Search

The article discusses a recent court case, GSS Holdings (Liberty) Inc. v. United States, which highlights the indistinct boundaries and challenges of applying the substance-over-form doctrines. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the decision of the United States Court of Federal Claims, stating that the Claims Court had incorrectly conflated the step transaction and economic substance doctrines. The dissenting opinion argued that the substance-over-form doctrine should be applied instead. The article provides historical context on the development of these doctrines and explains their purpose in allowing courts and the IRS to reject a taxpayer's characterization of a transaction that seeks unintended tax benefits. [Extracted from the article]

E. Inheritance Tax Benefits Non-doms also have the advantage of beneficial treatment for UK inheritance tax (IHT) purposes. United Kingdom The United Kingdom (UK) also provides Brazilians with several immigration options. [Extracted from the article]

For example, Michigan imposes a value-based personal property tax on "Solar Energy Systems."[10] In that case, a preset depreciation factor is applied to a project's original cost to reach the "true cash value", which is ultimately subjected to local property tax rates. B. Sales and Use Tax Like property tax, most states follow similar paths for sales and use tax. It provides a short background on the components that make up wind and solar projects, summarizes commonly applicable taxes, including property tax and sales and use tax, and concludes with a brief discussion of why developers should care about state and local taxation. Between a rapidly changing planet, generous federal tax incentives, and high demand, wind and solar projects are experiencing a major growth spurt.[1] In the summer of 2010, the United States had a total net capacity of 39,134.5 megawatts in utility-scale wind energy.[2] By the summer of 2020, that number climbed to 118,378.7 megawatts, more than a 200% increase in just ten years.[3] Similarly, in the summer of 2010, the United States had a total net capacity of just 393.4 megawatts in utility-scale solar energy.[4] Ten years later, however, that number reached 46,306.2 megawatts, a gigantic 11,600% increase.[5] As wind and solar continue to grow, state taxing authorities are examining, and reexamining, how best to tax these unique projects. [Extracted from the article]

To mix gustatory metaphors, those following the attempted passage of President Biden's Build Back Better agenda got a front row seat to DC sausage-making and yet left hungry, at the end of the day, with a big nothing-burger. Other incentives are also available for developers and tax equity investors. Rather, it appears that developers and tax equity investors can layer these credits on top of one another. [Extracted from the article]

Author's Synopsis: In 2017 Congress repealed the provisions that allowed divorced or legally separated couples to shift the income tax burden of alimony payments from the payor spouse to the payee spouse. The stated purposes for the change were to simplify the tax code and to eliminate an unwarranted tax preference favoring divorced couples over married couples. On closer scrutiny, it appears that Congress may have been less interested in simplification or equity than in scoring revenue gains to offset the cost of unrelated tax cuts for high-income individuals, business owners, and corporations. In addition to reallocating the tax burden of direct alimony payments, the 2017 changes increase the likelihood that the grantor of a trust will remain taxable after divorce or legal separation on trust income distributed to a former spouse. In the absence of a statutory exception, the grantor trust rules will apply to the extent that trust income might be used to satisfy the grantor's continuing alimony obligation, no matter how contingent. Furthermore, even if the grantor has no continuing alimony obligation, any trust income distributable to the former spouse will be attributed to the grantor if the trust was created during marriage. Unfortunately, given the budget considerations that facilitated the 2017 changes, it will be politically difficult to alleviate their undesirable consequences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the single unified agreement between the U.S. and Afghanistan for establishing a predictable tax burden for contractors operating in Afghanistan. It mentions that how the Afghan business tax and its uneven enforcement harm U.S. contractors. It also mentions that international tax treaty with the Afghan government and a relatively informal bilateral agreement and need to create a new government agency to assist contractors in securing tax exemption.

An interview with Connecticut Commissioner of Revenue Services Kevin Sullivan is presented. Sullivan admits that his biggest challenges as Commissioner include how to get his people to think differently about work, collaboration in the agency, and the use of technology. He says that his agency is the one to help deliver the consensus of exporting tax burden and importing tech business to the legislature. He also presents a plan for his agency to do market sourcing.

The article discusses the law of attorney's fees under § 1988 in the U.S. In the U.S. civil litigations today proceed in a way that plaintiffs and defendants choose and pay for their lawyers. This rule has been the cornerstone in private rights resolution in any type of case. But in cases involving public rights, fee-shifting rule is commonly applied. Public rights stands for the rights, privileges and immunities that protect individuals from government. However in England losing parties compensate the lawyer of winner. This model is adopted in the U.S. when plaintiffs make claims against state officials, local governments and local officials. The section of Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Act of 1976, dealing with the provisions of attorney fees is mentioned. The meaning of "Prevailing Party" is given in the article which literally includes defendants as well as plaintiffs but actually favors plaintiffs. It also mentions the grounds under §1988 where any defendant can win attorney's fees and the reasonableness of such fee is also assessed. The tax implications of the received amount in the form of fee is also presented.

The characterization and analysis of various payments from one divorcing spouse to the other are often crucial elements in the negotiation or adjudication of divorce actions. A frequently determinative factor is the tax treatment of these payments. It is critical that divorce practitioners carefully consider the tax effects of all transfers incident to divorce and that they be aware that the mere characterization of inter-spousal payments in a divorce instrument will not necessarily govern their treatment for tax purposes. It is not uncommon that a payment is labeled as "alimony" in a decree or marital settlement agreement but does not qualify as alimony under the Internal Revenue Code, or vice versa. For federal income tax purposes, a payment between spouses in connection with a marital dissolution must be either a payment of alimony, a payment of child support or made as part of a property settlement or transfer of assets of the marital estate. Each of these categories of inter-spousal payment will give rise to different tax considerations and results.

Reports on the taxation of private pension plans under the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 in the U.S. Tax-deferred pension plans for the self-employed; Enactment of full parity between the tax treatment of pension plans of self-employed individuals and employees; Implications of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act; Discrimination against the self-employed.

Focuses on different aspects of the United States Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982. Rules relating to pensions, completed contracts, safe-harbor leasing and taxpayer compliance; Partial liquidations; Distribution of appreciated property in redemption of stock.

The Spring 2020 issue of The Tax Lawyer, the nation's premier, peer-reviewed tax law journal, is available now. The Tax Lawyer is published quarterly as a service to members of the Tax Section. Articles John A. Townsend, Burden of Proof in Tax Cases: Valuation and Ranges-An Update Keith Fogg, Access to Judicial Review in Nondeficiency Tax Cases Recent Developments Bruce A. McGovern, Cassady V. ("Cass") Brewer, and James M. Delaney, Recent Developments in Federal Income Taxation: The Year 2019 Erwin N. Griswold Lecture 2020 Erwin N. Griswold Lecture Before the American College of Tax Counsel: Tomorrow Is Another Day-How Did We Get Here Ethically, by Richard A. Shaw. [Extracted from the article]

Reports on the creation of a Taxpayers Committee to promote simplification of tax laws in the U.S. Tax burden; Educational campaigns.