Answered You can hire a professional tutor to get the answer.
Hi, I need help with essay on A brief of taxation case. Paper must be at least 500 words. Please, no plagiarized work!In 1938, the property was sold a net sales of $2,500.00 (after deducting $500.00 s
Hi, I need help with essay on A brief of taxation case. Paper must be at least 500 words. Please, no plagiarized work!
In 1938, the property was sold a net sales of $2,500.00 (after deducting $500.00 sales expenses).The petitioner reported 50% of the net sales value ($1250.00) as taxable income (Bittker 277).
Analysis: According to the petitioner, the property she had inherited was in the form of equity which according to the tax laws was zero tax based. The amount collected from the sales should have been treated as her net gain from the sales of equity (Yin 208). The IRS commissioner to the contrary argued that the petitioner had inherited land and building and not equity. He cited that before the selling, the petitioner was allowed depreciation deductions of $25,000 in excess on the premises. Likewise, the commissioner pointed out that the petitioner received money equivalent to the net sales on top of the debt amount transferred to the buyer of the property (Yin 214).
First, the court addressed the meaning of the word ‘’property’’ and whether it was a synonym of ‘’Equity’’. The court agreed with the IRS commissioner in addressing how to treat inherited ’’property’’. In the ruling the court agreed that there was no evidence whatsoever to conclude that both words meant the same thing. Secondly, court said that by replacing the word ’’property’’ with ‘’equity’’ under the tax law would attract negative complications in the future cases. The major problem would have occurred while determining the value of depreciation to be subjected on a property. Subsequently, the action would undermine some of administrative rules in existence (Yin 250).
The court secondly determined that the value the petitioner realized from selling the ‘’property’’ should be subject to the conclusion made under the first issue. The court maintained that there must exist actual money receipt or receipt of any other property on a transaction for it to be subjected to a taxable gain. Finally, the court ruled
