26 U.S.C. § 212
Expenses for production of income
No deductions to be allowed in computing taxable income for two-thirds of any amount paid or incurred on a judgment entered against any person in a suit brought under section 208(b) of Pub. L. 94–12, see section 208(c) of Pub. L. 94–12, set out as a note under section 44 of this title.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 130
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1949–2024 · leading case: John K. Johnsen Frances Johnsen, Cross-Appellants v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, Cross-Appellee, 794 F.2d 1157 (6th Cir. 1986).
John K. Johnsen Frances Johnsen, Cross-Appellants v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, Cross-Appellee, 794 F.2d 1157 (6th Cir. 1986). “Although denying business expense deductions, the Tax Court concluded that the pre-opening expenses were deductible, for the most part, under 26 U.S.C. § 212 , which contains no trade or business requirement.”
Comm'r v. Groetzinger, 480 U.S. 23 (1987). “Rather, Congress was correcting an inequity that had arisen because gambling is not a trade or business, just as 40 years earlier Congress had, by enacting the predecessor to 26 U. S. C. § 212 , corrected an inequity that became apparent when this Court held that a full-time…”
Russell v. United States, 78 Fed. Cl. 281 (Fed. Cl. 2007). “§ 165 (a) and 26 U.S.C. § 212 . 2 Compl. 6, 10. These provi *289 sions allow taxpayers to take a deduction from income under certain conditions.”
George v. Zmuda & Walburga Zmuda v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 731 F.2d 1417 (9th Cir. 1984). “This section permits deductions for all ordinary and necessary expenses paid: (1) for the production or collection of income; (2) for management, conservation, or maintenance of property held for the production of income; or (3) in connection with the determination, collection,…”
Klamath Strategic Inv. Fund Ex Rel. St. Croix Ventures v. United States, 568 F.3d 537 (5th Cir. 2009). “” 26 U.S.C. § 212 . Generally, when a transaction is disregarded for lack of economic substance, deductions for costs expended in furtherance of the transaction are prohibited.”
Green v. Comm'r, 507 F.3d 857 (5th Cir. 2007). “” 26 U.S.C. § 212 . A deduction claimed under § 212(1) “must meet the same requirements applicable to trade or business expenses under § 162, except that the person claiming the deduction need not be in the trade or business.”
United States v. Fingers (In Re Fingers), 170 B.R. 419 (S.D. Cal. 1994). “Since Fingers would be personally liable to Schreiber and Wolfe for attorneys’ fees for services rendered in the adversary proceeding, the court’s finding can be construed as a factual finding that the estate was not entitled to the deduction for payment of attorneys’ fees under…”
Jane K. Nickell, Now Jane K. Johnson by Marriage, & Joan D. Kincaid v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 831 F.2d 1265 (6th Cir. 1987). “It seems to me that the legal fees paid in connection with Joan Kincaid’s successful efforts to recover her finance company stock constituted ordinary and necessary expenses paid for the management, conservation, or maintenance of property held for the production of income, and…”
John W. Barnard & June W. Barnard, Earl D. Kay, Jr. & Nancy O. Kay, Joseph J. Allen & Jennene S. Allen v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 731 F.2d 230 (4th Cir. 1984). “See 26 U.S.C. § 212 (3). 4 . See, however, 26 U.”
Knight v. Comm'r, 552 U.S. 181 (2008). “Investment advisory fees are deductible pursuant to 26 U. S. C. §212 . Because §212 is not listed in § 67(b) as one of the categories of expenses that may be deducted in full, such fees are “miscellaneous itemized deduc *185 tions” subject to the 2% floor.”
Charles Reynolds & Beatrice Reynolds v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 296 F.3d 607 (7th Cir. 2002). “Gilmore addressed the deductibility of legal expenses related to the conservation of income-producing property under §§ 23(a), 24(a) of the 1939 Code, and its successor statutes, 26 U.S.C. §§ 212 , 262, of the 1954 Code.”
Est. of Richard Baier v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 533 F.2d 117 (3rd Cir. 1976). “Payments were made by Baier to his attorney in the years 1969, 1970 and 1971 and were claimed as an ordinary deduction for each year under 26 U.S.C. § 212 . The Commissioner disallowed these payments as ordinary deductions and recharacterized them as capital expenditures, and…”
— 26 U.S.C. § 212(3) — 1 case
Kaufmann v. United States, 227 F. Supp. 807 (W.D. Mo. 1963).
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.