Tax Research Essay

In the United States, the top one percent received about 20 percent of the overall income for 2016. This creates an uneven distribution of income causing Americans to argue about whether or not the wealthy should pay more in federal income taxes. One side of the argument is that the wealthy make a huge portion of the nation’s income; therefore, they should have higher tax rates. The other side argues that wealthy Americans already pay their fair share of taxes by paying nearly 40 percent and should not be forced to pay more. These arguments both use compelling evidence to make their claims; however, a solution could be reached by increasing the tax rate of the top one percent by only 10 to 20 percent.

However, they fail to distinguish between the initial question of economic outlay and the secondary issue of debt or equity. Only if the first question had an affirmative answer would the second arise. The tax court correctly determined that the appellant’s guarantees in itself have not constituted contributions of cash or other property which might increase the bases of the appellant’s stock.

The federal and state governments provide the American citizens with all of the basic necessities within our communities and society that is taken for granted. Programs responsible for assistance in times of need, providing a quality standard of living, and maintaining the strongest military in the world costs incomprehensible amounts of money and could never exist without taxes from the American people. Taxes are payments made by individuals and businesses to support the government and its services. The constitution grants that congress “shall have the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises and to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the people”. Taxes paid by Americans redistribute

Kathy and Brett Ouray were married in 1996. In 2014, they consider themselves completely estranged. Due to financial reasons they have decided to not get a divorce or live separately. They also do not have any legal documentation of separation and neither of them has lived outside the home for a significant amount of time. They currently reside together with their three children. They have decided that Brett has contributed more to the upkeep of their home and children than Kathy. They have also decided to file separately. Brett believes he is eligible to file for head-of-household.

Prior cases such as Trust of Bingham v. Commissioner, Lykes v. Commissioner, Kornhauser v. United States, Deputy v. du Pont were given as examples. The principle the Court derived from these cases is that the characterization, as “business” or “personal” of the litigation costs of resisting a claim depend on whether or not the claim arises in connection with the taxpayer’s profit-seeking activities. It does not depend on the consequences that might result to a taxpayer’s income-producing property from a failure to defeat the claim. That leads to the question: did the wife’s claims respecting Gilmore’s stockholdings arise in connection with his profit-seeking activities?

Facts: Murray Taxpayer was previously employed by a company who was illegally dumping chemicals into a river. Murray had knowledge concerning these illegal activities of his employer and made an ethical decision to report this to the Environmental Protection Agency. Upon inspection, the Environmental Protection Agency determined that Murrays employer was in fact illegally dumping and was appropriately fined for the charges. Murray’s employer reacted to his whistleblowing by firing him and making deliberate efforts to prevent Murray from gaining employment elsewhere. Murray then sued his former employer for damaging

3. All the stock is Sec. 1244 Stock. Under Sec. 1244, if Common stock is sold at loss or becomes worthless, the at least part of the loss would become ordinary loss that could be used to offset ordinary income.

An outrage over taxes founded this country. And for its first 123 years, the US of A managed handsomely with zero income tax.

Rationale: The court found extreme negligence concerning fiduciary duty on the part of the corporate directors because they did

I do not agree with the SSA representative “revising the determination” of nine and one half years in the past. The determination was made correctly when I sat in their office and I was guaranteed that I had the quarters and earnings necessary to qualify for the benefits which I was paid during the past nine and one half years. That representative was checking his computer right in front of me as he gave me that reassurance. That decision was based upon my earnings reported and recorded by the IRS from my Partnership filings which was duly reported to the IRS according to the rules as they existed at the time. In 2010, the agency requested proof of my tax filing and timely filing, as well as, the paper which showed my partnership portion

The business judgment rule originated in 1945 in Otis & Co. v. Pennsylvania R. Co [2], the corporate directors were sued because they only dealing with one investment house and not “shop around ” for the best possible price available in the sale of securities. The federal district court held that the directors chose the wrong course of action in good faith, therefore “do not subject to liability for negligence in the discharge of their appointed

Note: I was going to say: “man up” but decided to omit this cliché because: 1) many people are confused as to what message the cliché is transmitting; 2) the sheer redundancy of a cliché often renders empty meanings; 3) Single words and cut-off phrases uttered with-out any regard to the audience, and then the rest of the unthinking population repeating willy nelly again and again these empty word/phrases; well, they soon become inappropriate, ill-informed, unwanted and useless jargon. Therefore: I’m going to start over and proceed with ameliorate words to convey this message:

As a new employee in the financial reporting unit the task is to evaluate the relevant disclosures of the company’s latest annual report in accordance to the Income Tax requirements as per AASB 112.

The United States is in a recession; it has been facing some of the worse economic times since the Great Depression in the 1930’s. One option to fix the economy is to change the corporate tax rate. To lower it or to raise it, that is the question economists have been speculating. America's high corporate tax rate and worldwide system of taxation discourages U.S. companies from sending their foreign-source revenue home, which makes U.S. companies defenseless to foreign acquisition from the international opponents (Camp). Corporations and United States citizens have been fighting for a tax reform, which would hopefully help the American economy; either by lowering the corporate tax, or by raising the tax.

of minority shareholder claims (personal and derivative) for oppression under Section 216 of the Companies Act.