The facts of the above case are Cottage Savings Association exchange participation interests in its 252 mortgages to four savings and loan associations, getting back in return of 305 other mortgages that have the same fair market value in totality, however the fair market value of the mortgages that was sold is 2.4 million less than the original value. So, on its 1980 federal income tax return, cottage savings association claimed a deduction on their tax return, and the IRS refused to recognize the difference as a deductible loss. The Commissioner of IRS didn’t allow the deduction, because to be able to claim a deduction, exchanges should be materially different, and those are not materially different under 1001, which an exchange of property …show more content…
The Cottage savings’ transactions easily met the material difference test due to the fact that the participation interests exchanged accessed from loans that were made to different obligators and protected by different home, the exchanged interests demonstrated legally distinct entitlements. Commissioners argue that Section 1000 (a) states that to realize a gain or loss in the value of the property, the taxpayer must engage in “sale or disposition of property”, which means only the exchange of property can be disposition only if the transactions involved were materially different. Also, they argued that underlying mortgages were essentially economic substitutes, the participations interests exchanged are not materially different. The Commissioners viewed the exchanged as a similar one .The court responded by giving prior cases such as Eisner v Macomber, a case which defined with exchange of stocks between two parties, also other cases Phellis, Weiss, and Marr that nothing in those cases indicates that exchanges or properties must satisfy the such a subjective test to generate realization of a gain or loss. Also, the commissioner’s test is not compatible with the structure of code. The Cottage savings argue that material
We started our research by reading through the discussions posted within the Topic of Research. From there we read the recommended pages of the text, 20-2, 20-3, and 20-4 regarding the liquidation process. Using the CCH Tax Research Network, we used a selected content search, Federal Tax--Federal Tax Editorial Content--Standard Federal Tax Reporter (2014), to research the following laws: Section 331(a), 336(a), and 6901(a). We also used the Citator in CCH to review the facts and decisions shown in the liquidation cases of Kennemer and Al Zuni of Arizona.
“In my view I am required by principle and local authority to decide that the terms of this mortgage, when it was registered, established an indefeasible right in the mortgagees to bring proceedings for repayment of the debt existing from the advance of the $206,000.”
A summary of the case details (provide the circumstances surrounding the case, who, what, when, how)
The applicant Mr. Arthur Hutchinson was born in 1941. In October 1983, he broke into a house, murdered a man, his wife and their adult son. Then he repeatedly raped their 18-year old daughter, having first dragged her past her father’s body. After several weeks, he was arrested by the police and chargedwith the offences. During the trial he refused to accept the offence and pleaded for innocence. He denied accepting the killings and sex with the younger daughter.
INTRODUCTION In Palgo Holdings v Gowans , the High Court considered the distinction between a security in the form of a pawn or pledge and a security in the form of a chattel mortgage. The question was whether section 6 of the Pawnbrokers and Second-hand Dealers Act 1996 (NSW) (‘the 1996 Pawnbrokers Act’) extended to a business that structured its loan agreements as chattel mortgages. In a four to one majority (Kirby J dissenting) the High Court found that chattel mortgages fell outside the ambit of section 6 of the 1996 Pawnbrokers Act. However, beyond the apparent simplicity of this decision, the reasoning of the majority raises a number of questions.
This case study examines various real estate contracts – the Real Estate Purchase Contract (REPC) and two addendums labeled Addendum No. 1 and Addendum No. 2 – pertaining to the sale of 1234 Cul-de-sac Lane in Orem, Utah. The buyers in this contract are 17 year old Jon D’Man and 21 year old Marsha Mello; the seller is Boren T. Deal. The first contract created was Jon and Marsha’s offer to purchase Boren’s house. This contract was created using the RESC form, which was likely provided by their real estate agent as it is the required form for real estate transactions according to Utah state law. The seller originally listed the house on a Multiple Listing Service (MLS); Jon and Marsha agreed that the asking price was too high for the neighborhood (although we are not given the actual listing price), and agreed to offer two-hundred and seven-thousand dollars ($207,000) and an Earnest Money Deposit of five-thousand dollars ($5,000). Additionally, the buyers requested that the seller pay 3% which includes the title insurance and property taxes. After the REPC form was drafted, the two addendums were created. Addendum No. 1 is from the seller back to the buyer, and Addendum No. 2 is the buyer’s counteroffer to the seller.
