228 research outputs found

    Goodwill Hunting Gone Bad: Tax Law ’s Outmoded Treatment of Goodwill

    Get PDF
    Goodwill reflects the positive consumer association with a business. Goodwill thus overlaps with trademarks and other related assets. This close association impedes the separation of goodwill value from such related assets. Difficulties thus arise when the tax law treats goodwill more (or less) favorably than related intangible assets.For instance, the tax law previously denied any depreciation deductions for goodwill. Business buyers thus often allocated their costs away from goodwill and towards related assets like depreciable customer lists. The IRS responded with the initial “goodwill hunting” wave, challenging taxpayers’ low goodwill valuations. Congress addressed this litigious area in 1993 with new, matching depreciation rules for purchased goodwill and related intangible assets.But the goodwill hunting problem remains, albeit with reversed roles, due to other provisions which treat goodwill more favorably than other intangibles. Taxpayers now overstate goodwill with the government in defense against this second goodwill hunting wave. For instance, U.S. corporations inflate goodwill on transfers to foreign subsidiaries given a special gain avoidance rule on such transfers for goodwill. While recent regulations have lessened these particular attempts, the Treasury Department’s limited authority prevented a full response for these subsidiary transfers. In addition, similar inconsistent tax rules incentivize high goodwill claims by taxpayers to obtain either more favorable capital gains rates or better foreign tax credit usage.This Article proposes four precise fixes to counteract these negative goodwill manipulations. These changes efficiently draw upon existing tax provisions. Such utilization of tried and tested provisions counteracts the status quo bias against untested reform proposals. These four changes together forge a common theme: the pressing need for a more uniform tax treatment of goodwill and other closely-related intangibles. With these changes, Congress would restore the positive association of goodwill back to the tax law

    International Multifoods

    Get PDF

    WHY ARE FARMS SO SMALL?

    Get PDF
    Farm Management,

    Substance over Form? Phantom Regulations and the Internal Revenue Code

    Get PDF
    This paper addresses the appropriate response to tax statutes that call for the issuance of regulations, but that have been ignored by the Secretary. The courts and the IRS have taken the unusual step of treating these statutes as self-executing, notwithstanding the absence of regulations, and have invoked phantom regulations to enforce the statutes. Several commentators have analyzed the Tax Court\u27s and the IRS\u27s approaches, but have focused mostly on cases interpreting delegations found in the Internal Revenue Code. Because those cases themselves are inconsistent, it is not possible to extract a clear rule from analysis of those cases alone. Surprisingly, a close examination of non-tax sources reveals a clear (if imperfect) solution to the problems posed by spurned delegations. This paper examines these overlooked authorities, and concludes that phantom regulations should never be employed by courts, the IRS, or taxpayers. Rather, if the IRS wishes to give effect to a delegation, it must promulgate rules pursuant to the statutorily mandated method (i.e. notice-and-comment rulemaking). Though the IRS has issued informal notices purporting to give effect to statutory delegations, these notices lack the force and effect of law, the government\u27s arguments notwithstanding. If the taxpayer is aggrieved by the Secretary\u27s failure to promulgate regulations, his only recourse is found in section 706(1) of the Administrative Procedure Act, which allows the taxpayer to compel the Secretary to issue regulations

    Reiter v. Cooper and Unreasonable Rates: Are Reports of the Field Rate Doctrine’s Death Greatly Exaggerated?

    Get PDF
    Denna studies huvudsyfte Àr att ta reda pÄ hur pedagoger planerar och arbetar med att hos sina elever utveckla de fem stora förmÄgorna inom matematik. Dessa fem förmÄgor Àr: BegreppsförmÄga, kommunikationsförmÄga, procedurförmÄga, analysförmÄga samt metakognitiv förmÄga. För att finna svar pÄ den frÄgestÀllning som studien har, gÀllande hur planeringen och arbetet med förmÄgorna ser ut, anvÀndes en kvalitativ forskningsmetod. Genom kvalitativa forskningsintervjuer med sex pedagoger samlades data in. De data som intervjuerna genererade analyserades sedan med hjÀlp av tidigare forskning och litteratur inom omrÄdet. I den tidigare forskningen och litteraturen presenteras hur en planering och arbetet med de fem stora förmÄgorna kan och bör se ut. I studien presenteras Àven en bakgrund till begreppet The Big Five samt hur dessa kan och bör planeras och arbetas med i relation till matematiken. Avslutningsvis presenteras de resultat som framkommit. I dessa framgÄr att de pedagoger jag intervjuat pÄ de flesta sÀtten, följde de rÄd, tips och kriterier som tidigare forskning och övrig litteratur ansÄg att planering och undervisning i de matematiska förmÄgorna bör bygga pÄ. Dock fann jag tvÄ punkter dÀr förbÀttringar kan och bör ske. Dessa gÀller hur material vid genomgÄngar och under arbetet med förmÄgorna pÄ ett bÀttre sÀtt bör anpassas för eleverna, sÄ att de oavsett var de ligger kunskapsmÀssigt kan fÄ ta del av och förstÄ vad och hur förmÄgorna ska trÀnas. Pedagogerna bör Àven bli bÀttre pÄ att samarbeta med övriga skolÀmnen och pÄ sÄ sÀtt förbÀttra förutsÀttningarna för- och utvecklandet i förstÄelsen i förmÄgorna samt ytterligare inse nyttan av att kunna och anvÀnda sig av matematik

    New Jersey Dept. Environmental v. American Thermoplastics Corp

    Get PDF
    USDC for the District of New Jerse

    Franchise Contracts and Territoriality: A French Comparison

    Get PDF
    • 

    corecore