 - 6330 . Petitioner's argument includes'a request to view certain documents, including copies of assessments and notices and demand, because his copies of these documents are not legitimately signed by the Secretary . Section 6330 does not r

the underlying statutes, and "interpretive" according to tax-law usage in the sense that one of them was issued under section 7.805 alone, they are not "interpretive" under the APA's exception to the notice-and-comment requirements because they are meant to bind 5 the public, which the Secretary has the power to do .' "Nearly 30 years ago, in Wing v .

Petitioner, however,, raises the issue of section 7.491(a), which shifts the burden of proof to the Commissioner in certain situations if the taxpayer introduces credible evidence with respect to any factual issue relevant to ascertaining the proper tax liability.

Title 26, Internal Revenue Code, Section 7-206(1) ; and Title 26, Internal Revenue Code, Section 7201 - 136 - On June 26, 1996, Martin Gelfand spoke with, Carol Muranaka, an attorney in the Office of District Counsel, Western Region, and requested a conference with the office of District Counsel to discuss the matter ..

..-., Felt also directed us to-section 7 .12 of the'Texas#'Business .

; Section 7,491(a), however, shifts the burden of proof to the Commissioner with respect to a factual issue affecting the :tax liability of a taxpayer who meets certain conditions . Petitioner has neither claimed nor shown that he satisfiedthe requirements of .section 7491(a) to shift the burden of proof to respondent with regard to any factual issue

In.other words, section 7'491(a) is inapplicabl e because we decide this ease entirely byapplica-tion of the law t o undisputed facts .

that the IRS is prohibited from assessing or collecting tax, such as during the pendency of certain court proceedings, section 7 - - 6330 hearings, bankruptcy proceedings, and, installmen t agreements.

] In response to certain questions in section 7 of petition- ers' Form 433-A, petitioners indicated that they owned the following three automobiles : (1) A 1988 "BMW 320i" that had a current value of $800, (2) a 1990 Lexus "LS 400" that had a current value of $1,000, and (3) a 1998 "yolks Passat" that had a current value of $800 .

0 No q Yes In section 7 of petitioner's June 24, 2005 Form 433-A, petitioner indicated that he owned real estate in Washington, D .C., the current value of that real estate was $741,330, there were two outstanding mortgage loans totaling $625,000 with - 29 - respect to that real estate, and he was required to make monthly payments totaling $3,929 .59 with respe

Whether the payments satisfy section 7:1 and, in this case, i particularly section 71(b)(1)(D) is controlling .

: No 9 Yes In section 7 of petitioner’s Form 433-A, petitioner indi- cated that she owned (1) a 2005 Jeep Liberty valued at $18,785 with respect to which there was a $23,000 outstanding loan balance and (2) two vehicles, neither of which had any value.

10-Percents Additional Tax on Early Distributions From IRA s Section 7 (t) generally provides that a taxpayer is liable for a 10-perce t additional tax on early distributions from a qualified reti ement plan .

: No 9 Yes In section 7 of petitioner’s March 15, 2005 Form 433-A, petitioner indicated that he owned (1) a 1991 Cadillac valued at $1,500, (2) “Furniture/Personal Effects” valued at $1,000, (3) inventory valued at $15,000 with respect to which there was an $8,000 outstanding loan balance, and (4)(a) a one-half inter- est in a duplex on University Avenue in Dubu

Proc. 2003-61, supra, are effective for requests for relief filed on or after Nov. 1, 2003, and for requests for relief pending as of Nov. 1, 2003, for which no preliminary determination letter has been issued as of Nov. 1, 2003. Rev. Proc. 2003-61, sec. 7, 2003-2 C.B. at 299. Although petitioner filed his request for relief prior to Nov. 1, 2003, Rev. Proc. 2003-61, supra, applies in this case, because respondent had not issued a preliminary determination letter on or before Nov. 1, 2003. 2Rev.