McLaughlin v. Heikkila is a case that involves Wilbert Heikklia and David Mc Laughlin who entered into an agreement involving eight parcels to be sold to Mr. Mc Laughlin by Mr. Heikklia. According to Cheeseman (2013), the facts of the case indicate that Mr. Mc Laughlin submitted offers to Mr. Heikklia for the purchase of three parcels and afterwards, McLaughlin submitted earnest-money checks and three printed purchase agreements to Heikklia. According to the Minnesota Court of Appeals, McLaughlin himself never signed any of the agreements. However, his wife did sign two of the agreements and she initiated the third agreement on September 14, 2003. Then, two days later on September 16, 2003 Heikklia made changes to two of the agreements by increasing the cost of the parcels, and he changed the closing dates on all three agreements, including add a reservation of mineral rights to all three (Minnesota Court of Appeals, 2005).
With that in mind, it is important to understand a couple of concepts before analyzing and determining the effectiveness of that document. Although people do not always realize it, the purchase of a home is one of the b...
Netzer, D. (1973). The incidence of the property tax revisited. National Tax Journal, 26(4), 515-535.
This paper is written to provide a reasonably comprehensive overview of Section 1031 of the IRC as it pertains to real estate transactions, and to offer some thoughts on the wealth-creation advantages that 1031 Exchanges offer.
5. Calaveras had long term agreement with other vineyards to meet its demand but their
It is worth noting that the model used by the EC to demonstrate foreclosures due to bundling was dismissed in the final decision. The Court of First Instance (CFI) dismissed the EC’s bundling analysis, concluding it did not measure up to a requisite standard. The GE/Honeywell merger has made apparent the inconsistency between the EC’s “ambitious long-term” and DoJ’s “practical short-term” methods. There has since been reforms, mainly by the EC, to create a more consistent analysis based on economic models and available empirical evidence.
Morgens died on August 25, 2002, but made transfers in 2000 and 2001 into a trust. Her estate tax return was timely filed (on extension) on November 24, 2003. Under the “gross-up rule,” a decedent's gross estate includes all gift taxes paid by the decedent within three years of her death. Conversely, the return filed by the Estate did not include, as part of the gross estate, the gift taxes shown as paid on Mrs. Morgens' 2000 and 2001 gift tax returns. The Commissioner determined a deficiency based on the failure to include the gift tax in the gross estate, and issued a notice of deficiency accordingly. The Estate petitioned the Tax Court for a redetermination.
16-9. Sutton is ethically responsible for his own predicaments. This is because he knew what he was getting himself into when he decided to change his type of mortgage plan. Sutton decided cannot later claim that he did not understand the terms and conditions of the agreement. Sutton had the full length duty of reading the agreement. This is because he is the one who stood to gain or lose from the contents of the agreement. Apex Mortgage Services would only be liable if they knowingly led Sutton to signing the agreement knowing that he would pay more than he was paying. What is known as fraudulent misrepresentation. The lender had responsibility to inspect the activities of the broker. This is because the broker is under the lender and the
Sharp’s business philosophy is to use its innovative technology “to contribute to the culture, benefits and welfare of people throughout the world” (Noda 25). Sharp is constantly trying to position itself as a leader in innovation as further supported by its business creed, which states to “constantly be aware of the need to innovate and improve” (Noda 25). However, this focus on innovation and creativity has not always been consistent with how the company has been operated. The history of the company is replete with periods of both innovation and imitation.