Gitlitz v. Commissioner

Last updated
Gitlitz v. Commissioner
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Argued October 2, 2000
Decided January 9, 2001
Full case nameDavid A. Gitlitz, ex ux., et al. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
Citations531 U.S. 206 ( more )
121 S. Ct. 701; 148 L. Ed. 2d 613
Case history
PriorWinn v. Comm'r, 75 T.C.M. (CCH) 1840 (T.C. 1998); aff'd sub nom. Gitlitz v. Comm'r, 182 F.3d 1143 (10th Cir. 1999); cert. granted, 529 U.S. 1097(2000).
SubsequentOn remand, 6 F. App'x 770 (10th Cir. 2001).
Holding
The Internal Revenue Code permits taxpayers to increase bases in their S corporation stock by the amount of an S corporation's discharge of indebtedness excluded from gross income and the increase occurs before taxpayers are required to reduce the S corporation's tax attributes.
Court membership
Chief Justice
William Rehnquist
Associate Justices
John P. Stevens  · Sandra Day O'Connor
Antonin Scalia  · Anthony Kennedy
David Souter  · Clarence Thomas
Ruth Bader Ginsburg  · Stephen Breyer
Case opinions
MajorityThomas, joined by Rehnquist, Stevens, O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg
DissentBreyer
Laws applied
Internal Revenue Code

Gitlitz v. Commissioner, 531 U.S. 206 (2001), was a United States Supreme Court case decided in 2001. The case concerned a technical question of tax law dealing with the tax attributes of an S corporation.

Contents

Background

In 1991, P. D. W. & A., Inc., an insolvent corporation taxed under Subchapter S, excluded its entire discharge of indebtedness amount from its gross income. [1] David Gitlitz and other shareholders were assessed tax deficiencies because they used the untaxed discharge of indebtedness to increase their basis in S corporation stock and to deduct suspended losses. Eventually, the Tax Court held that Gitlitz could not use the S corporation's untaxed discharge of indebtedness to increase their basis in corporate stock. [2] In affirming, the Court of Appeals held that the discharge of indebtedness amount first had to be used to reduce certain tax attributes of the S corporation and that only the leftover amount could be used to increase their basis. [3] Gitlitz appealed and the U.S. Supreme Court decided to hear the case.

Opinion of the Court

Justice Thomas wrote the decision of the Court which reversed the Court of Appeals. He wrote that excluded discharged debt is an "item of income", [4] which passes through to shareholders and increases their basis in an S corporation's stock and that pass-through is performed before the reduction of an S corporation's tax attributes. He wrote that it "simply does not say that discharge of indebtedness ceases to be an item of income when the S corporation is insolvent. Instead it provides only that discharge of indebtedness ceases to be included in gross income." "In order to determine the 'tax imposed,' an S corporation shareholder must adjust his basis in his corporate stock and pass through all items of income and loss. Consequently, the attribute reduction must be made after the basis adjustment and pass-through." [5]

Only Justice Breyer did not join Thomas's opinion. He disagreed with the statutory interpretation of the decision, believing that examining the direct language of the provision would have led the Court to a contrary result. [6]

See also

Related Research Articles

Dividend Payment made by a corporation to its shareholders, usually as a distribution of profits

A dividend is a payment made by a corporation to its shareholders, usually as a distribution of profits. When a corporation earns a profit or surplus, the corporation is able to re-invest the profit in the business and pay a proportion of the profit as a dividend to shareholders. Distribution to shareholders may be in cash or, if the corporation has a dividend reinvestment plan, the amount can be paid by the issue of further shares or share repurchase. When dividends are paid, shareholders typically must pay income taxes, and the corporation does not receive a corporate income tax deduction for the dividend payments.

A dividend tax is the tax imposed by a tax authority on dividends received by shareholders (stockholders) of a company.

Loan transfer of money that must be repaid

In finance, a loan is the lending of money by one or more individuals, organizations, or other entities to other individuals, organizations etc. The recipient incurs a debt, and is usually liable to pay interest on that debt until it is repaid, and also to repay the principal amount borrowed.

Limited liability company US-specific form of a private limited company

A limited liability company (LLC) is the US-specific form of a private limited company. It is a business structure that can combine the pass-through taxation of a partnership or sole proprietorship with the limited liability of a corporation. An LLC is not a corporation under state law; it is a legal form of a company that provides limited liability to its owners in many jurisdictions. LLCs are well known for the flexibility that they provide to business owners; depending on the situation, an LLC may elect to use corporate tax rules instead of being treated as a partnership, and, under certain circumstances, LLCs may be organized as not-for-profit. In certain U.S. states, businesses that provide professional services requiring a state professional license, such as legal or medical services, may not be allowed to form an LLC but may be required to form a similar entity called a professional limited liability company (PLLC).

