§84 — Transfer of appreciated property to political organizations
12 cases·1 followed·11 cited—8% support
Statute Text — 26 U.S.C. §84
If—
any person transfers property to a political organization, and
the fair market value of such property exceeds its adjusted basis,
then for purposes of this chapter the transferor shall be treated as having sold such property to the political organization on the date of the transfer, and the transferor shall be treated as having realized an amount equal to the fair market value of such property on such date.
In the case of a transfer of property to a political organization to which subsection (a) applies, the basis of such property in the hands of the political organization shall be the same as it would be in the hands of the transferor, increased by the amount of gain recognized to the transferor by reason of such transfer.
For purposes of this section, the term “political organization” has the meaning given to such term by section 527(e)(1).
Treasury Regulations
- Treas. Reg. §Treas. Reg. §1.84-1 Transfer of appreciated property to political organizations
- Treas. Reg. §Treas. Reg. §1.84-1(a) Transfer defined.
- Treas. Reg. §Treas. Reg. §1.84-1(b) Amount realized.
- Treas. Reg. §Treas. Reg. §1.84-1(c) Amount recognized.
- Treas. Reg. §Treas. Reg. §1.84-1(d) Holding period.
12 Citing Cases
o a traditional mortgage (i.e., giving the lender an interest in the property and requiring payment before the buyer has an unencumbered interest) but is sometimes used for higher-risk borrowers, see 15 Powell on Real Property, - 44 - [*44] supra, sec. 84D.0l[2], in which case we would expect to see terms less favorable for the borrower than a traditional mortgage. That is, for an arm's- length contract for deed, we would expect to see a higher interest rate (rather than the 6.0% rate stated in
948 (1985), "[b]y assuming numerous relatively small, independent risks that occur randomly over time, the insurer smoothes out losses to match more closely its receipt ofpremiums." 1. The Parties' Arguments The Avrahamis and Feedback claim their arrangement distributed risk in two independently sufficient ways. First, they rely on Securi
764 (1985). Third, the IRS is not required to accept and process petitioner's second amended return on which he deleted the imputed income item and claimed a larger overpayment. See Badaracco v. Commissioner, 464 U.S. 386, 393 (1984) ("[A]n amended return is a creature ofadministrative origin and grace."); Goldring v. Commissioner, 20 T.C
948 (1985), "[b]y assuming numerous relatively small, independent risks that occur randomly over time, the insurer smoothes out losses to match more closely its receipt ofpremiums." 1. The Parties' Arguments The Avrahamis and Feedback claim their arrangement distributed risk in two independently sufficient ways. First, they rely on Securi
1308 (1985); Alford v. Commissioner, 800 F.2d 987, 988 (10th Cir. 1986), § 84 T.C. 1308 (1985); Benzvi v. Commissioner, 787 F.2d 1541, 1542 (1 lth Cir. 1986); Commissioner v. Stewart, 186 F.2d 239, 242 (6th Cir. 1951) (finding a deficiencynotice valid where it fairly advised the taxpayer ofthe amount and year ofthe deficiency and the taxp
948 (1985). Many insureds who pay premiums will not incur losses. Insuring many independent risks in return for numerous premiums thus serves to distribute risk, in effect spreading a portion ofthe insurer's potential liability among his insureds. S_e_e Black Hills Corp., 101 T.C. at 183; Harper Group, 96 T.C. at 59; AMERCO, 96 T.C. at 40
50 (LexisNexis 2010), Oregon, Or. Rev. Stat. sec. 65.067 (2009), Washington, Wash. Rev. Code. Ann. sec. 24.12.010 to .060 (West 2005), and Wyoming, Wyo. Stat. sec. 17-8-101 to -117 (2009). In addition, Arkansas and Florida have recognized the common law corporation sole. See, e.g., City of Little Rock v. Linn, 432 S.W.2d 455 (Ark.