.jpg)
Am I reading 11 USC 101(10A) Correctly?
charset="ISO-8859-1"
Just to muddy things further, note that the IRC never defines income. All
definitions refer to gross income, which presumably isnt congruent with
e with
the adjective gross.
So to the IRS a gift is income, but not gross income. The IRS doesnt
care how other governmental bodies define income. If youre looking to the
IRC definition, Id have to agree with Dennis 101(10A)(a) includes gifts.
- John D. Faucher
On 7/19/10 12:43 PM, "Giovanni Orantes" wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> For convenience, here's the text of IRC 102 (which is useful to analyze other
> situations, too):
>
> (a) General rule
> Gross income does not include the value of property acquired by gift, bequest,
> devise, or inheritance.
> (b) Income
> Subsection (a) shall not exclude from gross income
> (1) the income from any property referred to in subsection (a); or
> (2) where the gift, bequest, devise, or inheritance is of income from
> property, the amount of such income.
> Where, under the terms of the gift, bequest, devise, or inheritance, the
> payment, crediting, or distribution thereof is to be made at intervals, then,
> to the extent that it is paid or credited or to be distributed out of income
> from property, it shall be treated for purposes of paragraph (2) as a gift,
> bequest, devise, or inheritance of income from property. Any amount included
> in the gross income of a beneficiary under subchapter J shall be treated for
> purposes of paragraph (2) as a gift, bequest, devise, or inheritance of income
> from property.
> (c) Employee gifts
> (1) In general
> Subsection (a) shall not exclude from gross income any amount transferred by
> or for an employer to, or for the benefit of, an employee.
> (2) Cross references
> For provisions excluding certain employee achievement awards from gross
> income, see section 74
> tml> (c)
> tml#c> .
> For provisions excluding certain de minimis fringes from gross income, see
> section 132
> tml> (e)
> tml#e> .
>
> On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 11:47 AM, Dennis wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Only if the person receiving the gift does not pay the tax.
>>
>> Dennis
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Jul 19, 2010, at 11:08 AM, Giovanni Orantes wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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 >>> go@gobklaw.com> 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 thatIn 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 (pluralincomes )
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1. (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 >>>>>> 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.
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.
charset="UTF-8"
Oops. I had not read far enough in the posts to see that Steve had said most of this. And to make it worse, it is one things I gripe about others doing!
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.
Regardless of whether income is taxable, I think the IRC is only useful in
this situation because it contains the most well-developed definition of the
term, which helps to interpret (10A) because the Bankruptcy Code does not
have its own definition of "income" while the IRC does define "gross income"
as those provided in dictionaries, is also relevant for statutory
construction as well-settled law makes clear. Using either definition would
exclude a one time gift, though IRC 102 would not exclude certain gifts if,
e.g., the gift is coming from the person's employer, etc.
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 12:38 PM, Patrick Green wrote:
>
>
> Gifts are taxable, but they are not income. They are subject to a gift
> tax, not an income tax. They are excludable on two bases: (1) annual
> exclusion which I think is now $14k (H&W can give a split gift,i.e . give
> $28 k to one individual in one year) and (2) a lifetime exemption of $1m
> for the donor. The tax exemption is based on what the donor does. An
> individual could theoretically receive millions in one year as long it fit
> the exemptions for the donors.
>
>
>
> NOTE: There was a case in the last yr or two that says the regardless of
> whether it is taxable language cuts both ways: The OUST way which is that
> it is still income even if not taxable and the other way- just because it is
> taxable doesnt make it income for B22!
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com [mailto:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com] *On Behalf
> Of *Dennis
> *Sent:* Monday, July 19, 2010 11:07 AM
> *To:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
>
> *Subject:* Re: [cdcbaa] Am I reading 11 USC 101(10A) Correctly?
>
>
>
>
>
> 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":**
>
> * *
>
> *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
>
> *Error! Filename not specified.*
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
This statute point out the obvious that you can have income from
inherited or gifted assets in (b)(2). Anyone who has ever filled out,
or been involved with a 1041 fiduciary tax return is well aware of this.
However, it does not make an inheritance or gift itself income. The
interest or dividends, for example, from the gifted asset is income.
Always something to look out for on Question 2 of the SoFA.
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
For convenience, here's the text of IRC 102 (which is useful to analyze
other situations, too):
(a) *General rule *
Gross income does not include the value of property acquired by gift,
bequest, devise, or inheritance.
(b) *Income *
Subsection (a) shall not exclude from gross income
(1) the income from any property referred to in subsection (a); or
(2) where the gift, bequest, devise, or inheritance is of income from
property, the amount of such income.
Where, under the terms of the gift, bequest, devise, or inheritance, the
payment, crediting, or distribution thereof is to be made at intervals,
then, to the extent that it is paid or credited or to be distributed out of
income from property, it shall be treated for purposes of paragraph (2) as a
gift, bequest, devise, or inheritance of income from property. Any amount
included in the gross income of a beneficiary under subchapter J shall be
treated for purposes of paragraph (2) as a gift, bequest, devise, or
inheritance of income from property.
(c) *Employee gifts *
(1) *In general *
Subsection (a) shall not exclude from gross income any amount transferred by
or for an employer to, or for the benefit of, an employee.
