To Hold or Not to Hold: Magneson, Bolker, and Continuity of Investment under I.R.C. Section 1031

This article examines the judicial and administrative development of the two holding requirements under the continuity of investment standards of section 1031prior to decisions of the Tax Court and the Ninth Circuit in Magneson v. Commissioner and Bolker v. Commissioner, both of which expanded the boundaries of qualified holding and reemphasized the need for guidance from the Treasury or Congress on these issues. Next the article examines the subsequent impact of these decisions. Finally, the article suggests a standard to be followed in the future

Allocating Partnership Liabilities

This article discusses the congressional directive of the Tax Reform Act of 1984 in which Congress directed the Treasury to revise and update its regulations under section 752 and to base those revisions largely on the manner in which the partners ... share the economic risk of loss with respect to partnership debt. The authors argue that instead partners should be permitted to allocate partnership debt among themselves in whatever manner they choose. The article begins with an overview of the present rules. Then the article describes the rationale underlying the present rules. The next part addresses problems in application of the rules, which often, in addition to the questionable economic basis of the liability allocation rules, has presented significant difficulties for the courts and the Treasury by producing results at odds with economic substance. After outlining proposals for modification by ALI and New York Bar Association, the article concludes with the authors\u27 proposal for a Flexible Allocation Standard

Getting Physical: Excluding Personal Injury Awards under the New Section 104(a)(2)

Getting Physical: Excluding Personal Injury Awards under the New Section 104(a)(2

Tax Treatment of Employment-Related Personal Injury Awards: The Need for Limits

This article examines Section 104(a)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code and the litigation that has centered on the applicability of this Section to payments in settlement or other resolution of employment-related disputes arising out of an employment relationship and accompanied by charges of tortious conduct leveled at one or more of the parties. Part II reviews the origin of amounts received as damages on account of non-physical injuries. Part III analyzes the application of Section 104(a)(2) focusing on how courts have often blurred the distinction between what non-physical injuries are encompassed by the term “personal injury,” and whether a taxpayer has borne the burden of establishing that a settlement or an award was received on account of personal injuries. Part IV offers policy-based limitations for Section 104(a)(2)

Allocating Partnership Liabilities

This article discusses the congressional directive of the Tax Reform Act of 1984 in which Congress directed the Treasury to revise and update its regulations under section 752 and to base those revisions largely on the manner in which the partners ... share the economic risk of loss with respect to partnership debt. The authors argue that instead partners should be permitted to allocate partnership debt among themselves in whatever manner they choose. The article begins with an overview of the present rules. Then the article describes the rationale underlying the present rules. The next part addresses problems in application of the rules, which often, in addition to the questionable economic basis of the liability allocation rules, has presented significant difficulties for the courts and the Treasury by producing results at odds with economic substance. After outlining proposals for modification by ALI and New York Bar Association, the article concludes with the authors\u27 proposal for a Flexible Allocation Standard

Getting Physical: Excluding Injury Awards under the New Section 104(a)(2)

This article analyzes the 1996 amendments to section 104(a)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code. The authors argue that while section 104(a)(2) was in need of remedy, the remedy chosen is both insupportable from the standpoint of tax policy and problematic in terms of administrability. Part II of the article traces the recent history of the statute’s judicial construction. Part III discusses the provisions of the 1996 amendments. Part IV demonstrates the impact of the 1996 amendments on dignitary torts and highlights policy and interpretational problems associated with the amended provision. The article concludes with a proposal for a better remedy

Tax Treatment of Employment-Related Personal Injury Awards: The Need for Limits

Tax Treatment of Employment-Related Personal Injury Awards: The Need for Limit

Tax Treatment of Employment-Related Personal Injury Awards: The Need for Limits

Tax Treatment of Employment-Related Personal Injury Awards: The Need for Limit

To Hold or Not to Hold: Magneson, Bolker, and Continuity of Investment under I.R.C. Section 1031

This article examines the judicial and administrative development of the two holding requirements under the continuity of investment standards of section 1031 prior to decisions of the Tax Court and the Ninth Circuit in Magneson v. Commissioner and Bolker v. Commissioner, both of which expanded the boundaries of qualified holding and reemphasized the need for guidance from the Treasury or Congress on these issues. Next the article examines the subsequent impact of these decisions. Finally, the article suggests a standard to be followed in the future

Getting Physical: Excluding Injury Awards under the New Section 104(a)(2)

This article analyzes the 1996 amendments to section 104(a)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code. The authors argue that while section 104(a)(2) was in need of remedy, the remedy chosen is both insupportable from the standpoint of tax policy and problematic in terms of administrability. Part II of the article traces the recent history of the statute’s judicial construction. Part III discusses the provisions of the 1996 amendments. Part IV demonstrates the impact of the 1996 amendments on dignitary torts and highlights policy and interpretational problems associated with the amended provision. The article concludes with a proposal for a better remedy