Amount realized

Last updated

Amount realized, in US federal income tax law, is defined by section 1001(b) of Internal Revenue Code. It is one of two variables in the formula used to compute gains and losses to determine gross income for income tax purposes. The excess of the amount realized over the adjusted basis is the amount of realized gain (if positive) or realized loss (if negative).

Contents

Computation of gain and loss is governed by section 1001(a) of the Code.

Statutory definition

Section 1001(b) defines the amount realized as "the sum of any money received plus the fair market value of the property (other than money) received." [1] Generally, it is the value of what the taxpayer receives in the exchange.

Calculating amount realized

To have an "amount realized" there must be a kind of exchange, known as a "realization event." [2] The first step in calculating the amount realized is determining when an exchange that qualifies as a "realization event" has occurred. Section 1001 requires that it be an exchange through which the taxpayer receives money or other property. In Helvering v. Bruun, the United States Supreme Court has held that a "[g]ain may occur as a result of exchange of property, payment of the taxpayer's indebtedness, relief from a liability, or other profit realized from the completion of a transaction." [3] More clearly, the Supreme Court lists four events that trigger realization of gain or loss: 1) a property exchange, 2) relief of a legal obligation owed to a third party, 3) relief of a legal obligation owed to the party receiving property, or 4) other profit transactions.

A good illustration for determining realization for income tax purposes is stock. For example, at the beginning of the taxable year, Sally buys stock in XYZ Corp. for $10 per share. By the end of the taxable year, Sally's stock in XYZ Corp. is worth $20 a share. Would Sally have to report the appreciation in her stock as taxable income? Because Sally has not sold her stock (or otherwise exchanged it), she has not realized the stock's appreciation. If Sally had sold the stock in XYZ Corp. at $20 per share, the sale would be a realization event, and Sally would recognize income (in this case, a gain). Realization would also occur if Sally exchanged her stock for a new car or for a certain amount of services.

In a transaction where property is exchanged for other property, no realization event occurs where this is no legal distinction between the exchanged properties. [4] According to the Supreme Court in Cottage Savings,

[u]nder our interpretation of § 1001(a), an exchange of property gives rise to a realization event so long as the exchanged properties are "materially different: they embody legally distinct entitlements. [5]

The facts in Cottage Savings present an example of realization occurring when property is exchanged for property. Cottage Savings Association (CSA) sold interest in home mortgages to four savings and loans associations. [6] At the same time, CSA bought interest in mortgages held by the same four savings and loans associations. [7] "The fair market value of the package of participation interests exchanged by each side was approximately $4.5 million." [8] (Essentially, CSA and the four savings and loans associations exchanged $4.5 million worth of mortgage interests.) The Supreme Court held that a realization event under § 1001 had occurred:

[b]ecause the participation interests exchanged by Cottage Savings and the other [savings and loans associations] derived from loans that were made to different obligors and secured by different homes, the exchanged interests did embody legally distinct entitlements. Consequently, we conclude that Cottage Savings realized its losses at the point of the exchange. [9]

Impact

To suggest that Congress could tax unrealized gain is not to suggest Congress intends to do so. The realization requirement is a pervasive, popularly supported aspect of our tax system, and there is no indication Congress is about to reverse course in this regard. [10]

According to Burke and Friel, there are policy arguments to be made for and against taxing appreciation. If Congress chose to tax appreciation, taxpayers' tax income would likely match their economic income: "it would thus tend to place on the same tax footing persons who are economically similarly situated." [11] However, the current system allows the IRS a degree of "administrative convenience." [12] Moreover, it is arguably unfair to treat unrealized gains as income if the taxpayer may not have the appropriate funds to cover the tax liability, presumably forcing the taxpayer to sell the asset in question simply to pay the tax resulting from it. [13] In the end, economic gain will be taxed. "Realization is fundamentally a matter of timing.... [t]he unrealized total gain, of course, may fluctuate from time to time as the property's value changes, but that total will be treated as income only on realization. To describe realization as a matter of timing should, nonetheless, not be seen as a dismissive comment. In taxes, as in life, timing can be everything...." [14]

See also

Related Research Articles

Tax deduction is a reduction of income that is able to be taxed and is commonly a result of expenses, particularly those incurred to produce additional income. Tax deductions are a form of tax incentives, along with exemptions and credits. The difference between deductions, exemptions and credits is that deductions and exemptions both reduce taxable income, while credits reduce tax.

A capital gains tax (CGT) is a tax on the profit realized on the sale of a non-inventory asset. The most common capital gains are realized from the sale of stocks, bonds, precious metals, real estate, and property.

Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920), was a tax case before the United States Supreme Court that is notable for the following holdings:

Nonrecourse debt or a nonrecourse loan is a secured loan (debt) that is secured by a pledge of collateral, typically real property, but for which the borrower is not personally liable. If the borrower defaults, the lender can seize and sell the collateral, but if the collateral sells for less than the debt, the lender cannot seek that deficiency balance from the borrower—its recovery is limited only to the value of the collateral. Thus, nonrecourse debt is typically limited to 50% or 60% loan-to-value ratios, so that the property itself provides "overcollateralization" of the loan.

A wash sale is a sale of a security at a loss and repurchase of the same or substantially identical security shortly before or after. Losses from such sales are not deductible in most cases under the Internal Revenue Code in the United States. Wash sale regulations disallow an investor who holds an unrealized loss from accelerating a tax deduction into the current tax year, unless the investor is out of the position for some significant length of time. A wash sale can take place at any time during the year, or across year boundaries.

