Quote:
Originally Posted by preciousjeni
"The record is significantly barren of evidence revealing any intention on the part of the payor to make a gift. . . . The only justifiable inference is that the automobile was intended by the payor to be remuneration for services rendered to it by Duberstein."
And how did they come to that conclusion?
"In No. 376, Duberstein, an individual taxpayer, gave to a business corporation, upon request, the names of potential customers. The information proved valuable, and the corporation reciprocated by giving Duberstein a Cadillac automobile, charging the cost thereof as a business expense on its own corporate income tax return. The Tax Court concluded that the car was not a "gift" excludable from income under § 22(b)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939."
That was my point.
In the Emanuel case,
My issue with the bolded statement is that it wasn't a "gift" at all if it was an exchange for some sort of arrangement they had.
|
I still think you're interpreting the case incorrectly, but I'm just a law student, not a lawyer (and certainly not a tax lawyer), so take my interpretation for what you will.
Threaded Mode
