In any case of two or more organizations, trades, or businesses (whether or not incorporated, whether or not organized in the United States, and whether or not affiliated) owned or controlled directly or indirectly by the same interests, the Secretary may distribute, apportion, or allocate gross income, deductions, credits, or allowances between or among such organizations, trades, or businesses, if he determines that such distribution, apportionment, or allocation is necessary in order to prevent evasion of taxes or clearly to reflect the income of any of such organizations, trades, or businesses. In the case of any transfer (or license) of intangible property (within the meaning of section 367(d)(4)), the income with respect to such transfer or license shall be commensurate with the income attributable to the intangible. For purposes of this section, the Secretary shall require the valuation of transfers of intangible property (including intangible property transferred with other property or services) on an aggregate basis or the valuation of such a transfer on the basis of the realistic alternatives to such a transfer, if the Secretary determines that such basis is the most reliable means of valuation of such transfers.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
128
cases (
6 in the last 5 years), 1955–2025 · leading case:
Altera Corp. v. Cir, 926 F.3d 1061 (9th Cir. 2019).
Altera Corp. v. Cir, 926 F.3d 1061 (9th Cir. 2019).
· cites it 8× “At issue was the validity of the Treasury regulations implementing 26 U.S.C. § 482 , which provides for the allocation of income and deductions among related entities.”
In Re the Appeal of Panhandle E. Pipe Line Co., 39 P.3d 21 (Kan. 2002).
· cites it 8× “79-32,141 parallels language found in 26 U.S.C. § 482 (1994) allowing the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Commissioner “to distribute, apportion or allocate gross income, deductions, credits, or allowances between businesses .”
Donald A. Peck Judith W. Peck v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 904 F.2d 525 (9th Cir. 1990).
· cites it 3× “In a prior action, the Tax Court found that the Pecks’ rent deductions under the lease for 1974, 1975 and 1976 must be reduced by the full amount of gardening expenses and 25% of the property taxes and mortgage payments under 26 U.S.C. § 482 . 1 This court affirmed that…”
amazon.com Inc. & Subsidiaries v. Cir, 934 F.3d 976 (9th Cir. 2019).
· cites it 3× “” See 26 U.S.C. § 482 . Tax regulations required that the buy-in payment reflect the fair market value of Amazon’s pre-existing intangibles.”
Francis L. Rooney & Irene Rooney v. United States, 305 F.2d 681 (9th Cir. 1962).
· cites it 8× “This appeal raises two major issues: (1) the application of section 482 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 [26 U.S. C.A. § 482], which allows the Commissioner to reallocate expenses of the taxpayer, to the fact situation in this case, and (2) an interpretation of section 351…”
Comm'r v. First Sec. Bank of Utah, N. A., 405 U.S. 394 (1972).
· cites it 4× “Congress depends on the ability of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue to utilize § 482 of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U. S. C. § 482 , to insure that this affinity does not provide a basis for tax avoidance.”
Est. of Lisle v. Comm'r, 341 F.3d 364 (5th Cir. 2003).
· cites it 2× “We now turn to the court’s final theory for attributing forty-five percent of the payments from the Five to Lisle, the application of 26 U.S.C. § 482 . 29 The court applied § 482, reasoning that the petitioners, Lisle, Ballard, and Kanter, distributed income among the various…”
Xilinx, Inc. v. Comm'r, 567 F.3d 482 (9th Cir. 2009).
· cites it 4× “*487 26 U.S.C. § 482 . The Secretary in turn promulgated regulations authorizing the Commissioner to allocate income and deductions among related entities.”
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.