The home office deduction game: will Soliman v. Commissioner return the taxpayer to square one?
Article Abstract:
IRC section 280A allows a deduction for a home office that is the taxpayer's 'principal place of business' without defining the term. Courts have split over the definition, with the Tax Court originally adopting a 'focal point' test and then in 1990 switching to a more flexible 'facts and circumstances' test. The Fourth Circuit has upheld the 'facts and circumstances' test, but the Second and Seventh Circuits have employed a 'time and importance' test instead. The test used by the Second and Seventh Circuits is the better one because it is more objective and more consistent with legislative intent.
Publication Name: Virginia Tax Review
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0735-9004
Year: 1992
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
Form over substance in the judicial regulation of the market for corporate control
Article Abstract:
The US Supreme Court in Indopco v Commissioner relied on a formalistic interpretation of the long-term benefit test to rule that investment banking and legal fees arising out of a friendly takeover were capital expenditures rather than deductible business expenses. The ruling was consistent with case law, financial theory, administrative requirements and statutory language, but its effect on the market for corporate control may be inconsistent with federal and state policies on mergers and acquisitions.
Publication Name: Virginia Tax Review
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0735-9004
Year: 1992
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
Estate of Love and s. 2053(a)(2): why state law should control the determination of deductible administration expenses
Article Abstract:
The Fourth Circuit in Estate of Love v. Commissioner incorrectly held that federal rather than state law should determine the definition of an administration expense under IRC 2053(a)(2). The plain language interpretation of the statute supports determination by state law. Case law is inconsistent, but also suggests a trend toward relying on state law to interpret the section. Several Treasury regulations which contradict the statute are invalid.
Publication Name: Virginia Tax Review
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0735-9004
Year: 1992
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
- Abstracts: Government intervention on the Internet: should the Federal Trade Commission regulate unsolicited e-mail advertising?
- Abstracts: Del Monte Dunes v. City of Monterey: will the Supreme Court stretch the takings clause beyond the breaking point?
- Abstracts: The merger review process at the Federal Trade Commission: administrative efficiency and the rule of law. The function, flexibility, and future of United States judges of the executive department
- Abstracts: The employment regulation of Americans abroad and in foreign owned businesses in the U.S. part 2 Federal and New Jersey state fair employment laws
- Abstracts: ADA may widen HIV coverage; new weapon? Federal courts, finding inadequate documentation of welfare plans or failure to follow ERISA's requirements, hold employers liable for unexpected coverage