§74 — Prizes and awards
57 cases·14 followed·6 distinguished·1 questioned·1 criticized·1 limited·1 overruled·33 cited—25% support
Statute Text — 26 U.S.C. §74
Except as otherwise provided in this section or in section 117 (relating to qualified scholarships), gross income includes amounts received as prizes and awards.
Gross income does not include amounts received as prizes and awards made primarily in recognition of religious, charitable, scientific, educational, artistic, literary, or civic achievement, but only if—
the recipient was selected without any action on his part to enter the contest or proceeding;
the recipient is not required to render substantial future services as a condition to receiving the prize or award; and
the prize or award is transferred by the payor to a governmental unit or organization described in paragraph (1) or (2) of section 170(c) pursuant to a designation made by the recipient.
Gross income shall not include the value of an employee achievement award (as defined in section 274(j)) received by the taxpayer if the cost to the employer of the employee achievement award does not exceed the amount allowable as a deduction to the employer for the cost of the employee achievement award.
If the cost to the employer of the employee achievement award received by the taxpayer exceeds the amount allowable as a deduction to the employer, then gross income includes the greater of—
an amount equal to the portion of the cost to the employer of the award that is not allowable as a deduction to the employer (but not in excess of the value of the award), or
the amount by which the value of the award exceeds the amount allowable as a deduction to the employer.
The remaining portion of the value of such award shall not be included in the gross income of the recipient.
In the case of an employer exempt from taxation under this subtitle, any reference in this subsection to the amount allowable as a deduction to the employer shall be treated as a reference to the amount which would be allowable as a deduction to the employer if the employer were not exempt from taxation under this subtitle.
For provisions excluding certain de minimis fringes from gross income, see section 132(e).
Gross income shall not include the value of any medal awarded in, or any prize money received from the United States Olympic Committee on account of, competition in the Olympic Games or Paralympic Games.
Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any taxpayer for any taxable year if the adjusted gross income (determined without regard to this subsection) of such taxpayer for such taxable year exceeds $1,000,000 (half of such amount in the case of a married individual filing a separate return).
For purposes of sections 85(c), 86, 135, 137, 219, 221, and 469, adjusted gross income shall be determined after the application of paragraph (1) and before the application of subparagraph (A).
Treasury Regulations
- Treas. Reg. §Treas. Reg. §1.74-1 Prizes and awards
- Treas. Reg. §Treas. Reg. §1.74-1(a) Inclusion in gross income.
- Treas. Reg. §Treas. Reg. §1.74-1(b) Exclusion from gross income.
- Treas. Reg. §Treas. Reg. §1.74-1(c) Scholarships and fellowship grants.
57 Citing Cases
485, 493 (2017), supplementing and overruling in part 147 T.C.
We find that case to be materially distinguishable from the instant case and petitioners' reliance on that case to be misplaced.
7491 does not apply in this case to shift the burden ofproofto respondentbecause petitioners neither alleged that sec.
And, unlike with the car expenses, the Commissioner didn't I give anything away. We agree with the Commissioner. 3. Travel Claimed RA's NOD P claimed P claimed R argued on return report adjust. at trial in brief at trial $6,418 0 ($6,418) $8,959 $5,494 0 Pace traveled extensively in 2001, spending thousands of dollars on airfare, hotels, and incidentals. But he has failed to adequately substantiate such expenses under section 274.
SERVED Nov 29 2012 - 2 - Pursuant to section 74 3(b), the decision to be entered is not reviewable by any other court, and this opunon shall not be treated as precedent for any other case.
ARMEN, 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 Unless otherwise indicated, all subsequent section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the years 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 .
Pursuant to section 7463 (b)., the decision to 'Unless otherwise indicated , all-section references are to the Internal Revenue Code as amended, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure .
Pursuant to section 7491(a), the burden of proof as to factua l matters shifts to the Commissioner under certain circumstances .
