A+ A A-

Exact Tax Benefit Rule- PERRY VS. US

In Perry v. United States, 160 F. Supp. 270 (Ct. Cl. 1958), the Court of Claims adopted an "exact tax benefit" rule, under which the recovery was taxed at the rate that was applicable to the deduction; it later overruled this decision and accepted the prevailing judicial view that the recovery is to be taxed at whatever rate is in effect for the year of receipt. Alice Phelan Sullivan Corp. v. United States, 381 F.2d 399 Ct. Cl. 1967).


From 1954 to 1976, I.R.C. § 1342 reached a similar result for certain recoveries of amounts paid as a result of a judicial decision in a patent infringement suit. Section 1346 (in force from 1941 to 1976) was also comparable to the "exact tax benefit"principle of the Perry case; it permitted taxpayers receiving a repayment of unconstitutional federal taxes to choose between (a) excluding the receipt currently andamending the earlier year's return to eliminate the deduction (despite the running of the statute of limitations) and (b) reporting the recovery and paying the resulting tax. Sections 1342 and 1346 were repealed by Title XIX (the "deadwood" provisions) of the Tax Reform Act of 1976, Pub. L. No. 94-455, § 1901(a)(147)-(148), 90 Stat. 1788 (1976).


A model income tax statute drafted by an American Law Institute group proposed to require the inclusion of all recoveries of deductible items, whether the deduction was taken or not, and, if a deduction was taken, whether or not it resulted in a reduction of the taxpayer's tax, subject, however, to the taxpayer's option to reopen the earlier year if the statute of limitations had not expired or if the amount exceeded specified dollar or percentage limits.

 

Exact Tax Benefit Rule- PERRY VS. US


Exact Tax Benefit Rule- PERRY VS. US

In Perry v. United States, 160 F. Supp. 270 (Ct. Cl. 1958), the Court of Claims adopted an "exact tax benefit" rule, under which the recovery was taxed at the rate that was applicable to the deduction; it later overruled this decision and accepted the prevailing judicial view that the recovery is to be taxed at whatever rate is in effect for the year of receipt. Alice Phelan Sullivan Corp. v. United States, 381 F.2d 399 Ct. Cl. 1967).


From 1954 to 1976, I.R.C. § 1342 reached a similar result for certain recoveries of amounts paid as a result of a judicial decision in a patent infringement suit. Section 1346 (in force from 1941 to 1976) was also comparable to the "exact tax benefit"principle of the Perry case; it permitted taxpayers receiving a repayment of unconstitutional federal taxes to choose between (a) excluding the receipt currently andamending the earlier year's return to eliminate the deduction (despite the running of the statute of limitations) and (b) reporting the recovery and paying the resulting tax. Sections 1342 and 1346 were repealed by Title XIX (the "deadwood" provisions) of the Tax Reform Act of 1976, Pub. L. No. 94-455, § 1901(a)(147)-(148), 90 Stat. 1788 (1976).


A model income tax statute drafted by an American Law Institute group proposed to require the inclusion of all recoveries of deductible items, whether the deduction was taken or not, and, if a deduction was taken, whether or not it resulted in a reduction of the taxpayer's tax, subject, however, to the taxpayer's option to reopen the earlier year if the statute of limitations had not expired or if the amount exceeded specified dollar or percentage limits.

 

Exact Tax Benefit Rule- PERRY VS. US


BATASnatin The Firm

Lawyers in the Philippines

Latest @ Forums

Popular

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Prev Next

SUGGESTED ANSWERS …

ANSWERS TO BAR EXAMINATION QUESTIONS IN POLITICAL LAW ARRANGED BY TOPIC (1990 – 2006) Edited and Arranged by:Silliman University College of Law Batch 2005Updated by:DondeeD’ BAR-Retake 2007 From the ANSWERS TO BAR EXAMINATION QUESTIONS by the UP LAW COMPLEX & PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF LAW SCHO...

Read more

Oral Defamation l S…

Kinds and Definition of Slander or Oral Defamation   Definition: Speaking of base and defamatory words which tend to prejudice another in his reputation, office, trade, business or means of livelihood   Two kinds of oral or verbal defamation: (1) Grave Slander (2) Simple Slander   A. Factor...

Read more

Article I – THE NAT…

Article I – THE NATIONAL TERRITORYThe national territory of the Philippines comprises:1) the Philippine archipelago;2) all other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdictionPHILIPPINE ARCHIPELAGO – that body of water studded with islands which is delineated in the Treaty of...

Read more

Random

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Prev Next

Heinous Crimes Act …

Heinous Crimes Act - R.A. No. 7659AN ACT TO IMPOSE THE DEATH PENALTY ON CERTAIN HEINOUS CRIMES, AMENDING FOR THAT PURPOSE THE REVISED PENAL LAWS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.  WHEREAS, the Constitution, specifically Article III, Section 19 paragraph (1) t...

Read more

Contract of Insuran…

What is a contract of insurance?   It is an agreement whereby one undertakes for a consideration to indemnify another against the loss, damage or liability arising from an unknown or contingent event. (Sec. 2[1], Insurance Code) Note: A contract of...

Read more

THE INSCRIPTION UND…

THE INSCRIPTION UNDER ACT NO. 3344 FOR PURPOSES OF THE LAW ON DOUBLE SALE WAS HELD NOT TO BE EFFECTIVE> The registration should be made in the property registry to be binding upon third persons> However, there was a case wherein it was held that the ...

Read more

Featured

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Prev Next

Right to Strike

SSSEA v. CA – right to strike – At present, in the absence of any legislation in government employees the right to strike, recognizing their right to do so, or regulating the exercise of such right, they are prohibited form striking by express prohi...

Read more

People vs. Tolentin…

G.R. No. 176385, February 26, 2008 FACTS: On 13 February 1998, three separate informations of Murder and two counts of Frustrated Murder were filed before the RTC against appellants, together with accused Jimmy Trinidad and Arnel Trinidad. The murd...

Read more

Perfection Of A Con…

In Oesmer, Jr., et al. v. Paraiso Dev. Corp., G.R. No. 157493, February 5, 2007, a contract to sell was entered into by the owners of a real property. They affixed their signatures but contested its validity later contending that their co-owner had n...

Read more


BATASnatin.com- The Best Philippine Law Library

Login

Sign in with Facebook