.jpg)
Am I reading 11 USC 101(10A) Correctly?
aren't gifts taxable to the one who gives the gift?
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 11:04 AM, Dennis wrote:
>
>
> Don't have the internal rev code here in Judge Tighe's courtroom, but I
> learned in tax class, 35 years ago, that gifts are income. I think the name
> of the class was, Estate and Gift Tax.
>
> A includeds all income, even if not taxable. Gift are taxable income, so I
> don't think that is really one the table.
>
> Dennis
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jul 19, 2010, at 10:30 AM, Giovanni Orantes wrote:
>
>
>
> I love this listserv! Thank you Dennis and everyone else who made the
> listserv possible. This issue is ripe for an article or note and some of
> the material to write it is in this trail. I pulled up all of the published
> cases related to Section 101 on lexis and none of the published opinions
> touch on this particular issue although a lot of them have discussed (10A)
> and contain snippets to put together the argument in this situation. If I
> could only free up some time.
>
> On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 9:20 AM, wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> In a message dated 7/19/2010 9:07:05 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
>> go@gobklaw.com writes:
>>
>>
>>
>> * *
>> *
>> Let's cite some authority:
>>
>> Remember that In the absence of a definition, courts construe a statutory
>> term in accordance with its ordinary or natural meaning. FDIC v. Meyer,510 U.S. 471 (1994).
>>
>> Let's start with the definition of "income":
>>
>> From Wiktionary:
>> Noun
>>
>> Singular
>> income
>>
>> Plural
>> incomes
>>
>> income (plural incomes )
>>
>> 1. (or uncountable) Money one
>> earns by workingor
>> capitalising off other
>> people's work.
>>
>>
>> From the Oxford English Dictionary:
>> noun
>>
>> - money received, especially on a regular basis, for work or through
>> investments:he has a nice home and an adequate income figures showed
>> an overall increase in income this year
>>
>> That means that the word income would not include unearned amounts, except
>> that (B) goes on to include some of such types of amounts. However, Inclusio
>> unius est exclusio alterius. (The inclusion of one is the exclusion of
>> another.) 11 Co. 58.
>> *
>>
>> By including subsection (B) at all, Congress shows that (A) is not as
>> all-inclusive as you make it out to be. If we read (A) as broadly as you
>> suggest, (B) would be surplusage.
>>
>> By the way, the following canons of statutory interpretation also apply
>> here:
>>
>> - A court must, if possible, give effect to every clause and word of a
>> statute. Negonsott v. Samuels, 507 U.S. 99 (1993).
>> - A statute should be interpreted so as not to render one part
>> inoperative. Mountain States Tel. & Tel. v. Pueblo of Santa Ana, 472 U.S.
>> 237 (1985).
>> - Every part of a statute must be viewed in connection with the whole
>> so as to harmonize all parts, if practicable, and give sensible and
>> intelligent effect to each, for it is not to be presumed that the
>> legislature intended any part of a statute to be without a meaning. General
>> Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Whisnant, 387 F.2d 774 (5th Cir. 1968).
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 7:04 AM, Kenneth Schwartz > yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> What is your authority for calling a gift income under (A)? There's no
>>> definition of income there
>>>
>>>
>>> Kenneth Jay Schwartz, Esq.
>>> LAW OFFICE OF KENNETH JAY SCHWARTZ
>>> 21031 Ventura Boulevard, 12th Floor
>>> Woodland Hills, California
>>> 91364-2203
>>> Telephone: (818)226-1205
>>> Email: kennethjschwartz@
>>> yahoo.com
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>> On Jul 19, 2010, at 5:31 AM, Dennis wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> A + B - SSI - ( war crimes + terrorism pymnts) CMI. A includes income.
>>> Gifts are income, therefore gifts are included in A,
>>>
>>> B includes, amounts paid by others, on a regular basis, then excludes SSI
>>> and other things.
>>>
>>> Since gifts are in A, and B includes more than just normal income, you
>>> cannot exclude gifts in B. B only excludes SSI, and compensation for war
>>> crimes and terrorism.
>>>
>>> Dennis
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Gifts are income in the IRC. A includes all income, even if not tabable. Don't believe this is really on the table.
Dennis
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 19, 2010, at 10:30 AM, Giovanni Orantes wrote:
I love this listserv! Thank you Dennis and everyone else who made the listserv possible. This issue is ripe for an article or note and some of the material to write it is in this trail. I pulled up all of the published cases related to Section 101 on lexis and none of the published opinions touch on this particular issue although a lot of them have discussed (10A) and contain snippets to put together the argument in this situation. If I could only free up some time.
