Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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.
This treatment is similar to corporations entity approach. Thus a partnership for tax purposes is a person, it can sue and be sued and can conclude legal contracts in its own name. The entity concept governs the characterization "income, gain, losses and deductions from the partnership operations, are initially determined at entity level.
If a taxpayer realizes income (e.g., gain) from an installment sale, the income generally may be reported by the taxpayer under the "installment method." [5] The "installment method" is defined as "a method under which the income recognized for any taxable year [ . . . ] is that proportion of the payments received in that year which the gross profit [ . . . ] bears to the total contract price."
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."
The U.S. imposes a 15% withholding tax on the amount realized in connection with the sale of a U.S. real ... (since the enactment of the Social Security Act in 1935 ...
The Kamala Harris campaign has made one of its first concrete policy proposals this week with a tax plan. The centerpiece of the plan is a series of high-end tax increases on corporations and ...
Foreign tax credit carryovers – Any carryover to or from the taxable year of the discharge for purposes of determining the amount of the credit allowable under 26 U.S.C. §27; The reduction in tax attributes is made after the determination of the tax imposed for the taxable year of the discharge. [35]
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 ...