U.S. Code » Title 26 » Subtitle Subtitle A— Income Taxes › Chapter CHAPTER 1— NORMAL TAXES AND SURTAXES › Subchapter Subchapter O— Gain or Loss on Disposition of Property › Part PART IV— SPECIAL RULES

26 U.S.C. § 1059A

Limitation on taxpayer’s basis or inventory cost in property imported from related persons

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 26 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) In generalIf any property is imported into the United States in a transaction (directly or indirectly) between related persons (within the meaning of section 482), the amount of any costs—(1) which are taken into account in computing the basis or inventory cost of such property by the purchaser, and(2) which are also taken into account in computing the customs value of such property,shall not, for purposes of computing such basis or inventory cost for purposes of this chapter, be greater than the amount of such costs taken into account in computing such customs value.(b) Customs value; importFor purposes of this section—(1) Customs value

The term “customs value” means the value taken into account for purposes of determining the amount of any customs duties or any other duties which may be imposed on the importation of any property.

(2) Import

Except as provided in regulations, the term “import” means the entering, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption.

(Added Pub. L. 99–514, title XII, § 1248(a), Oct. 22, 1986, 100 Stat. 2584.)Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date

Pub. L. 99–514, title XII, § 1248(c), Oct. 22, 1986, 100 Stat. 2584, provided that: “The amendments made by this section [enacting this section] shall apply to transactions entered into after March 18, 1986.”

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1 case, 1998–1998 · leading case: United States v. Shabahang Persian Carpets, Ltd., 27 F. Supp. 2d 229 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1998).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
United States v. Shabahang Persian Carpets, Ltd., 27 F. Supp. 2d 229 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1998). · cites it 2× “When it assessed Shabahang’s lax deficiencies, the IRS, inter alia, found that Shabahang's reliance on a figure above that declared to Customs directly contravened 26 U.S.C. § 1059A (1994). Def.’s Br., at Ex.”
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.