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 9:20 AM, wrote:
In a message dated 7/19/2010 9:07:05 AM Pacific Daylight Time, go@gobklaw.com writes:
Let's cite some authority:
Remember that In the absence of a definition, courts construe a statutory term in accordance with its ordinary or natural meaning. FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471 (1994).
Let's start with the definition of "income":
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Don't have the internal rev code here in Judge Tighe's courtroom, but I learned in tax class, 35 years ago, that gifts are income. I think the name of the class was, Estate and Gift Tax.
A includeds all income, even if not taxable. Gift are taxable income, so I don't think that is really one the table.
Dennis
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 19, 2010, at 10:30 AM, Giovanni Orantes wrote:
I love this listserv! Thank you Dennis and everyone else who made the listserv possible. This issue is ripe for an article or note and some of the material to write it is in this trail. I pulled up all of the published cases related to Section 101 on lexis and none of the published opinions touch on this particular issue although a lot of them have discussed (10A) and contain snippets to put together the argument in this situation. If I could only free up some time.
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 9:20 AM, wrote:
In a message dated 7/19/2010 9:07:05 AM Pacific Daylight Time, go@gobklaw.com writes:
Let's cite some authority:
Remember that In the absence of a definition, courts construe a statutory term in accordance with its ordinary or natural meaning. FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471 (1994).
Let's start with the definition of "income":
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Yes, unless within the annual exclusion, which is $13,000 this year I
believe, or listed on the donor's tax return in an amount above that
annual exclusion applying any unused portion of the $1,000,000 gift
credit each person has to use in their lifetime.
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
I love this listserv! Thank you Dennis and everyone else who made the
listserv possible. This issue is ripe for an article or note and some of
the material to write it is in this trail. I pulled up all of the published
cases related to Section 101 on lexis and none of the published opinions
touch on this particular issue although a lot of them have discussed (10A)
and contain snippets to put together the argument in this situation. If I
could only free up some time.
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 9:20 AM, wrote:
>
>
> In a message dated 7/19/2010 9:07:05 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
> go@gobklaw.com writes:
>
>
>
> * *
> *
> Let's cite some authority:
>
> Remember that In the absence of a definition, courts construe a statutory
> term in accordance with its ordinary or natural meaning. FDIC v. Meyer,510 U.S. 471 (1994).
>
> Let's start with the definition of "income":
>
> From Wiktionary:
> Noun
>
> Singular
> income
>
> Plural
> incomes
>
> income (plural incomes )
>
> 1. (or uncountable) Money one
> earns by workingor
> capitalising off other
> people's work.
>
>
> From the Oxford English Dictionary:
> noun
>
> - money received, especially on a regular basis, for work or through
> investments:he has a nice home and an adequate income figures showed an
> overall increase in income this year
>
> That means that the word income would not include unearned amounts, except
> that (B) goes on to include some of such types of amounts. However, Inclusio
> unius est exclusio alterius. (The inclusion of one is the exclusion of
> another.) 11 Co. 58.
> *
>
> By including subsection (B) at all, Congress shows that (A) is not as
> all-inclusive as you make it out to be. If we read (A) as broadly as you
> suggest, (B) would be surplusage.
>
> By the way, the following canons of statutory interpretation also apply
> here:
>
> - A court must, if possible, give effect to every clause and word of a
> statute. Negonsott v. Samuels, 507 U.S. 99 (1993).
> - A statute should be interpreted so as not to render one part
> inoperative. Mountain States Tel. & Tel. v. Pueblo of Santa Ana, 472 U.S.
> 237 (1985).
> - Every part of a statute must be viewed in connection with the whole
> so as to harmonize all parts, if practicable, and give sensible and
> intelligent effect to each, for it is not to be presumed that the
> legislature intended any part of a statute to be without a meaning. General
> Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Whisnant, 387 F.2d 774 (5th Cir. 1968).
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 7:04 AM, Kenneth Schwartz kennethjschwartz@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> What is your authority for calling a gift income under (A)? There's no
>> definition of income there
>>
>>
>> Kenneth Jay Schwartz, Esq.
>> LAW OFFICE OF KENNETH JAY SCHWARTZ
>> 21031 Ventura Boulevard, 12th Floor
>> Woodland Hills, California
>> 91364-2203
>> Telephone: (818)226-1205
>> Email: kennethjschwartz@yahoo.com
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Jul 19, 2010, at 5:31 AM, Dennis wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> A + B - SSI - ( war crimes + terrorism pymnts) CMI. A includes income.
>> Gifts are income, therefore gifts are included in A,
>>
>> B includes, amounts paid by others, on a regular basis, then excludes SSI
>> and other things.
