26 U.S.C. § 742

Basis of transferee partner’s interest

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 26 CasesGoogle Scholar

The basis of an interest in a partnership acquired other than by contribution shall be determined under part II of subchapter O (sec. 1011 and following).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases, 1949–2011 · leading case: Southgate Master Fund, L.L.C. Ex Rel. Montgomery Capital Advisors, LLC v. United States, 659 F.3d 466 (5th Cir. 2011).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Southgate Master Fund, L.L.C. Ex Rel. Montgomery Capital Advisors, LLC v. United States, 659 F.3d 466 (5th Cir. 2011). “See generally 26 U.S.C. § 742 (b); id. § 751(d); id. § 1221(a)(4).”

Stanton Brewery v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 176 F.2d 573 (2d Cir. 1949). · cites it 2× “§ 742, 26 U. S.C.A. § 742, which prescribes an alternative method for the computation of average *577 base period net income, in the case, among others, of a corporation resulting from a statutory merger.”

Koppers Co. v. United States, 134 F. Supp. 290 (Ct. Cl. 1955). “* * * ” 26 U.S.C.A. § 742 . Basically, the average base period net income computed under this section is the consolidated excess profits net income with certain adjustments not here material.”

The R. & J. Furniture Co. v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 221 F.2d 795 (6th Cir. 1955). “§ 740 (a) (1) (D) ; and is entitled to an excess profits credit based upon the average base period net income of the partnership, adjusted as required by Seetion 742(g) of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C.A. § 742 (g); and it appearing that the question before the Tax Court…”

United States v. Carroll (In Re Bankr. Court's Use of a Standardized Form of Chapter 13 Confirmation Order That Enjoins the Internal Revenue Serv. to Redirect Tax Refunds to Chapter 13 Trs.), 423 B.R. 294 (E.D. Mich. 2010). · cites it 2× “The Anti-Injunction Act, 26 U.S.C. § 742 (a), provides that “no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be maintained in any court by any person, whether or not such person is the person against whom such tax was assessed.”

Vegetable Farms, Inc. v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 191 F.2d 677 (9th Cir. 1951). “While the Commissioner purported to act pursuant to § 742 of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C.A. § 742 , and § 35.742-1 (b) (2) of Treasury Regulations 112, this computation was not correct.”

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.