Expand the following panels for additional search options.

ES NPA Holding, LLC v. Comm’r

The Tax Court ruled that the class C units were a profits interest because, when applying the fair market value of the LLC at the time of receipt, the partner would not receive any proceeds from a liquidation at that time. Any proceeds in excess of fair market value would be speculative. No accuracy penalty was appropriate either.

On Liquidation Tax Matters, Partner Would Not Receive Any Proceeds, Interest Received Would Be Nontaxable Profits Interest

The Tax Court ruled that the class C units were a profits interest because, when applying the fair market value of the LLC at the time of receipt, the partner would not receive any proceeds from a liquidation at that time. Any proceeds in excess of fair market value would be speculative. No accuracy penalty was appropriate either.

IRS hits taxpayer with gross valuation misstatement penalty

Easement cases before the Tax Court can offer some interesting insights and guidance to BV professionals.

Brooks v. Comm’r

The IRS disallowed carryover charitable deductions for donation of a conservation easement by taxpayers’ family LLC to the county where the property lies. In addition to the disallowance of the donation deductions, the IRS assessed gross overvaluation penalties. The Tax Court denied the deductions in part for lack of following regulations and procedures. Additionally, the court found that the value determined by the taxpayers’ appraiser was filled with errors and had basic incorrect assumptions resulting in a gross misstatement of value. Thus, taxpayers were liable for the 40% accuracy-related penalty resulting from a gross valuation misstatement pursuant to section 6662(h) as determined for each of the years in issue.

Taxpayer Is Denied Charitable Deduction for a Conservation Easement, and Gross Valuation Misstatement Penalties Are Applied

The IRS disallowed carryover charitable deductions for donation of a conservation easement by taxpayers’ family LLC to the county where the property lies. In addition to the disallowance of the donation deductions, the IRS assessed gross overvaluation penalties. The Tax Court denied the deductions in part for lack of following regulations and procedures. Additionally, the court found that the value determined by the taxpayers’ appraiser was filled with errors and had basic incorrect assumptions resulting in a gross misstatement of value. Thus, taxpayers were liable for the 40% accuracy-related penalty resulting from a gross valuation misstatement pursuant to section 6662(h) as determined for each of the years in issue.

Court upholds Section 1031 tax ruling, affirming appraisals were unreliable

In 2016, the U.S. Tax Court found for the Internal Revenue Service in a dispute over a series of exchanges that Exelon, the tax payer, designated as section 1031 transactions. The court found these were not like-kind exchanges and expressed dismay over the appraisals the tax payer offered to support its claim for significant deductions.

Appeals Court Upholds Tax Court’s Section 1031 Decision Pivoting on ‘Tainted Appraisals’

Appeals court upholds Tax Court’s ruling that taxpayer’s transactions do not represent section 1031 like-kind exchanges because taxpayer never assumed ownership of replacement plants; improper input from taxpayer’s law firm tainted appraisals used to show otherwise; accuracy penalty is justified.

Exelon Corp. v. Commissioner

Appeals court upholds Tax Court’s ruling that taxpayer’s transactions do not represent section 1031 like-kind exchanges because taxpayer never assumed ownership of replacement plants; improper input from taxpayer’s law firm tainted appraisals used to show otherwise; accuracy penalty is justified.

8 results