§73 — Services of child
31 cases·7 followed·5 distinguished·2 criticized·1 overruled·16 cited—23% support
Statute Text — 26 U.S.C. §73
Amounts received in respect of the services of a child shall be included in his gross income and not in the gross income of the parent, even though such amounts are not received by the child.
All expenditures by the parent or the child attributable to amounts which are includible in the gross income of the child (and not of the parent) solely by reason of subsection (a) shall be treated as paid or incurred by the child.
For purposes of this section, the term “parent” includes an individual who is entitled to the services of a child by reason of having parental rights and duties in respect of the child.
For assessment of tax against parent in certain cases, see section 6201(c).
Treasury Regulations
- Treas. Reg. §Treas. Reg. §1.73-1 Services of child
- Treas. Reg. §Treas. Reg. §1.73-1(a) Compensation for personal services of a child shall, regardless of the provisions of State law relating to who is entitled to the earnings of the child, and regardless of whether the income is in fact received by the child, be deemed to be the gross income of the child and not the gross income of the parent of the child.
- Treas. Reg. §Treas. Reg. §1.73-1(b) In the determination of taxable income or adjusted gross income, as the case may be, all expenditures made by the parent or the child attributable to amounts which are includible in the gross income of the child and not of the parent solely by reason of section 73 are deemed to have been paid or incurred by the child.
- Treas. Reg. §Treas. Reg. §1.73-1(c) For purposes of section 73, the term “parent” includes any individual who is entitled to the services of the child by reason of having parental rights and duties in respect of the child.
31 Citing Cases
Commissioner, 73 T.C. 1246, 1254 (1980) (quoting Nesenberg v. Commissioner, 69 T.C. 1005, 1010-1011(1978)); see Fritschle v. Commissioner, 79 T.C. at 158. As we noted above, we determined the "true earner" ofthe income to be petitioners, not their children. Therefore, section 73(a) is inapplicable and does not operate to include any portion ofthose amounts in the gross incomes ofpetitioners' children.¹6 Accordingly, on the record before us, we find that respondent properly included the NHERI che
Respondent contends that under section 73, petitioners cannot treat C.P.'s pageant-related income and expenditures as their own.
Respondent contends that under section 73, petitioners cannot treat C.P.'s pageant-related income and expenditures as their own.
Nevertheless, with respect to the income reported on the Schedules C, we note that our conclusion is entirely consistent with Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111 (1930) (income is taxed to the person who earned it). Our conclusion is further consistent with sec. 73, which provides, in general, that amounts received in respect of services rendered by a child are includable in the child’s gross income and not in the gross income of the child’s parents, even though such amounts are not received by the chil
at 591-592. - 7 - [*7] FINDINGS OF FACT Tribune Background and Purchase of Chicago Cubs In 1847, Tribune began publishing the Chicago Tribune newspaper. Tribune went public in 1983. During the year at issue, Tribune was organized as a corporation under the laws of Delaware and filed its Federal income tax return as a consolidated
cribed 16,266 insec.86(a)(2) Sec.86(a)(2) AdditionalAmount amountineludibleis 13,826 13,826 thelesserof:: (A)thesumof: (i)85%of excessplus (ii)lesserof: 14,133 Amount determined underpar. 1,or dusedbase 6,000 6,000 6,000 lessbase amountor (B)85%Soc.Sec. 73,953 benefits AmountofSoc. Sec.benefitsincludibleingrossincome: 19,826 -22- APPENDIXB Respondent'scomputationofamountofsocialsecuritybenefitsincludibleingrossincome Base Adjusted amount baseamount Wages,salaries, 93,323 tips,etc. Taxableinteres
73.001 (West 1997).] - 26 - grounds 749 S.W.2d 762, 766 (Tex. 1987). In Newspapers, Inc. v. Matthews, 339 S.W.2d 890, 893 (Tex. 1960), the Texas Supreme Court reaffirmed that a business is not the subject of libel and that the defamation, if any, is of the owner of the business and not the business itself, whether the owner be an individual,