A corporate tax, also called corporation tax or company tax, is a direct tax imposed by a jurisdiction on the income or capital of corporations or analogous legal entities. Many countries impose such taxes at the national level, and a similar tax may be imposed at state or local levels. The taxes may also be referred to as income tax or capital tax. Partnerships are generally not taxed at the entity level. A country's corporate tax may apply to:

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:

S corporation US tax term for a type of company

An S corporation, for United States federal income tax, is a closely held corporation that makes a valid election to be taxed under Subchapter S of Chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code. In general, S corporations do not pay any income taxes. Instead, the corporation's income and losses are divided among and passed through to its shareholders. The shareholders must then report the income or loss on their own individual income tax returns.

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.

Income taxes in the United States are imposed by the federal, most states, and many local governments. The income taxes are determined by applying a tax rate, which may increase as income increases, to taxable income, which is the total income less allowable deductions. Income is broadly defined. Individuals and corporations are directly taxable, and estates and trusts may be taxable on undistributed income. Partnerships are not taxed, but their partners are taxed on their shares of partnership income. Residents and citizens are taxed on worldwide income, while nonresidents are taxed only on income within the jurisdiction. Several types of credits reduce tax, and some types of credits may exceed tax before credits. An alternative tax applies at the federal and some state levels.

United States v. Kirby Lumber Co., 284 U.S. 1 (1931), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that when a corporation settles its debts for less than the face amount, a taxable gain has occurred.

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.

<i>Zarin v. Commissioner</i>

Zarin v. Commissioner, 916 F.2d 110 is a United States Third Circuit Court of Appeals decision concerning the cancellation of debt and the tax consequences for the borrower for U.S. federal income tax purposes.

The United States Internal Revenue Code contains a limited number of specific statutory provisions excluding from income economic benefits that would otherwise constitute gross income under the Code. IRC § 108 constitutes one such exclusion. Section 108 excludes discharge of indebtedness from gross income under certain specified conditions, such as when the discharge occurs in bankruptcy or when the taxpayer is insolvent. Under ordinary taxation principles, discharge of debt would clearly fall within the broad definition of gross income provided by the Code. Section 108 thus provides a measure of relief for certain taxpayers who find themselves facing serious financial difficulties.

The dividends-received deduction, under U.S. federal income tax law, is a tax deduction received by a corporation on the dividends it receives from other corporations in which it has an ownership stake.

Tax protesters in the United States advance a number of constitutional arguments asserting that the imposition, assessment and collection of the federal income tax violates the United States Constitution. These kinds of arguments, though related to, are distinguished from statutory and administrative arguments, which presuppose the constitutionality of the income tax, as well as from general conspiracy arguments, which are based upon the proposition that the three branches of the federal government are involved together in a deliberate, on-going campaign of deception for the purpose of defrauding individuals or entities of their wealth or profits. Although constitutional challenges to U.S. tax laws are frequently directed towards the validity and effect of the Sixteenth Amendment, assertions that the income tax violates various other provisions of the Constitution have been made as well.

Commissioner v. LoBue, 351 U.S. 243 (1956), was an income tax case before the United States Supreme Court.

Chickasaw Nation v. United States, 534 U.S. 84 (2001), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that Indian tribes were liable for taxes on gambling operations under 25 U.S.C. §§ 2701–2721.

The alternative minimum tax (AMT) is a tax imposed by the United States federal government in addition to the regular income tax for certain individuals, estates, and trusts. As of tax year 2018, the AMT raises about $5.2 billion, or 0.4% of all federal income tax revenue, affecting 0.1% of taxpayers, mostly in the upper income ranges.

Illinois v. McArthur, 531 U.S. 326 (2001), was a United States Supreme Court case decided in 2001. The case concerned the extent of the government’s power to limit an individual’s complete control of his or her home pending the arrival of a search warrant. A divided Court held that the search was not unconstitutional because there was a reasonable law-enforcement need to acquire a warrant, namely, to prevent the potential destruction of evidence within the home.

Cedric Kushner Promotions, Ltd. v. King, 533 U.S. 158 (2001), was a United States Supreme Court case concerning the extent to which the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) applied to certain types of corporation-individual organizations. In this case, the Court decided unanimously to apply it to Respondent Don King.

References

  1. Gitlitz v. Commissioner, 531 U.S. 206, 209 (2001).
  2. 531 U.S. at 211.
  3. 531 U.S. at 211-212.
  4. 531 U.S. at 217.
  5. 531 U.S. at 216-218.
  6. 531 U.S. at 221 (Breyer, J., dissenting).