26 U.S.C. § 1002
Repealed. Pub. L. 94–455, title XIX, § 1901(b)(28)(B)(i), Oct. 4, 1976, 90 Stat. 1799]
[repealed]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 23
cases, 1945–2013 · leading case: Merrill v. Fahs, 324 U.S. 308 (1945).
Merrill v. Fahs, 324 U.S. 308 (1945). “In the interest of clarity we reprint it here: "Where property is transferred for less than an adequate and full consideration in money or money's worth, then the amount by which the value of the property exceeded the value of the consideration shall, for the purpose of the tax…”
Harris v. Comm'r, 340 U.S. 106 (1950). “, § 1002, 26 U. S. C. § 1002 . In Merrill v. Fahs, 324 U.”
Rosenthal v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 205 F.2d 505 (2d Cir. 1953). “§ 1002, 26 U.S.C. § 1002 , the Court analogizing it to a transaction “in the ordinary course of business” which, under Treas.”
Paulsen v. Comm'r, 469 U.S. 131 (1985). “In 1976, 26 U. S. C. § 1002 (1970 ed.) required that "on the sale or exchange of property the entire amount of the gain or loss .”
Preslar v. Comm'r, 167 F.3d 1323 (10th Cir. 1999). “The issue before the Tax Court centered not on discharge-of-indebtedness income but on whether the taxpayers were required to recognize gain from the sale of property pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 1002 . 6 The Tax Court determined a gain had to be recognized because the taxpayers were…”
Coastal Terminals, Inc. v. United States, 320 F.2d 333 (4th Cir. 1963). “” 26 U.S.C.A. § 1002 . On the other hand, the taxpayer contends that the transaction was an “exchange” within the meaning of Section 1031(a), which, so far as pertinent, is as follows: “(a) Nonrecognition of gain or loss from exchanges solely in kind.”
Arden S. Heverly & Sophia S. Heverly v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 621 F.2d 1227 (3d Cir. 1980). “” Taxpayers argue that their exchanges are within an explpcit exception to § 1002. however, because § 354(a) of the Code provides that “[n]o gain or loss shall be recognized if stock or securities in a corporation a party to a reorganization are, in pursuance of a plan of…”
Eldon S. Chapman v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 618 F.2d 856 (1st Cir. 1980). “7 The basic *860 rule governing exchanges was imported from Section 1002 of the 1954 Code, 26 U.S.C. § 1002 . Section 1002 stated that, except as otherwise provided, gain or loss on the exchange of property should be recognized and taken into account in computing a taxpayer’s…”
Comm'r of Internal Revenue v. Copley's Est., 194 F.2d 364 (7th Cir. 1952). “Certainly, when the asserted transfers were made in 1936 and 1944, marriage had nothing to do with the consideration— that had been consummated in 1931 — and it is equally certain that there was no relinquishment of marital rights because that also was consummated at the time of…”
Robinette v. Hunsecker, 66 A.3d 1093 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2013). “Unfortunately, ERISA does not define a “political subdivision,” “agency,” or “instrumentality” under 26 U.S.C. § 1002 (32), nor has Maryland addressed the meaning of those terms within ERISA’s context.”
Comm'r of Internal Revenue v. Berger, 201 F.2d 171 (2d Cir. 1953). “958 , however, the Supreme Court held that the absence of a donative intent did not preclude taxation of a transfer as a gift under § 1002 of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. § 1002 . Likewise the indefiniteness of the donees has been held not to avoid the payment of the…”
Crowley, Milner & Co., a Michigan Corp. v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 689 F.2d 635 (6th Cir. 1982). “26 U.S.C. § 1002 (1976). Taxpayer deducted a loss from the sale of real property pursuant to a sale and leaseback agreement, and the Tax Court found no deficiency in Taxpayer’s income tax for 1976.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.