Basis, as used in United States tax law, is the original cost of property, adjusted for factors such as depreciation. When property is sold, the taxpayer pays/(saves) taxes on a capital gain/(loss) that equals the amount realized on the sale minus the sold property's basis.

Under Section 1031 of the United States Internal Revenue Code, a taxpayer may defer recognition of capital gains and related federal income tax liability on the exchange of certain types of property, a process known as a 1031 exchange. In 1979, this treatment was expanded by the courts to include non-simultaneous sale and purchase of real estate, a process sometimes called a Starker exchange.

Cottage Savings Association v. Commissioner, 499 U.S. 554 (1991), was an income tax case before the Supreme Court of the United States.

In the United States of America, individuals and corporations pay U.S. federal income tax on the net total of all their capital gains. The tax rate depends on both the investor's tax bracket and the amount of time the investment was held. Short-term capital gains are taxed at the investor's ordinary income tax rate and are defined as investments held for a year or less before being sold. Long-term capital gains, on dispositions of assets held for more than one year, are taxed at a lower rate.

Taxpayers in the United States may have tax consequences when debt is cancelled. This is commonly known as COD Income. According to the Internal Revenue Code, the discharge of indebtedness must be included in a taxpayer's gross income. There are exceptions to this rule, however, so a careful examination of one's COD income is important to determine any potential tax consequences.

Helvering v. Bruun, 309 U.S. 461 (1940), was an income tax case before the Supreme Court of the United States. It is notable for holding that under section 22(a) of the Revenue Act of 1932, a landlord realizes a taxable gain when he repossesses property, the value of which has increased because the property was improved by a tenant.

A like-kind exchange under United States tax law, also known as a 1031 exchange, is a transaction or series of transactions that allows for the disposal of an asset and the acquisition of another replacement asset without generating a current tax liability from the sale of the first asset. A like-kind exchange can involve the exchange of one business for another business, one real estate investment property for another real estate investment property, livestock for qualifying livestock, and exchanges of other qualifying assets. Like-kind exchanges have been characterized as tax breaks or "tax loopholes".

In U.S. Federal income tax law, recognition is among a series of prerequisites to the manifestation of gains and losses used to determine tax liability. First, in the series for manifesting gain and loss, a taxpayer must "realize" gain and loss. This word "realize" is a term of art that refers to the realization requirement where the taxpayer must receive or lose something of monetary value. Once the realization requirement is met, gains and losses are taken into account only to the extent that they are also "recognized."

United States v. Davis, 370 U.S. 65 (1962), is a federal income tax case argued before the United States Supreme Court in 1962, holding that a taxpayer recognizes a gain on the transfer of appreciated property in satisfaction of a legal obligation.

<i>Kenan v. Commissioner</i>

In Kenan v. Commissioner, 114 F. 2d 217, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit provided a broad definition of the term "sale or exchange." The Kenan court reviewed the Commissioner's finding of a $367,687.12 deficiency in the income taxes of the trustees. The trustees or taxpayers contended "that the delivery of the securities of the trust estate to the legatee was a donative disposition of property. .. and that no gain was thereby realized." The court pointed out that "the trustees had the power to determine whether the claim should be satisfied [in cash or securities]." Thus, "[i]f it were satisfied by a cash payment securities might have been sold on which. .. a taxable gain would necessarily have been realized." The court found that "[t]he word 'exchange' does not necessarily have the connotation of a bilateral agreement which may be said to attach to the word 'sale.'" The court then held that the trustees or taxpayers had realized a gain when they used the securities to satisfy the claim on the estate.

According to section 1001(c) of the Internal Revenue Code, all realized gains and losses must be recognized "except as otherwise provided in this subtitle." While the general rule of recognition applies in most cases, there are actually several exceptions located throughout the Internal Revenue Code. These exceptions are commonly referred to as nonrecognition provisions.

Commissioner v. Tufts, 461 U.S. 300 (1983), was a unanimous decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that when a taxpayer sells or disposes of property encumbered by a nonrecourse obligation exceeding the fair market value of the property sold, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue may require him to include in the “amount realized” the outstanding amount of the obligation; the fair market value of the property is irrelevant to this calculation.

Realization, for U.S. Federal income tax purposes, is a requirement in determining what must be included as income subject to taxation. It should not be confused with the separate concept of Recognition (tax).

<i>Warren Jones Co. v. Commissioner</i>

Warren Jones Company v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 524 F.2d 788 was a taxation decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

<i>Farid-Es-Sultaneh v. Commissioner</i>

Farid-Es-Sultaneh v. Commissioner, 160 F.2d 812 is a United States federal income tax case. It is notable for the following holding:

References

  1. ↑ 26 U.S.C.   § 1001(b)
  2. ↑ See 26 C.F.R. § 1.1001-1(a) ("[T]he gain or loss realized from the conversion of property into cash, or from the exchange of property for other property differing materially either in kind or in extent, is treated as income or as loss sustained.").
  3. ↑ Helvering, Comm. of Internal Revenue, v. Bruun, 309 U.S. 461, 469 (1940).
  4. ↑ Cottage Savings Ass'n v. Comm. of Internal Revenue, 499 U.S. 554, 559 (1991).
  5. ↑ Id. at 566.
  6. ↑ Id. at 557-58.
  7. ↑ Id. at 558.
  8. ↑ Id.
  9. ↑ Id. at 566
  10. ↑ Burke & Friel, Taxation of Individual Income 29 (8th Ed.)
  11. ↑ Id.
  12. ↑ Cottage Savings, 499 U.S. at 559.
  13. ↑ Burke & Friel, supra, at 29.
  14. ↑ Id. at 29-30.

Further reading

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.