Quote:
Originally Posted by preciousjeni
You've misled us, friend.
(Ok, granted Wikipedia is not a professional reporting agency...)
So, the issue was NOT THE GIFT. It was the fact that the gifting company reported the gift as a business expense while the recipient did not. If the gifting company hadn't reported it, it would be considered a gift and would, therefore, not be taxable income.
|
Wikipedia is wrong. Here's a link to the opinion:
http://supreme.justia.com/us/363/278/case.html .
Essentially, Kevin's correct, in that the case dealt with the definition of what is a "gift" under the tax laws. The Commissioner wanted the Court to give a specific definition of what would count as a "gift," and the Court declined to do so, instead directing that lower courts should look at a variety of factors (including facts that may show the donor's intent, etc.). Applying
Duberstein to this situation, one would look at Delauro's intention, i.e. whether it was done out of some generosity.
Granted, the case wasn't only about whether or not item was a gift...but the case stands as perhaps the most important decision in examining whether something qualifies as a gift or taxable income.
But...as I'm not a tax professional by any stretch of the imagination, if you want to have an in-depth discussion of the implications of the
Duberstein decision, I can put you in contact with my tax professor.
ETA: I suppose this is why they tell us at law school not to rely on Wikipedia case briefs.
Threaded Mode
