Notes of Decisions
Cited in
37
cases (
4 in the last 5 years), 1961–2023 · leading case:
In re Wyly, 552 B.R. 338 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 2016).
In re Wyly, 552 B.R. 338 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 2016).
· cites it 3× “1936)); 26 U.S.C. § 2512 (b); 26 C.F.R. § 25.2511-1 (g)(1)).”
Walter L. Gross v. Comm'r, 272 F.3d 333 (6th Cir. 2001).
“” 26 U.S.C. § 2512 (a) (1988). In interpreting this provision, section 25.”
Seymour Silverman v. Comm'r, 538 F.2d 927 (2d Cir. 1976).
“Section 2512(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, 26 U.S.C. § 2512 (a) provides: 7 . Fair market value as defined in the Treasury Regulations on Gift Tax § 25.”
Fehrs v. United States, 223 Ct. Cl. 488 (Ct. Cl. 1980).
“The governing code provision, 26 U.S.C. § 2512 , declares that "[w]here property is transferred for less than an adequate and full consideration in money or money’s worth” then the excess in such money value "shall be deemed a gift.”
Frank Armstrong ex rel. Arm. v. United States, 132 F. Supp. 2d 421 (W.D. Va. 2001).
· cites it 2× “See 26 U.S.C. § 2512 (b). Whether the gift is made in trust or otherwise, given directly or indirectly, the gift tax applies.”
Irene Eisenberg v. Comm'r, 155 F.3d 50 (2d Cir. 1998).
“” 26 U.S.C. § 2512 (a) (1988). In interpreting this provision, section 25.”
Leo J. Polack v. Comm'r, 366 F.3d 608 (8th Cir. 2004).
“26 U.S.C. § 2512 (a). “The value of the property is the price at which such property would change hands between a willing buyer and a willing seller, neither being under any compulsion to *611 buy or to sell, and both having reasonable knowledge of relevant facts.”
Brown & Sturm v. Frederick Road Ltd. P'ship, 768 A.2d 62 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2001).
“See 26 U.S.C. § 2512 (b) (2000) ("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 be deemed a gift, and shall be included in…”
Mary Ann Heyen v. United States, 945 F.2d 359 (10th Cir. 1991).
“Plaintiff also submits that because the government’s expert witness incorrectly failed to consider minority share or marketability discounts in making his calculations, her expert’s valuation should have been accepted.”
Okerlund v. United States, 53 Fed. Cl. 341 (Fed. Cl. 2002).
“26 U.S.C. § 2512 (a). The value of the gift is determined by the value of the property passing from the donor, not the property received by the donee.”
26 U.S.C. § 2512(a): 1 case
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.