'Pursuant to section 7463 (b) Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue ode in effect for 2003, the taxable year,i issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules o f Practice and Procedur SERVED OCT 2 8.2008 4 2 the decision to be entered is not reviewable by any other cour
CARLUZZO, Special Trial Judge : This case was heard pursuant to the provisions of section 74 63.1 Pursuant to section 7463(b), the decision to be entered is n of reviewable by any 1 Unless otherwise indicated, section references are to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amend d, in effect for the relevant period .
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 .
74 0(b) and (c) (4) (A). Respondent contends, however, that p titioner is not 5Respondent concedes that petitioner did not unreasonably protract proceedings. See sec. 7430(b)(3). - 5 - treated as a prevailing party because respondent's position in the court proceeding was substantially justified. Substantial Justification The Commissioner's p
630 (1980). Under the Supreme Court's Bliss Dairy standard, death is the quintessential "merely unexpected event." Were death fundamentally inconsistent with expensing business inputs, every sole proprietor in the year ofhis death would face double taxation under both the income tax and the estate tax on all the inputs he had purchased fo
SUMMARY OPINION WELLS, Judge: This case was heard pursuantto the provisions ofsection 7463 ofthe Internal Revenue Code in effect when the petition was filed.1 1Unless otherwise indicated, section references are to the Internal Revenue (continued...) SERVED Nov 26 2012 - 2 - Pursuantto section 74G3(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.
vering, 290 U.S. 'The record does not disclose whether respondent re'ceived petitioner's 2006 Form 1040X. - 8 - 111, 115 (1933). The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, to which an appeal would lie absent a stipulation to the contrary, see sec. 74a2(b) (1) (A), has held that for the presumption of correctness to attach in an unreported income case, the Commissioner must establish "some factual foundation" for the assessment, see Portillo v. Commissioner, 932 F.2d 1128, 1133 (5th Cir. 19
A chain of common ownership could extend across streets or intersections. Id.; see New York, N.Y., Zoning Resolution secs. 74-79 to 74-793." Aside from special transfer rights granted to certain districts," zoning lot mergers and "Zoning Resolution sec. 74-79 provides: In all districts except R1, R2, R3, R4 or R5 Districts or C1 or C2 Districts mapped within such districts, for developments or enlargements, the City Planning Commission may permit development rights to be transferred to adjacent
vering, 290 U.S. 'The record does not disclose whether respondent re'ceived petitioner's 2006 Form 1040X. - 8 - 111, 115 (1933). The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, to which an appeal would lie absent a stipulation to the contrary, see sec. 74a2(b) (1) (A), has held that for the presumption of correctness to attach in an unreported income case, the Commissioner must establish "some factual foundation" for the assessment, see Portillo v. Commissioner, 932 F.2d 1128, 1133 (5th Cir. 19
Commissioner's burden of production under section 74,91(c),is to produce evidence that it is appropriate to impose the relevant, penalty, addition to tax, or additional amount" .
Burdens of Production and Proof Section 7491(c) .provides that the IRS bears the burden of production with respect to the liability of'any individual for any penalty or addition to tax .
in these proceedings on Oct. 18, 2004, when he filed the Lius' motion for leave to file motion to vacate their stipulated decision. - 50 - stipulated decision in the Lius' case, docket No. 48690-86. On June 8, 1993, the decision became final under section 74B1. When respondent submitted the stipulated decision documents obtained through the posttrial settlement offer to the Tax Court and asked the Court to enter those stipulated decisions, respondent did not file a copy of the posttrial settlem
101 and following)." Section 79 uses the same articulation as section 83 in providing that the cost of employees' group-term life insurance "shall be included in the gross income" of employees.
Other Code sections convey the same meaning by different terms such as providing that “gross income includes” alimony (section 71), annuities (section 72), prizes and awards (section 74), and Social Security benefits (section 86).
time to another person as trustee. [Cal. Prob. Code sec. 15200 (West 1991).] The California Probate Code further provides: "A trust is created only if there is trust property." Cal. Prob. Code sec. 15202 (West 1991); see also Restatement, Trusts 2d, sec. 74 (1959). There is no dispute as to the other requirements for the creation of a trust.4 Where the instrument is other than a will, there is no trust until property is transferred to the trustee. Cohen v. Myers, 86 Cal. Rptr. 456, 458 (Ct. App.