§855 — Dividends paid by regulated investment company after close of taxable year
22 cases·1 followed·1 overruled·20 cited—5% support
Statute Text — 26 U.S.C. §855
For purposes of this chapter, if a regulated investment company—
declares a dividend on or before the later of—
the 15th day of the 9th month following the close of the taxable year, or
in the case of an extension of time for filing the company’s return for the taxable year, the due date for filing such return taking into account such extension, and
distributes the amount of such dividend to shareholders in the 12-month period following the close of such taxable year and not later than the date of the first dividend payment of the same type of dividend made after such declaration,
the amount so declared and distributed shall, to the extent the company elects in such return in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary, be considered as having been paid during such taxable year, except as provided in subsections (b) and (c). For purposes of paragraph (2), a dividend attributable to any short-term capital gain with respect to which a notice is required under the Investment Company Act of 1940 shall be treated as the same type of dividend as a capital gain dividend.
Except as provided in section 852(b)(7), amounts to which subsection (a) is applicable shall be treated as received by the shareholder in the taxable year in which the distribution is made.
If an investment company to which section 853 is applicable for the taxable year makes a distribution as provided in subsection (a) of this section, the shareholders shall consider the amounts described in section 853(b)(2) allocable to such distribution as paid or received, as the case may be, in the taxable year in which the distribution is made.
Treasury Regulations
- Treas. Reg. §Treas. Reg. §1.855-1 Dividends paid by regulated investment company after close of taxable year
- Treas. Reg. §Treas. Reg. §1.855-1(a) General rule.
- Treas. Reg. §Treas. Reg. §1.855-1(b) Election—(1) Method of making election.
- Treas. Reg. §Treas. Reg. §1.855-1(c) Receipt by shareholders.
- Treas. Reg. §Treas. Reg. §1.855-1(d) Examples.
- Treas. Reg. §Treas. Reg. §1.855-1(e) Notice to shareholders.
- Treas. Reg. §Treas. Reg. §1.855-1(f) Foreign tax election.
22 Citing Cases
855; Perkins v. Commissioner, 129 T.C. 58, 63 n.7 (2007). The Appeals Office issued the NOD to petitioner on October 19, 2007, over 1 year after the PPA's effective date. Accordingly, we will reviewpetitioner's underlying tax liabilities without ajurisdictional inquiry. - 20 - penalties against petitioner on those liabilities, following the c
ns actionå, where the validity È>f- the underlying tax liability is a 'll proper]iy at issue, .the Court reviews the Commissioner's determination of the underlyi.ng tax liability de novo. Sego v.a 3The Pension Protection Act of 2006, Pub L. 109-280, sec. 855, 1 0 Stat. 1019, amended sec. 6330 (d) and granted this Court jurisdiction over all -sec . 6330 determinations made ,after Oct . 16, 20 6. Perkins v. Commis ioner, 129 T.C. "58,3 63 "n.7 (2007) Oommissioner; 114 T:C. 604, 610 +(2000) ; 3Goza
elevant issue, including challenges to the appropriateness of the collection action and collection alternatives. Sec. 6330(c) (2) (A). The taxpayer is expected to provide all~relevant information "The Pension Protection Act of 2006, Pub. L. 109-280, sec. 855, 120 Stat. 1019, amended sec. 6330(d) and granted this Court jurisdiction over all sec. 6330 determinations made after Oct. 16, 2006. Perkins v. Commissioner, 12 T.C. 58, 63 n.7 (2007). - 4 - requested by the Appeals Office, including financ
Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176, 181-182 (2000). The Court reviews any other administrative determination regarding proposed collection actions for abuse of discretion. Sego v. Commissioner, supra at 2The Pension Protection Act of 2006, Pub. L. 109-280, sec. 855, 120 Stat. 1019, amended sec. 6330.(d) and granted ,this Court jurisdiction over all sec. 6330 determinations made after Oct. 16, 2006. Perkins v. Commissioner, 129 T.C. 58, 63 n.7 (2007). 610; Goza v. Commissioner, supra at 182. Na abuse of
iability. Sec. 6330(c) (2) (B); Sego v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604 (2000). After receiving a notice of determination, the person may seek judicial * I - 14 - review in this Court. Sec. 6330(d) (1); Pension Protection Act of 1 2006, Pub. L. 109-280, sec. 855, 120 Stat. 1019. If the validity of the underlying tax liability is properly at issue, we review that issue de novo. Sego v. Commissioner, supra. Other issues we review for abuse of discretion. Id. II. Petitioner's Challenge to His Underlying
liability de novo. Sego v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 610 (2000) Goza y Commissioner, 114 To C. 176, 181-182 (2000) . The Court reviews any other administrative determination regarding proposed 2The Pension Protection Act of 2006, Pub. L. 109-280, sec. 855, 120 Stat. 1019, amended sec. 6330(d) andsgranted this Court jurisdiction over all sec. 6330 determinations made after Oct. 16, 2006. Perkins v. Commissioner, 129 T.C. 58, 63 n.7 (2007) . - 5 - collection actions for abuse of discretion. Seg
ax liability. Once the Appeals officer has issued a determination regarding the disputed collection action, section 6330 (d) allows the person to seek review in the Tax Court." In considering any "The Pension Protection Act of 2006, Pub. L. 1Ò9-280, sec. 855, 120 Stat. 1019, amended sec. 6330 'd) (1) to provide that for determinations made after Oct. 16, 2006, the Tax Court has (continued . . . ) - 20 - relief from the Commissioner's determination to which the person may be entitled, this Court
se of discretion. See Downing v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. 22, 31 (2002); Goodwin v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-289. 7Determinations made after Oct. 16, 2006, are appealable only to the Tax Court. See Pension Protection Act of 2006, Pub. L. 109-280, sec. 855, 120 Stat. 1019. 8At trial respondent’s counsel stated: “The standard of review to be used by the Court in addressing the deficiencies is de novo. That means Respondent is not arguing in this proceeding that Petitioner received a deficiency
Service in connection with any in-person interview with any taxpayer relating to the determination or collection of 2Determinations made after Oct. 16, 2006, are appealable only to the Tax Court. See Pension Protection Act of 2006, Pub. L. 109-280, sec. 855, ·120 Stat. 1019. - 7 - any tax shall, upon advance request of such taxpayer, allow the taxpayer to make an audio recording of such interview at the taxpayer's own expense and with the taxpayer's own equipment. This Court has held that secti
osed levy action for an abuse of discretion. Sego v. Commissioner, supra at 610; Goza v. Commissioner, supra at 182. 2Determinations made after Oct. 16, 2006, are appealable only to the Tax Court. See Pension Protection Act of 2006, Pub. L. 109-280, sec. 855, 120 Stat. 1019. B. Analysis 1. Appeals Hearing Petitioner argues that he did not receive a proper collection hearing because his hearing was conducted by a settlement officer, not an Appeals officer. While section 6330(c) references "appeal