7.01(5), 1989-1 C.B. 814, 815 (taxpayers may rely on published revenue rulings in determining the tax treatment of their own transactions). - 13 - fide employee. See secs. 105(b),(e), and 106(a); Larkin v. Commissioner, 48 T.C. 629, 635 (1967), affd. 394 F.2d 494 (1st Cir. 1968); Tschetter v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-326 (there need not

-1 C.B. 447, is effective for requests for relief under sec. 6015(f) filed on or after Nov. 1, 2003, and for requests for such relief pending on, and for which no preliminary determination letter had been issued as of, that date. Rev. Proc. 2003-61, sec. 7, 2003-2 C.B. at 297. Rev. Proc. 2003-61, supra is not applicable in the instant case because (1) petitioner filed her request for relief on Sep. 8, 2002, and (2) respondent issued a preliminary determination on June 3, 2003. - 9 - (c) The requ

As a result of the.investigation, criminal charges were filed against petitioner, one count under section 7.201 for an attempt to evade or defeat tax in 1995 and three.

7.01(1), 1986-2 C.B. 722 (prerequisite to advance ruling that a type A merger will be tax free is a representation that the fair market value of the acquirer stock and other consideration received will be approximately equal to the fair market value of the target stock surrendered in the exchange); Rev. Proc. 81-60, sec. 4.03(2)(d), 1981-2 C.B

7.01(1), 1986-2 C.B. 722 (prerequisite to advance ruling that a type A merger will be tax free is a representation that the fair market value of the acquirer stock and other consideration received will be approximately equal to the fair market value of the target stock surrendered in the exchange); Rev. Proc. 81-60, sec. 4.03(2)(d), 1981-2 C.B

7.01(1), 1986-2 C.B. 722 (prerequisite to advance ruling that a type A merger will be tax free is a representation that the fair market value of the acquirer stock and other consideration received will be approximately equal to the fair market value of the target stock surrendered in the exchange); Rev. Proc. 81-60, sec. 4.03(2)(d), 1981-2 C.B

at 299. Revenue Procedure 2003-61 is not applicable in the instant case. That is because (1) petitioner filed her request for relief under sec. 6015(f) (viz, petitioner’s Form 8857) on Jan. 15, 2001, and (2) the IRS issued preliminary determinations on Aug. 31, and Oct. 26, 2001, respectively (viz, respondent’s August 31, 2001 l

Revenue Procedure 2003-61 is not applicable in the instant case. That is because (1) petitioner filed petitioner’s Form 8857 on Jan. 9, 2002, and (2) the IRS issued a preliminary determination on Sept. 9, 2002 (i.e., the IRS Septem- ber 9, 2002 preliminary determination) with respect to that form. - 19 - liability in question. Section 4.01

7.6041-1, Temporary Proced. & Admin. Regs., 42 Fed. Reg. 1471 (Jan. 7, 1977). On their joint 2001 Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, petitioners reported gambling income of $21,100 and gambling losses of the same amount on Schedule A, Itemized Deductions. Respondent determined that petitioners received gambling income of $44,464 and

Section 7 of the form lists the following income and expenses: Total Income Gross Total Expenses Actual Source Monthly Expense Items Monthly 19. Gross receipts $295,498 27. Materials purchased 20. Gross rental income 28. Inventory purchased 21. Interest 29. Gross wages & salaries $76,770 22. Dividends 30. Rent 6,300 Other income (specify 31. Suppli

We find that Mr. Obot has not cooperated with the IRS. Instead of producing the records from his business, he falsely claimed that they were lost in a flood. The records he did produce were not credible: he doctored receipts or concealed key information before photocopying them. We conclude that the burden of proof stays on him.

C.B. 296, superseded Rev. Proc. 2000-15, 2000-1 C.B. 447. Rev. Proc. 2003-61, supra, is effective for requests for relief pending on Nov. 1, 2003, for which no preliminary determination letter has been issued as of Nov. 1, 2003. Rev. Proc. 2003-61, sec. 7, 2003-2 C.B. at 299. Because no preliminary determination letter had been issued as of Nov. 1, 2003, Rev. Proc. 2003-61, supra, applies to this case. - 11 - determination indicated that “[e]conomic considerations, abuse indications, and compli

7(...continued) payment of the tax. (2) Determination of portion attributable to fraud. If the Secretary establishes that any portion of an underpayment is attributable to fraud, the entire underpayment shall be treated as attributable to fraud, except with respect to any portion of the underpayment which the taxpayer establishes is not attrib

