Realization (tax)

Last updated

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).

Contents

Income

Realization is a trigger for calculating income taxation. It is one of the three principles for defining income under the seminal case in this area of tax law, Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co. [1] In that case, the Supreme Court interpreted a statute under the tax code and determined that income generally means "undeniable accessions to wealth, clearly realized, and over which the taxpayers have complete dominion." It is also discussed in Helvering v. Bruun, in which the court explained that "the realization of gain need not be in cash derived from the sale of an asset. Gain 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." [2] That is a checklist of types of realization triggers, but it is not an exhaustive list. For instance, merely finding something of value can be a realization trigger, as the case of Cesarini v. United States demonstrates. [3] [4]

In Cottage Savings Ass'n v. Commissioner, 499 U.S. 554, 559 (1991), the Supreme Court, interpreting section 1001(a) of the tax code, stated:

In order to avoid the cumbersome, abrasive, and unpredictable administrative task of valuing assets annually to determine whether their value has appreciated or depreciated, § 1001(a) of the Code defers the tax consequences of a gain or loss in property until it is realized through the "sale or disposition of [the] property." This rule serves administrative convenience because a change in the investment's form or extent can be easily detected by a taxpayer or an administrative officer. [5]

Problems in line-drawing

Realization is generally straightforward, but there are instances at the margins in which the moment of realization can be tricky. One example of a tricky realization situation that has given rise to substantial debate is the 62nd home run ball hit by Mark McGwire. The ball was retrieved by a grounds crewman, Tim Forneris. Forneris gave McGwire the ball immediately after the game amid speculation that the ball could fetch at least $1 million in an auction. Did either McGwire or Forneris have gross income? Did Forneris realize income when he caught the ball? Tax professors typically teach that it was income to Forneris when he caught it because it was treasure trove. As a result, the person who catches a home run ball would generally be required to include the value of the ball in income in the year in which the catch took place, whether or not the person sold the ball and even whether he gave it back to the player or the team, or even destroyed it.

This is an unpopular result and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued Ruling 98-56 to change the result in the face of public pressure, but only in the case in which the player returned the ball. Under that theory, an individual who catches a record-breaking ball has income at the very moment he possesses it unless he immediately disclaims possession by returning it to the player or team. If he does not do that, the only remaining question is what value he ought to include in income of the next tax return. Because the treasure trove rule is that the value at the time the ball is "reduced to possession," the answer must be a reasonable estimate of its market value, whether or not the recipient sells the ball.[ citation needed ]

Related Research Articles

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.

For households and individuals, gross income is the sum of all wages, salaries, profits, interest payments, rents, and other forms of earnings, before any deductions or taxes. It is opposed to net income, defined as the gross income minus taxes and other deductions.

Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426 (1955), was an important income tax case before the United States Supreme Court. The Court held as follows:

Gregory v. Helvering, 293 U.S. 465 (1935), was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court concerned with U.S. income tax law. The case is cited as part of the basis for two legal doctrines: the business purpose doctrine and the doctrine of substance over form. The business purpose doctrine is essentially that if a transaction has no substantial business purpose other than the avoidance or reduction of Federal tax, the tax law will not regard the transaction. The doctrine of substance over form is essentially that for Federal tax purposes, a taxpayer is bound by the economic substance of a transaction if the economic substance varies from its legal form.

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

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.

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 or realized loss.

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.

North American Oil Consolidated v. Burnet, 286 U.S. 417 (1932), was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court that established the claim of right doctrine.

Helvering v. Horst, 311 U.S. 112 (1940), is an opinion of the United States Supreme Court which further developed the “fruit-and-tree” metaphor established in Lucas v. Earl. Horst is the leading case that applies the assignment of income doctrine to income from property.

<i>Cesarini v. United States</i>

Cesarini v. United States, 296 F. Supp. 3, is a historic case decided by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, where the court ruled that treasure trove property is included in gross income for the tax year when it was discovered. The case is frequently cited in American law school textbooks as an example of the nuances of income taxation.

<i>Hornung v. Commissioner</i>

Hornung v. Commissioner is a case heard by the United States Tax Court in 1967.

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."

<i>Teschner v. Commissioner</i>

Teschner v. Commissioner, 38 T.C. 1003 (1962) was a tax-law case involving the United States IRS in 1962.

Commissioner v. Indianapolis Power & Light Company, 493 U.S. 203 (1990), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court addressed whether customer deposits constituted taxable income to a public utility company.

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.

Taxation of illegal income in the United States arises from the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC), enacted by the U.S. Congress in part for the purpose of taxing net income. As such, a person's taxable income will generally be subject to the same Federal income tax rules, regardless of whether the income was obtained legally or illegally.

Haverly v. United States, 513 F.2d 224 is a United States income tax case.

Taxation of income in the United States has been practised since colonial times. Some southern states imposed their own taxes on income from property, both before and after Independence. The Constitution empowered the federal government to raise taxes at a uniform rate throughout the nation, and required that "direct taxes" be imposed only in proportion to the Census population of each state. Federal income tax was first introduced under the Revenue Act of 1861 to help pay for the Civil War. It was renewed in later years and reformed in 1894 in the form of the Wilson-Gorman tariff.

References

  1. ↑ Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co. , 348 U.S. 426 (1955).
  2. ↑ Helvering v. Bruun , 309 U.S. 461 (1940).
  3. ↑ "Tax Appraisal" . Retrieved 3 April 2019.
  4. ↑ Cesarini v. United States , 428F.2d812 .
  5. ↑ Cottage Savings Ass'n v. Commissioner, 499 U.S. 554 (1991)

See also

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.