(2) *Cross references *
For provisions excluding certain employee achievement awards from gross
income, see section
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
charset="UTF-8"
Gifts are taxable, but they are not income. They are subject to a gift tax, not an income tax. They are excludable on two bases: (1) annual exclusion which I think is now $14k (H&W can give a split gift,i.e . give $28 k to one individual in one year) and (2) a lifetime exemption of $1m for the donor. The tax exemption is based on what the donor does. An individual could theoretically receive millions in one year as long it fit the exemptions for the donors.
NOTE: There was a case in the last yr or two that says the regardless of whether it is taxable language cuts both ways: The OUST way which is that it is still income even if not taxable and the other way- just because it is taxable doesnt make it income for B22!
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.
Gifts are explicitly excluded from the definition of income under the IRC [See
Section 102]
Kenneth Jay Schwartz, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF KENNETH JAY SCHWARTZ
21031 Ventura Boulevard, 12th Floor
Woodland Hills, California 91364-2203
Telephone: (818) 226-1205
Facsimile: (818) 226-1213
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS E-MAIL IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE PERSONAL AND
CONFIDENTIAL USE OF THE DESIGNATED RECIPIENT(S) NAMED ABOVE. THIS MESSAGE MAY
BE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION, AND, AS SUCH, IS PRIVILEGED AND
CONFIDENTIAL. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT OR AN
AGENT RESPONSIBLE FOR DELIVERING IT TO THE DESIGNATED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY
NOTIFIED THAT YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS E-MAIL IN ERROR, AND THAT ANY REVIEW,DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING OF THIS MESSAGE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.
IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY.
THANK YOU.
________________________________
To: "cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com"
Sent: Mon, July 19, 2010 11:04:44 AM
Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] Am I reading 11 USC 101(10A) Correctly?
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 theclass was, Estate and Gift Tax.
A includeds all income, even if not taxable. Gift are taxable income, so Idon'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 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
>>>at (213) 389-4362 or (888) 619-8222.
>>>
>>>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.
>>>
>>>To a certain extent, this all becomes a matter of labeling the $$$ and>>>the result sought. For example, a family member or friend that provides
>>>"loans" to the prospective debtor, but who may have not expected to be repaid,
>>>the debtor's receipt of those funds are not "income", particularly when the
>>>family member is listed in Sch F. However, if treated as a gift from the
>>>outset, then it might be income, unless of course, it is not a regular payment,
>>>and made by the family member directly to the creditor.
>>>
>>
>>Law Office of Eric Alan Mitnick
>>21515 Hawthorne Boulevard, Suite 1080
>>Torrance, CA 90503
>>(310) 792-5864; 792-5866 (fax)
>>MitnickLaw@aol. com
>>
>>
>
>
>--
>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 at (213)
>389-4362 or (888) 619-8222.
>
>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.
>
>
Gifts are explicitly excluded from the definition of income under the IRC [See Section 102] Kenneth Jay Schwartz, Esq.LAW OFFICE OF KENNETH JAY SCHWARTZ21031 Ventura Boulevard, 12th FloorWoodland Hills, California 91364-2203Telephone: (818) 226-1205Facsimile: (818) 226-1213THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS E-MAIL IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL USE OF THE DESIGNATED RECIPIENT(S) NAMED ABOVE. THIS MESSAGE MAY BE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION, AND, AS SUCH, IS PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT OR AN AGENT RESPONSIBLE FOR DELIVERING IT TO THE DESIGNATED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS E-MAIL IN ERROR, AND THAT ANY
REVIEW, DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING OF THIS MESSAGE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY. THANK YOU.From: Dennis <easky1@yahoo.com>To: "cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com" <cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com>Sent: Mon, July 19, 2010 11:04:44 AMSubject: Re: [cdcbaa] Am I reading 11 USC 101(10A) Correctly?
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.DennisSent from my iPhoneOn Jul 19, 2010, at 10:30 AM, Giovanni Orantes <go@gobklaw.com> 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, <mitnicklaw@aol. com> 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
Singularincome
Plural
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Only if the person receiving the gift does not pay the tax.
Dennis
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 19, 2010, at 11:08 AM, Giovanni Orantes wrote:
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":
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Gifts are generally not considered income for the recipient. When a taxpayer
receives a gift, the taxpayer has an undeniable accession to wealth,
he Code
specifically excludes gifts from gross income. IRC 102. See also
*Commissioner
v. Duberstein*, 363 U.S. 278 (1960), and *Helvering v. Horst*, 311 U.S. 112
(1940).
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 11:20 AM, Dennis wrote:
>
>
> B adds payments to a third party on behalf of the debtor. For a college
> student, or other dependant, these payments by parents are not generally
> income, but those payments would come in under B.
>
> Dennis
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jul 19, 2010, at 9:19 AM, Giovanni Orantes wrote:
>
>
>
> 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 yahoo.com> 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: kennethjschwar
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
B adds payments to a third party on behalf of the debtor. For a college student, or other dependant, these payments by parents are not generally income, but those payments would come in under B.
Dennis
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 19, 2010, at 9:19 AM, Giovanni Orantes wrote:
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: kennethjschwar
RECENT ACTIVITY:
B adds payments to a third party on behalf of the debtor. For a college student, or other dependant, these payments by parents are not generally income, but those payments would come in under B. DennisSent from my iPhoneOn Jul 19, 2010, at 9:19 AM, Giovanni Orantes <
The post was migrated from Yahoo.