7-5- 114(1)(c) (1986) (Director Dissolution Statute) because she caused the corporation to liquidate, and she distributed corporate assets to herself. Merriam v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-432. We entered decision that petitioner was liable as a transferee for Napa’s 1986 income tax and additions to tax for 1986 in the amount of $1,154,034.

or requests for relief filed under sec. 6015(f) which are filed on or after Nov. 1, 2003, and for requests for such relief which were pending on, and for which no preliminary determination letter has been issued as of, that date. Rev. Proc. 2003-61, sec. 7, 2003-2 C.B. at 299. Here, petitioner’s Form 8857 was filed on June 12, 2001, and was no longer pending on Nov. 1, 2003, as respondent denied her request for relief therein in Notices dated Feb. 13 and Apr. 24, 2002. - 25 - weighing against gr

ITEM IV My Personal Representative shall have the powers and duties accorded to Personal Representatives under the Estates and Trusts Article of the Annotated Code of Maryland, Section 7-401, and any amendments thereto.

orth information to identify the election, the period for which it applies, and the taxpayer’s basis or entitlement for making the election. [Sec. 301.9100- 12T(d), Temporary Proced. & Admin. Regs., 57 Fed. Reg. 43896 (Sept. 23, 1992) (redesignating sec. 7.0, Temporary Income Tax Regs., 42 Fed. Reg. 1470 (Jan. 7, 1977)).] The Court analyzed these statutory and regulatory requirements under section 172 in Young v. Commissioner, 83 T.C. 831 (1984), affd. 783 F.2d 1201 (5th Cir. 1986). In Young, th

The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit analyzed section 7 The limitations question had to be resolved before the District Court could consider the bankrupt’s claims to the estate’s losses within the context of sec.

7.01(5), 1989-1 C.B. 814 (taxpayers may rely on published revenue rulings in determining the tax treatment of their own transactions). - 36 - residence at a retirement home under a lifetime care contract was deductible by the individuals as an expense for medical care under section 213, subject to the limitations of the statute. In the ruling

minate this Trust Agreement * * * as to the deceased Grantor’s separate trust share.” 2. Marital Deduction Trust Amount of Distribution. The amount of the distribution from decedent’s separate trust share to the marital deduction trust, as stated in section 7.A. of the trust agreement, is as follows: A distribution shall be made to this trust of an amount equal to the excess, if any, of the decedent’s taxable estate (computed without any marital deduction) plus the amount of the decedent’s adjus

Revenue Procedure 2003-61 is not applicable in the instant case. That is because (1) petitioner filed petitioner’s Form 8857 on Feb. 12, 2001, and (2) petitioner’s Form 8857 was not pending on Nov. 1, 2003. 39The factors that we consider in determining whether it would be inequitable for purposes of sec. 6015(f) are the same as the factors

ically, we look to the Texas Revised Limited Partnership Act (the Act), Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. Ann. art. 6132a-1, as in effect on the date of the gift. Under the Act, a partnership interest is personal property. Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. Ann. art. 6132a-1, sec. 7.01 (Vernon 2001). A partnership interest is assignable in whole or in part unless the partnership agreement provides otherwise. Id. sec. 7.02(a)(1). However, an assignee of a partnership interest attains the legal status of a limited partner o

274(d) nor the regulations thereunder nor the applicable revenue procedures explicitly refer to the substantiation requirements that apply to the employer or payor that seeks to deduct payments of travel-expense reimbursements. Under sec. 274(d), however, the “taxpayer” must meet the stringent substantiation requirements to be e

The obligation of IRC to make payments to SII pursuant to this Section 2.02 shall be contingent upon the delivery to IRC by SII of the monthly reports required pursuant to Section 4.01 hereof, and the absence of any default under Section 7.03 hereof.

The obligation of IRC to make payments to SII pursuant to this Section 2.02 shall be contingent upon the delivery to IRC by SII of the monthly reports required pursuant to Section 4.01 hereof, and the absence of any default under Section 7.03 hereof.

