§981 — Repealed. Pub. L. 94–455, title X, § 1012(b)(2), Oct. 4, 1976, 90 Stat. 1614]

39 cases·5 followed·9 overruled·25 cited13% support

[§ 981. Repealed. Pub. L. 94–455, title X, § 1012(b)(2), Oct. 4, 1976, 90 Stat. 1614] Section, Pub. L. 89–809, title I, § 105(e)(1), Nov. 13, 1966, 80 Stat. 1565, related to income of certain nonresident United States citizens subject to foreign community property laws.

  • Treas. Reg. §Treas. Reg. §1.981-0 Repeal of section 981; effective dates
  • Treas. Reg. §Treas. Reg. §1.981-1 Foreign law community income for taxable years beginning after December 31, 1966, and before January 1, 1977
  • Treas. Reg. §Treas. Reg. §1.981-1(a) Election for special treatment—(1) In general.
  • Treas. Reg. §Treas. Reg. §1.981-1(b) Treatment of community income—(1) In general.
  • Treas. Reg. §Treas. Reg. §1.981-1(c) Time and manner of making or terminating an election—(1) In general.
  • Treas. Reg. §Treas. Reg. §1.981-2 Foreign law community income for taxable years beginning before January 1, 1967
  • Treas. Reg. §Treas. Reg. §1.981-2(a) Election for special treatment—(1) In general.
  • Treas. Reg. §Treas. Reg. §1.981-2(b) Treatment of community income—(1) In general.
  • Treas. Reg. §Treas. Reg. §1.981-2(c) Time and manner of making election—(1) In general.
  • Treas. Reg. §Treas. Reg. §1.981-2(i) §1.981-2(i)
  • Treas. Reg. §Treas. Reg. §1.981-2(v) §1.981-2(v)
  • Treas. Reg. §Treas. Reg. §1.981-3 Definitions and other special rules
  • Treas. Reg. §Treas. Reg. §1.981-3(a) Open taxable years.
  • Treas. Reg. §Treas. Reg. §1.981-3(b) Date of election.
  • Treas. Reg. §Treas. Reg. §1.981-3(c) Spouses with different taxable years.
  • Treas. Reg. §Treas. Reg. §1.981-3(d) Election on behalf of deceased spouse.
  • Treas. Reg. §Treas. Reg. §1.981-3(e) Extension of period of limitations on assessment or refund—(1) Assessment of deficiency.
  • Treas. Reg. §Treas. Reg. §1.981-3(f) Payment of interest for extension period.

39 Citing Cases

FOLLOWED Douglas E. Hampton, Petitioner T.C. Memo. 2025-32 · 2025

We hold that it is.”), aff’g T.C.

Francisco A. Murillo, Petitioner T.C. Memo. 1998-13 · 1998

section 981 (1988 and Supp. II 1990). The Consent Decree of Forfeiture and Order of Delivery in that proceeding was issued on January 9, 1992. In the plea agreement, - 4 - the U.S. Attorney's Office recommended that, because of the Decree of Forfeiture, the imposition of a fine was not warranted. The sentencing court agreed with the recommendation

Vincent J. Fumo, Petitioner T.C. Memo. 2025-97 · 2026

§ 981 and “income” for pur- poses of section 61. Thus, the district court’s decision not to enter a judgment of forfeiture should not be given collateral estoppel effect.4 On May 22, 2020, the parties filed a Stipulation of Settled Issues in the excise tax case, memorializing several concessions by respondent. Respondent concurrently filed a Motion

Vincent J. Fumo, Petitioner T.C. Memo. 2025-97 · 2025

§ 981 and “income” for pur- poses of section 61. Thus, the district court’s decision not to enter a judgment of forfeiture should not be given collateral estoppel effect.4 On May 22, 2020, the parties filed a Stipulation of Settled Issues in the excise tax case, memorializing several concessions by respondent. Respondent concurrently filed a Motion

§ 981, and the district court ordered him to forfeit to the United States “any property, real or personal, which constitutes or is derived from proceeds traceable to the offense of Conspiracy to Commit Bribery, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C) and 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c).” In Stephens the taxpayer was convicted and sentenced in a scheme to defraud

981(a)(1)(A), (f) (2006). Under this section, the property at issue became the property of the federal government immediately upon conviction of the crime that led to its forfeiture. Mr. Gentry argues that this means the proceeds of his crimes can’t be taxable income in 2000 because they were forfeited to the federal government in 2000 under t

981(a) (West 1982) (common-law copyright). A composer’s copyright attaches to his work automatically, though songwriters will often submit it to the U.S. Copyright Office27 to ensure protection.28 27 The Copyright Office is a separate federal department within the Library of Congress that is “responsible for administering a complex and dynamic

981(a)(1)(A), (f) (2006). Under this section, the property at issue became the property of the federal government immediately upon conviction of the crime that led to its forfeiture. Mr. Gentry argues that this means the proceeds of his crimes can’t be taxable income in 2000 because they were forfeited to the federal government in 2000 under t

Richard David Czepiel, Petitioner T.C. Memo. 1999-289 · 1999

981 (1994), which required the taxpayer to forfeit his funds on deposit in a variety of accounts, including certain IRA's. See id. Although the taxpayer included the funds forfeited from his IRA's as gross income in his tax return, he did not report in that return that he was liable for the early withdrawal tax with respect to those funds. See

United States v. Elias · Cir.
In re 650 Fifth Avenue and Related Properties · Cir.
United States v. Carpenter 941 F.3d 1 · Cir.
United States v. Marcin Garbacz 33 F.4th 459 · Cir.
John Keith Blakely and John Emmett Long v. United States of America 276 F.3d 853 · Cir.
Campuzano v. Alavi Foundation 830 F.3d 66 · Cir.
United States v. Drive 66 F. App'x 617 · Cir.
United States v. Davis 53 F.4th 833 · Cir.
United States v. Swartz Family Trust 67 F.4th 505 · Cir.
Solano v. Commissioner 62 T.C. 562 · 1974
United States v. Randy Beltramea 849 F.3d 753 · Cir.
United States v. Abdurahman M. Alamoudi 452 F.3d 310 · Cir.
Kickham Hanley P.C. v. Kodak Retirement Income Plan 558 F.3d 204 · Cir.
United States v. Randy Beltramea 785 F.3d 287 · Cir.
United States v. Randy Beltramea · Cir.
City of Oakland v. Loretta E. Lynch 798 F.3d 1159 · Cir.
Kickham Hanley P.C. v. Kodak Income Retirement Plan · Cir.
United States v. Alamoudi · Cir.
United States v. Tract 31A, Lots 31 and 32 · Cir.
United States v. Abraham Fisch 851 F.3d 402 · Cir.
United States v. Tract 31A, Lots 31 and 32 · Cir.
In re 650 Fifth Ave. & Related Props. 934 F.3d 147 · Cir.
United States v. Dereck McClellan 44 F.4th 200 · Cir.
United States v. Tomo Razmilovic, David E. Nachman, Kenneth Jaeggi, Movant-Appellant 419 F.3d 134 · Cir.
United States v. John Perry 714 F.3d 570 · Cir.
United States v. Bruce Lee · Cir.
United States v. Bruce Lee 77 F.4th 565 · Cir.

New cases, delivered.

Get notified when new Tax Court opinions drop.