>>
>> Since gifts are in A, and B includes more than just normal income, you
>> cannot exclude gifts in B. B only excludes SSI, and compensation for war
>> crimes and terrorism.
>>
>> Dennis
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
In a message dated 7/19/2010 9:07:05 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
go@gobklaw.com writes:
Let's cite some authority:
Remember that In the absence of a definition, courts construe a statutoryterm in accordance with its ordinary or natural meaning. FDIC v. Meyer, 510
U.S. 471 (1994).
Let's start with the definition of "income":
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
I certainly agree. (A) does not include gifts because Congress chose to use
the word "income" in it. Courts are to presume that a legislature says in a
statute what it means and means in a statute what it says. *Connecticut
Natl Bank v. Germain*, 503 U.S. 249 (1992). That (A) does not include
gifts is further hammered home by the very existence of (B). *
Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius. 11 Co. 58.
*
*
*
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 9:14 AM, Kenneth Schwartz wrote:
>
>
> So we agree(?). The language in (B) would be meaningless if a one-time gift
> were included in income because of an over-expansive Interpretation of
> subsection (A)?
>
>
> Kenneth Jay Schwartz, Esq.
> LAW OFFICE OF KENNETH JAY SCHWARTZ
> 21031 Ventura Boulevard, 12th Floor
> Woodland Hills, California
> 91364-2203
> Telephone: (818)226-1205
> Email: kennethjschwartz@yahoo.com
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jul 19, 2010, at 9:06 AM, Giovanni Orantes wrote:
>
>
>
> **
> *
> Let's cite some authority:
>
> Remember that In the absence of a definition, courts construe a statutory
> term in accordance with its ordinary or natural meaning. FDIC v. Meyer,510 U.S. 471 (1994).
>
> Let's start with the definition of "income":
>
> From Wiktionary:
> Noun
>
> Singular
> income
>
> Plural
> incomes
>
> income (plural incomes )
>
> 1. (or uncountable) Money one
> earns by workingor
> capitalising off other
> people's work.
>
>
> From the Oxford English Dictionary:
> noun
>
> - money received, especially on a regular basis, for work or through
> investments:he has a nice home and an adequate income figures showed an
> overall increase in income this year
>
> That means that the word income would not include unearned amounts, except
> that (B) goes on to include some of such types of amounts. However, Inclusio
> unius est exclusio alterius. (The inclusion of one is the exclusion of
> another.) 11 Co. 58.
> *
>
> By including subsection (B) at all, Congress shows that (A) is not as
> all-inclusive as you make it out to be. If we read (A) as broadly as you
> suggest, (B) would be surplusage.
>
> By the way, the following canons of statutory interpretation also apply
> here:
>
> - A court must, if possible, give effect to every clause and word of a
> statute. Negonsott v. Samuels, 507 U.S. 99 (1993).
> - A statute should be interpreted so as not to render one part
> inoperative. Mountain States Tel. & Tel. v. Pueblo of Santa Ana, 472 U.S.
> 237 (1985).
> - Every part of a statute must be viewed in connection with the whole
> so as to harmonize all parts, if practicable, and give sensible and
> intelligent effect to each, for it is not to be presumed that the
> legislature intended any part of a statute to be without a meaning. General
> Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Whisnant, 387 F.2d 774 (5th Cir. 1968).
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 7:04 AM, Kenneth Schwartz yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> What is your authority for calling a gift income under (A)? There's no
>> definition of income there
>>
>>
>> Kenneth Jay Schwartz, Esq.
>> LAW OFFICE OF KENNETH JAY SCHWARTZ
>> 21031 Ventura Boulevard, 12th Floor
>> Woodland Hills, California
>> 91364-2203
>> Telephone: (818)226-1205
>> Email: kennethjschwartz@
>> yahoo.com
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Jul 19, 2010, at 5:31 AM, Dennis wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> A + B - SSI - ( war crimes + terrorism pymnts) CMI. A includes income.
>> Gifts are income, therefore gifts are included in A,
>>
>> B includes, amounts paid by others, on a regular basis, then excludes SSI
>> and other things.
>>
>> Since gifts are in A, and B includes more than just normal income, you
>> cannot exclude gifts in B. B only excludes SSI, and compensation for war
>> crimes and terrorism.
>>
>> Dennis
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Dennis:
I have always read it the same way you are reading it: other entity on a regular basis. It is not a very happy reading, but that is what it says.
I still think we are making too much of this. The OUST says just explain that it is not representative of the going forward annual income and they will go on to the next case. Eg. Annual bonus, one time IRA withdrawals (which are almost always done to avoid bk), inheritance, etc. With Lanning out there, we have case law on our side.
