| Home Online Publications Online Issues TTA Home Table of Contents News Notes | |
NewsNotes Lesli S. Laffie, J.D., LL.M. Federal Tax Liens • Stock Contribution • Lost Deductions • Expatriation Tax Proposals • E-Mail Contribution Acknowledgement • Tax Freedom Day (Chart)
Court Decisions The Supreme Court held in Sandra L. Craft, 4/17/02, that a husband's interest in a tenancy by the entirety was "property" or "rights to property" to which a Federal tax lien could attach, despite the fact that state (Michigan) law exempted such property from creditors. According to the Court, Sec. 6321's interpretation is a Federal question; exempt status under state law is not binding. When a husband failed to pay a tax assessment, the IRS issued a tax lien that attached to all his real and personal property and rights. After the notice of lien was filed, the husband and his wife jointly executed a quitclaim deed allegedly transferring his interest in the property to her for $1. A title search revealed the lien when the wife attempted to sell the property. The IRS released the lien, allowing the sale to proceed; half of the proceeds would be held in escrow pending a determination of the government's interest in the realty. The wife subsequently brought a quiet-title action seeking to recover the escrowed funds. The Court examined the individual rights created by Michigan law to determine whether the husband possessed property or rights to property. He had the right:
The Court concluded that the rights granted to the husband under Michigan law qualified as property or rights to property under Sec. 6321. The broad statutory language authorizing the tax lien demonstrated that Congress intended to reach every property interest a taxpayer might have. The husband's rights of use, exclusion and income alone may be sufficient to subject his entireties interest to the lien, because they furnished him substantial control over the property. The fact that he could not unilaterally alienate the property did not bar him from holding a property interest. The Court noted that if it reached a contrary conclusion, the entireties property would belong to no one for Sec. 6321 purposes, because the wife had no greater interest in the property than did her husband. It deemed such a result absurd, because it would allow spouses to shield their property from Federal taxation by classifying it as entireties property, facilitating abuse. However, the Court declined to rule on the proper valuation of the husband's interest in the entireties property, reversing and remanding the case to the Sixth Circuit.
In John C. Todd, 118 TC No. 19 (2002), married taxpayers could not deduct a charitable contribution of stock in excess of basis, because they failed to show that on the transfer date, the shares were "qualified appreciated stock" under Sec. 170(e)(5)(B). The record indicated that on the transfer date, market quotations for the shares were not readily available on an established securities market. The Tax Court determined that a national securities dealer's use of a limited list of individuals wishing to purchase shares in the corporation and use of the entity's book value in determining the stock's price did not satisfy the market-quotation requirement. The taxpayers also failed to demonstrate compliance with the three substantiation requirements in Regs. Sec. 1.170A-13(c)(1). There was no evidence that they had a qualified appraisal, no appraisal summary was attached to their Form 1040 and they failed to maintain required records. Accordingly, their claimed deductions were disallowed.
Miscellaceous According to a General Accounting Office report, "Federal Taxes: Further Estimates of Taxpayers Who May Have Overpaid Federal Taxes By Not Itemizing" (GAO-02-509), individuals overpaid their 1998 taxes by $1 billion, by taking standard deductions instead of itemizing. Approximately 2.2 million taxpayers overpaid their taxes in this manner. The problem occurred throughout income levels; the average overpayment was $438. Tax professionals prepared 50% of the returns.
|