7.6041-1(a), - 5 - Temporary Income Tax Regs., 42 Fed. Reg. 1471 (Jan. 7, 1977). This latter return must be made on a Form W-2G. See sec. 7.6041- 1(c), Temporary Income Tax Regs., supra; see also sec. 31.3402(q)-1(f), Employment Tax Regs. (Form W-2G payer reporting requirements for purposes of withholding). In determining the amount won from

7.2 (2000); 50 C.F.R. sec. 32.7 (2000); 14 Op. Atty. Gen. 608 (1873); 9 Op. Atty. Gen. 364 (1859); The U.S. Constitution and Insular Areas, supra at 39-40, 50-51; U.S. 5We rely on judicial notice and stipulations of the parties for statements describing Johnston Island and Johnston Atoll. 6Johnston Atoll, furthermore, is a national wildlife re

(Section 1221 was amended by adding subsection 7 which excludes clearly identified hedging transactions from the definition of capital asset, effective for any transaction entered into on or after December 17, 1999.

The little legislative history we have found regariding section 7(2(c) also is silent on this matter.

7.2 (2000); 50 C.F.R. sec. 32.7 (2000); 14 Op. Atty. Gen. 608 (1873); 9 Op. Atty. Gen. 364 (1859); The U.S. Constitution and Insular Areas, supra at 39-40, 50-51; U.S. 5We rely on judicial notice and stipulations of the parties for statements describing Johnston Island and Johnston Atoll. 6Johnston Atoll, furthermore, is a national wildlife re

67). The relative values of a promise and the consideration for it, do not affect the sufficiency of consideration. See Browning v. Johnson, supra; Puget Mill Co. v. Kerry, 49 P.2d 57, 64 (Wash. 1935); 3 Williston, Treatise on the Law of Contracts, sec. 7:21, at 383- 386 (4th ed. 1992). We agree that the 776 patent did not provide new consideration. The 776 patent was a division of patent - 24 - application S.N. 800,288, which was assigned by Lea to Cascade in 1979. See Differential Steel Car Co

67). The relative values of a promise and the consideration for it, do not affect the sufficiency of consideration. See Browning v. Johnson, supra; Puget Mill Co. v. Kerry, 49 P.2d 57, 64 (Wash. 1935); 3 Williston, Treatise on the Law of Contracts, sec. 7:21, at 383- 386 (4th ed. 1992). We agree that the 776 patent did not provide new consideration. The 776 patent was a division of patent - 24 - application S.N. 800,288, which was assigned by Lea to Cascade in 1979. See Differential Steel Car Co

7.4001 (1999); Marquette Natl. Bank v. First of Omaha Serv. Corp., 439 U.S. 299 (1978). Prior to the decision in Marquette, the majority of analysts assumed that a national bank was not permitted to export the interest rate permitted by the State in which it was located, but, rather, was subject to the usury restrictions imposed by each of the

Under the Agreement for the Trust,2 dated October 25, 1977, effective November 1, 1976, section 7.01(o) provides that the trustees shall have the power with respect to the Trust: To lend money to a Participant at the then current rates of interest being charged by commercial banks for similar loans, in an amount not exceeding the value of such Participant's Accrued Benefit and all such loans to the extent they are secured only by the

ment that the family member shareholders are unwilling to give, may otherwise create an unpleasant and unrewarding working environment, or may strive to acquire a majority of the outstanding shares. See O'Neal & Thompson, O'Neal's Close Corporations sec. 7.02 (3d ed. 1994). A nonfamily shareholder also may continually second-guess the actions of a family shareholder, director, or officer, or group thereof, as unlawful attempts to usurp the rights of a minority shareholder in favor of the family.

that taxable year. The regulations, in accord with the statute, provide that the "election must be made by the later of the time, including extensions thereof, prescribed by law for filing income tax returns for such taxable year or March 8, 1977." Sec. 7.0(b)(1), Temporary Income Tax Regs., 42 Fed. Reg. 1469-1470 (Jan. 7, 1977),2 which regulation is entitled Various Elections Under the Tax Reform Act of 1976. As to the manner in which the election is to be effected, section 2, Temporary Income

D’Amico (1) $62,616.45 for mental distress damages (in addition to $12,383.56 that previously had been paid to him) and (2) $10,000 in consideration for the covenants of secrecy contained in section 5 of the settlement agreement (covenants of secrecy), the release contained in section 7 of that agreement (release), and the other covenants and obligations in the settlement agreement (other covenants and obligations) to which Mr.

