26 U.S.C. § 541
Imposition of personal holding company tax
In addition to other taxes imposed by this chapter, there is hereby imposed for each taxable year on the undistributed personal holding company income (as defined in section 545) of every personal holding company (as defined in section 542) a personal holding company tax equal to 20 percent of the undistributed personal holding company income.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14
cases, 1930–1984 · leading case: Stand. Nut Margarine Co. of Florida v. Mellon, 72 F.2d 557 (D.C. Cir. 1934).
Stand. Nut Margarine Co. of Florida v. Mellon, 72 F.2d 557 (D.C. Cir. 1934). “1022 (26 USCA § 541 and note). That in January, 1930, plaintiff sought and secured from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of Florida an injunction against the collector of internal revenue for the district of Florida enjoining him from in any way…”
Miller v. Stand. Nut Margarine Co. of Florida, 49 F.2d 79 (5th Cir. 1931). “(2d) 34 ], and of whieh the court below may have taken judicial notice, though no reference to them is found in the record on appeal, have a bearing on questions raised by the record: While this suit was pending in the court below; a bill to amend the definition of oleomargarine…”
Dothan Coca-Cola Bottling Co., Inc., a Corp., Montgomery Coca-Cola Bottling Co., Inc., a Corp. v. United States, 745 F.2d 1400 (11th Cir. 1984). “Judgment was entered for the plaintiff taxpayers for the 70 percent penalty tax imposed on personal holding companies under 26 U.S.C.A. § 541 of the Internal Revenue Code, which had been assessed against and paid by them for the period at issue.”
Laurie Visual Etudes, Inc. v. Chesebrough-Pond's, Inc., 473 F. Supp. 951 (S.D.N.Y. 1979). “§§ 541 -543, 26 U.S.C. §§ 541 -543 (imposing tax of 70% of income on “personal holding companies”).”
Investors Ins. Agency, Inc. v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 677 F.2d 1328 (9th Cir. 1982). “26 U.S.C. § 541 . The Tax Court affirmed the deficiency assessment, rejecting taxpayer’s argument that the $130,000 was not interest.”
Lx Cattle Co. v. United States, 629 F.2d 1096 (5th Cir. 1980). “Upon denial of the claim, appellant filed timely suit in 1975 for refund in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, but stipulated before trial that the Commissioner properly assessed the additional ordinary income taxes and correctly treated…”
Charlson v. United States, 208 Ct. Cl. 296 (Ct. Cl. 1975). “26 U.S.C. § 541 , et seq. (1970). To avoid this added tax, Germane distributed its income, within the meaning of the personal holding company tax provisions, to its shareholders who would report the dividend as ordinary income.”
Fulman v. United States, 407 F. Supp. 1039 (D. Mass. 1976). “legislative history of section 562 to implant the valuation principle of section 27(d) of the 1939 Code in the 1954 Code, and the Congressional purpose in enacting the personal holding company tax, 7 there is nothing unreason *1043 able m a regulation permitting disparity…”
Joseph Lupowitz Sons, Inc. v. Comm'r, 497 F.2d 862 (3rd Cir. 1974). “26 U.S.C. § 541 et seq. 1 The Tax Court made the following findings.”
Silverman & Sons Realty Trust v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 620 F.2d 314 (1st Cir. 1980). “The Commissioner of Internal Revenue appeals from a decision of the United States Tax Court holding that taxpayer— Silverman & Sons Realty Trust (“the Trust”) — was not liable for a tax on personal holding company income under Section 541 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, 26…”
Dothan Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. United States, 561 F. Supp. 1261 (M.D. Ala. 1982). “These claims for refunds were based on the premise that the IRS Commissioner had erroneously classified Plaintiffs as personal holding companies, thus subjecting all of the Plaintiffs’ income to the 70 percent penalty tax imposed on personal holding companies under 26 U.S.C. §…”
Luden's, Inc. v. United States, 196 F. Supp. 526 (E.D. Pa. 1961). “5 The parent is a personal holding company under Section 541 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, 26 U.S.C.A. § 541 , and therefore subject to high income tax rates on undistributed income.”
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.