§80 — Restoration of value of certain securities
41 cases·5 followed·1 overruled·35 cited—12% support
Statute Text — 26 U.S.C. §80
In the case of a domestic corporation subject to the tax imposed by section 11 or 801, if the value of any security (as defined in section 165(g)(2))—
which became worthless by reason of the expropriation, intervention, seizure, or similar taking by the government of any foreign country, any political subdivision thereof, or any agency or instrumentality of the foregoing of property to which such security was related, and
which was taken into account as a loss from the sale or exchange of a capital asset or with respect to which a deduction for a loss was allowed under section 165,
is restored in whole or in part during any taxable year by reason of any recovery of money or other property in respect of the property to which such security was related, the value so restored (to the extent that, when added to the value so restored during prior taxable years, it does not exceed the amount of the loss described in paragraph (2)) shall, except as provided in subsection (b), be included in gross income for the taxable year in which such restoration occurs.
The amount otherwise includible in gross income under subsection (a) in respect of any security shall be reduced by an amount equal to the amount (if any) of the loss described in subsection (a)(2) which did not result in a reduction of the taxpayer’s tax under this subtitle for any taxable year, determined under regulations prescribed by the Secretary.
For purposes of this subtitle—
Except as provided in paragraph (2), the amount included in gross income under this section shall be treated as ordinary income.
If the loss described in subsection (a)(2) was taken into account as a loss from the sale or exchange of a capital asset, the amount included in gross income under this section shall be treated as long-term capital gain.
This section shall not apply to any recovery of a foreign expropriation loss to which section 1351 applies.
41 Citing Cases
es, immunities and liabilities adaptable to any physical thing, the fee simple absolute is the largest segment thereofthat the political philosophy ofthe time and place permits any private individual to obtain."); 9 Thompson on Real Property, supra, sec. 80.08(b)(2)(ii) ("Where the taking is not total, the 'before and after' rule is commonly used. Just compensation for a partial taking is calculated either at (a) the value ofthe remainder before taking minus the value ofthe remainder after takin
955 (1983). We conclude that SWTF lacks any semblance ofeconomic substance and was a mere alter ego ofpetitioners Wegbreit. Accordingly, it should be disregarded for Federal income tax purposes. See Sparkman v. Commissioner, 509 F.3d 1149, 1156 n.6 (9th Cir. 2007), affg T.C. Memo. 2005-136. Petitioners Wegbreit are therefore liable for Fe
955 (1983). We conclude that SWTF lacks any semblance ofeconomic substance and was a mere alter ego ofpetitioners Wegbreit. Accordingly, it should be disregarded for Federal income tax purposes. See Sparkman v. Commissioner, 509 F.3d 1149, 1156 n.6 (9th Cir. 2007), affg T.C. Memo. 2005-136. Petitioners Wegbreit are therefore liable for Fe
entitled to loss deductions under section 165 for tax year 2009 equal to the remaining basis in the contract. Petitioners argue that State or local law determines property rights and ask the Court to takejudicial notice of Los Angeles Municipal Code sec. 80.77.4, which limits the duration ofOPG contracts to a five-year term. Petitioners argue that general rules ofcontract interpretation require the Court to ascertain the intent ofthe parties from the plain 5Sec. 197(e)(4)(D) excludes from the de
entitled to loss deductions under section 165 for tax year 2009 equal to the remaining basis in the contract. Petitioners argue that State or local law determines property rights and ask the Court to takejudicial notice of Los Angeles Municipal Code sec. 80.77.4, which limits the duration ofOPG contracts to a five-year term. Petitioners argue that general rules ofcontract interpretation require the Court to ascertain the intent ofthe parties from the plain 5Sec. 197(e)(4)(D) excludes from the de
783 (1983), as the statute applies to all taxpayers without regard to their profession or their "special circumstances". As demonstrated above, section 55 imposes an AMT of$4,363 on petitioner for 2013. The Court is therefore obliged to sustain respondent's deficiency determination. To reflect the foregoing, An order granting respondent's
With the exception ofa relatiyely small amount of depreciation for unspecified assets, all.ofthese deductions appear related to the Dunfords' vehicles, and each ofthese deductions (including depreciation) is , disallowed for at least one ofthree reasons: a) The Dunfo ds used the motor home as a residerice during-2005 and 2006, sb that section 80A disallows the deductions.
Section 80a-8(a) of the 1940 Act requires any investment company to register with the Securities and Exchange Commission - 8 - (SEC). The 1940 Act permits one trust document to serve as the governing instrument for more than one RIC. Each additional RIC covered by a preexisting trust document is established as a separate "series" of that trust. In