urisdiction to allow such an amount in estates of similar size and character. In support of its position that it is entitled to deduct under section 2053(b) executors’ fees totaling $16,875, the estate relies in part on Md. Code Ann., Est. & Trusts, sec. 7- 601(b) (1998 Supp.) (Md. Code Ann., Est. & Trusts, sec. 7- 601(b)). That section prescribes the maximum compensation payable to a personal representative of an estate as follows: (b) Computation of compensation.--Unless the will provides a la

nformation to identify the election, the period - 16 - for which it applies, and the taxpayer’s basis or entitlement for making the election. Sec. 301.9100-12T(d), Temporary Proced. & Admin. Regs., 57 Fed. Reg. 43896 (Sept. 23, 1992) (redesignating sec. 7.0, Temporary Income Tax Regs., 42 Fed. Reg. 1470 (Jan. 7, 1977)). We have previously analyzed these statutory and regulatory requirements under section 172 in Young v. Commissioner, 83 T.C. 831 (1984), affd. 783 F.2d 1201 (5th Cir. 1986). In Yo

Section 7-6-102 of the Colorado Corporation Code pro- vides that no redemption or purchase of redeemable stock shall be made by a corporation when it is insol- vent or when such redemption or purchase would render it insolvent and further provides that a corporation may redeem its stock only out of surplus. Section 7-1- 102 of the Code defines inso

Section 7-75.2 of the Warwick City Code (the Warwick Code) requires the Board to grant a service-connected disability pension, equal to 66-2/3 percent of the firefighter's highest salary, to any firefighter who becomes unfit for duty because of a heart, lung, or cancer-related disability. To receive a service-connected disability pension under the

forth information to identify the election, the period for which it applies, and the taxpayer's basis or entitlement for making the election. Sec. 301.9100-12T(d), Temporary Proced. & Admin. Regs., 57 Fed. Reg. 43893 (Sept. 23, 1992) (redesignating sec. 7.0, Temporary Income Tax Regs., 42 Fed. Reg. 1469 (Jan. 7, 1977) ("Various elections under the Tax Reform Act of 1976")). Petitioner must first establish that he suffered an NOL for the taxable year 1984. To meet this burden petitioner relies o

dissenting: I join in section 7, Overpayment Status, of Judge Beghe’s separate opinion and dissent for the reasons stated therein.

hat exhibit as a "Covenant Not to Compete executed by Dr. Donald L. Chiappetti" and an item referred to in that section as a "Covenant Not to Compete". The purchase contract contained the following language with respect to a covenant not to compete: Section 7. Covenant Not to Compete. In connec- tion with the sale of the above-mentioned assets, Donald L. Chiappetti (the sole shareholder of Seller) agrees that he will not, for a period of five (5) years from the date of closing, engage in the pra

3412. As alluded to above, however, in 1990, the .District Court, with jurisdiction over petitioner's bankruptcy proceeding, held specifically that petitioner's 1975-NOL was to be treated as ., . property of the bankruptcy estate and.not of petitioner. - 14 - 11 U.S.C sec. 346(a). In this context, "subject to the Internal Reven

Under section 7.1(a) of the agreements, an executor who did not make a section 6166 election was required to offer all Company shares, other than shares transferred to "permitted transferees", to the Company within 30 days after the date Federal estate taxes were due to be paid. Regardless of whether a section 6166 election was made, if an executor offer

- 3 - winnings are exempt from tax pursuant to section 3402(q)(5); (2) petitioner was not legally required to sign the Form W-2G when he received his slot machine winnings; (3) petitioner withdrew his signature on the Form W-2G, thereby removing himself from its legally binding terms; and (4) the Commissioner has no authority to issue section 7.6041-1, Temporary Proced.

in cash or other valuable prizes on the "Wheel of Fortune" game show. As such, petitioners maintain that the prizes that petitioner actually won are wagering winnings and that the expenses incurred are properly characterized as wagering losses under section 7 Sec. 262(a) provides the general rule that no deduction shall be allowed for personal, living, or family expenses. Sec. 1.262-1(b)(5), Income Tax Regs., provides in pertinent part: Expenses incurred in traveling away from home (which includ