26 U.S.C. § 102
Gifts and inheritances
Gross income does not include the value of property acquired by gift, bequest, devise, or inheritance.
Subsection (a) shall not exclude from gross income any amount transferred by or for an employer to, or for the benefit of, an employee.
For provisions excluding certain employee achievement awards from gross income, see section 74(c).
For provisions excluding certain de minimis fringes from gross income, see section 132(e).
1986—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 99–514 added subsec. (c).
Amendment by Pub. L. 99–514 applicable to prizes and awards granted after
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 117
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1934–2026 · leading case: Diedrich v. Commissioner
Diedrich v. Commissioner (1982)
“, 26 U. S. C. § 102 (gifts excluded from donee's gross income).”
Putoma Corp., Successor by Merger of Pro-Mac Company, Petitioners- Cross-Appellants v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, (1979)
“We hold that under the facts of this case Hunt made a gift to the corporations within the meaning of Section 102 by contributing to their capital within the meaning of Section 118 of the Internal Revenue Code ( 26 U.S.C.A. §§ 102 and 118) when he cancelled the interest.”
Cadle Co. v. King (In Re King) (2002)
“See 26 U.S.C. § 102 . 5 The Supreme Court has stated that a voluntary transfer of property from one person to another without compensation or consideration is not necessarily a gift under the Tax Code.”
Jean Ronald Getty Karin Getty v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (1990)
“See 26 U.S.C. § 102 (b)(2). Although the language of the allegations a party includes in his complaint provides some evidence as to the nature of the party’s claim, see Inco Electroenergy Cory.”
In Re Marriage of Alter (2009)
“The Internal Revenue Code does not so much define the term “income” as identify that which, consistent with prevailing federal tax policy, might be taxed. (See White, Realization, Recognition, Reconciliation, Rationality and the Structure of the Federal Income Tax System (1990)…”
Dockstader v. State (2007)
“The Elite Activity website contains the following information: "Since the taxes on the gift have already been paid and because the gift is not given in exchange for a product or service and is NOT and [sic] investment, these gifts are not required to be reported as gross income…”
United States v. Kaiser (1960)
“" 26 U. S. C. § 102 (a). [2] Although the plurality opinion apparently considers it unnecessary to decide whether the strike benefits received by respondent constitute "income," and deals only with the question whether they were excludable "gifts," I think it is clear that those…”
United States v. Karl L. Dahlstrom, R. Bruce Ripley, Hiram E. Conley, David J. Morris, and Gaze Durst (1983)
“This method was premised on 26 U.S.C. § 102 (IRC), which excludes gifts from gross income for income tax purposes, and IRC section 2501 which provides a gift tax exemption for gifts of intangible property by a non-resident alien to a citizen of the United States.”
Stone v. Lynch (1985)
“Kaiser was concerned with the question whether strike benefits were gifts under 26 U.S.C. § 102 (a). In Kaiser a plurality of the Court held that whether strike benefits constituted a gift under the definition set forth in Duberstein, 363 U.”
Hughes v. Hughes (2021)
“The Internal Revenue Code specifies that, for income tax purposes, "[g]ross income does not include the value of property acquired by gift" ( 26 USC § 102 [a]). Courts "cannot, as a matter of policy, permit parties to assert positions in legal proceedings that are contrary to…”
Reverend Lloyd L. Goodwin Martha J. Goodwin v. United States (1995)
“Therefore, unless the Goodwins can prove that the special occasion gifts fall within the statutory exclusion for gifts, these payments are taxable income.”
Younis v. Farooqi (2009)
“See 26 U.S.C. § 102 (a). 4 . The plaintiff contends she worked upwards of thirteen weeks at a local pharmacy for ten hours a week at a rate of $5 per hour in 2007, which amounts to $650 of wages, and that from February 2008 through the end of that year she earned approximately…”
— 26 U.S.C. § 102(a) — 2 cases
Reed v. United States (1959)
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.