Taxation can simply be defined as the action of imposing taxes or as the act of taxing. Most governments practice this act of money collection from citizens and businesses within their domain to help support their operations. The US being a federal republic with autonomous states and a number of local governments, taxation is becomes automatic in its governance. The taxes are mostly imposed on property, estates and gifts, sales, imports, income, payroll, and as well as on various fees. The Income subjected to taxation is determined under the tax rules, and it includes almost all income from whatsoever source.
A. Find IRC 3121(b)(10)(A). Copy and paste the relevant paragraph in your assignment.
IRC is an acronym for International Revenue code. Section 3121 of this code is all about employment taxation and the service performed in the employees of school, college, or university or organization described in section 509 (a)(3) if it is organized. It gives definitions on subjects such as wages, employment, included, and excluded services, employee, state, United States and citizen, American vessel and aircraft, agriculture labor, American employer, computation of wages in certain cases, covered transportation service etc. Subsection (b) deal exclusively with employment, where it defines it as being any service of any nature, performed by an employee, on the behalf of his or her employer, irrespective of their residence or citizenship within the US. Subparagraph H-4607 of the code explains who and why is exempted from taxation. Employee working for 40 hours or more or who are full-time employed for a school, universities, college, or university is not eligible for student tax exception.
B. Find the Tax Court Memorandum, Diane W. Wolf, TC Memo 1994-93.
Diane W. Wolf, Tax Court Memorandum 1994-93 is docket No. 5779-90. The memorandums opinion was that the case was a heard pursuant to provisions of sec. 7443A(b)(4) and the Rules 180,181 and 182. Section 1.183-2(b) of the Income Tax Regulations provides a nonexclusive list of relevant factors to be considered in the determination of whether the taxpayer has the requisite profit objective. The relevance of part 1 and 2 of the Diane W. Wolf, TC Memo 1994-93 to this case is that it discusses whether the petitioner’s yacht-chartering activities constituted to an activity not engaged in for profit within the meaning of sec. 183; (2). It also discusses whether the petitioner is entitled to an interest deduction under section 163(a) whether petitioner is entitled to claimed deductions for casualty losses under section 165(c); and whether petitioner is entitled to a bad debt deduction.
C. Find court case: Wolf, Diane W. v. Com., (1996, CA4) If you type the entire case name and cannot locate the case, simply type Wolf, and go through the list of all cases with the name Wolf to find the above case. Cases are listed chronologically with the most recent listed on top.
The court that handled the Wolf, Diane W. v. Commissioner, case (1996, CA4), was the United States Court of Appeal. The petitioner in the case was Diane W. Wolf, while the respondent was the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Services. Its Docket number was 90-5779. The discussion was about the challenging of the US Tax Court’s finding that the petitioner and the Internal Revenue Service did not fully agree on the terms of a proposed settlement agreement. It further discusses whether Diane W. Wolf engaged in yacht-chartering activity with the sole purpose of making a profit or not, and whether she was entitled to only a small portion of the award. The case was for the Government and not for the taxpayer.
D. Find court case: Maria Rosa Bland v. Commissioner. Review the case and answer the following questions:
The case Maria Rosa Bland v. Commissioner referred to the following code sections, section 7463, Section 7491(a), Section 151, 152(a), and Section 32(a). On March 18, 2004, the IRS issued a notice of deficiency denying Maria Rosa Bland the dependency she claimed on exemption deduction with respect to JM. It also denied her portion of her claim to earn income credit with JM as the qualifying child. This was for the taxable year 2002. The respondent’s determination on this issue was sustained on the basis that JM failed the relationship test. The court also found out that Maria Rosa Bland did not adopted JM, and was not even married to his father. The main reason cited by the court was that JM was not a qualified child. The court that proceeded over this case was the United States Tax court. The court’s opinion can be used as precedent in similar cases, because sufficient evidence on any similar case has to be presented to help in the proving of the benefit of the doubt.