If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me.
Pat
Patrick T. Green, Esq.
Fitzgerald & Green
Attorneys at Law
1010 E. Union Street
Suite 206
Pasadena, CA 91106
Tel: 626-449-8433
Fax: 626-449-0565
pat@fitzgreenlaw.com
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
So we agree(?). The language in (B) would be meaningless if a one-time gift were included in income because of an over-expansive Interpretation of subsection (A)?
Kenneth Jay Schwartz, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF KENNETH JAY SCHWARTZ
21031 Ventura Boulevard, 12th Floor
Woodland Hills, California
91364-2203
Telephone: (818)226-1205
Email: kennethjschwartz@yahoo.com
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 19, 2010, at 9:06 AM, Giovanni Orantes wrote:
> Let's cite some authority:
>
> Remember that In the absence of a definition, courts construe a statutory term in accordance with its ordinary or natural meaning. FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471 (1994).
>
> Let's start with the definition of "income":
>
> From Wiktionary:
> Noun
>
> Singular
> income
>
> Plural
> incomes
>
> income (plural incomes)
>
> (or uncountable) Money one earns by working or capitalising off other people's work.
>
> From the Oxford English Dictionary:
> noun
>
> money received, especially on a regular basis, for work or through investments:he has a nice home and an adequate income figures showed an overall increase in income this year
> That means that the word income would not include unearned amounts, except that (B) goes on to include some of such types of amounts. However, Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius. (The inclusion of one is the exclusion of another.) 11 Co. 58.
>
> By including subsection (B) at all, Congress shows that (A) is not as all-inclusive as you make it out to be. If we read (A) as broadly as you suggest, (B) would be surplusage.
>
> By the way, the following canons of statutory interpretation also apply here:
> A court must, if possible, give effect to every clause and word of a statute. Negonsott v. Samuels, 507 U.S. 99 (1993).
> A statute should be interpreted so as not to render one part inoperative. Mountain States Tel. & Tel. v. Pueblo of Santa Ana, 472 U.S. 237 (1985). > Every part of a statute must be viewed in connection with the whole so as to harmonize all parts, if practicable, and give sensible and intelligent effect to each, for it is not to be presumed that the legislature intended any part of a statute to be without a meaning. General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Whisnant, 387 F.2d 774 (5th Cir. 1968).
>
> On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 7:04 AM, Kenneth Schwartz wrote:
>
> What is your authority for calling a gift income under (A)? There's no definition of income there
>
>
> Kenneth Jay Schwartz, Esq.
> LAW OFFICE OF KENNETH JAY SCHWARTZ
> 21031 Ventura Boulevard, 12th Floor
> Woodland Hills, California
> 91364-2203
> Telephone: (818)226-1205
> Email: kennethjschwartz@yahoo.com
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jul 19, 2010, at 5:31 AM, Dennis wrote:
>
>>
>> A + B - SSI - ( war crimes + terrorism pymnts) CMI. A includes income. Gifts are income, therefore gifts are included in A,
>>
>> B includes, amounts paid by others, on a regular basis, then excludes SSI and other things.
>>
>> Since gifts are in A, and B includes more than just normal income, you cannot exclude gifts in B. B only excludes SSI, and compensation for war crimes and terrorism.
>>
>> Dennis
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Giovanni Orantes, Esq.
> Orantes Law Firm, P.C.
> 3435 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 1980
> Los Angeles, CA 90010
> Tel: (213) 389-4362
> Phone: (888) 619-8222 x101
> Fax: (877) 789-5776
> e-mail: go@gobklaw.com
> website: www.gobklaw.com
>
> WE ARE A "DEBT RELIEF AGENCY" AS DEFINED BY FEDERAL LAW.
>
> SERVING BAKERSFIELD, LOS ANGELES, ORANGE COUNTY, RIVERSIDE, SAN BERNARDINO AND SANTA BARBARA.
>
> Note: The information contained in this e-mail message is confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify us by telephone or e-mail and delete the original e-mail >
> IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: In order to comply with requirements imposed by the Internal Revenue Service, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing, or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
>
>
So we agree(?). The language in (B) would be meaningless if a one-time gift were included in income because of an over-expansive Interpretation of subsection (A)?Kenneth Jay Schwartz, Esq.LAW OFFICE OF KENNETH JAY SCHWARTZ21031 Ventura Boulevard, 12th FloorWoodland Hills, California 91364-2203Telephone: (818)226-1205Email: kennethjschwartz@yahoo.com
The post was migrated from Yahoo.