Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/537792/US-Internal-Revenue-Service-060901f
Timestamp: 2018-09-24 15:38:40
Document Index: 180354814

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 102', '§ 111', '§\n61', '§ 61', '§ 6050', '§ 6050', '§ 6041', '§ 61', '§ 102', '§ 111', '§ 102', '§ 102', '§ 102', '§\n102', '§ 102', '§ 61', '§ 111', '§ 61', '§ 6050', '§ 6050', '§ 6050', '§ 1', '§\n1', '§ 6041', '§ 1', '§ 6041']

US Internal Revenue Service: 060901f | Tax Refund | Tax Deduction
California Tax Board: sbxx1 062001
tax1.6
US Treasury: 28
California Tax Board: sbx17 050301
California Tax Board: 2005 6
VAT Cases Recit
US Treasury: mts1001
42. CIR v San Roque
Advance MacHinery Exchange, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 196 F.2d 1006, 2d Cir. (1952)
20060901F
Release Date: 3/3/06
CC:SB:--:-------:PREF-132125-05
-UILC:
102.00-00, 111.06-00, 61.00-00, 6041.00-00, 6050E.00-00
to: Territory Manager, Compliance, ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------from: Associate Area Counsel (SB/SE)
subject: Advisory Opinion: Taxability of Payments to Recipients Under the
----- ------------Fund
This document may not be used or cited as precedent. This
memorandum relates to a request to our office from the Service
for advice relating to the federal income tax ramifications of a
new law signed by the Governor on --, 2005, establishing the -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Fund for the purpose of providing payments to -- taxpayers who
filed a state income tax return for the preceding tax year.
Specifically, it was asked: (1) whether payments to taxpayers
under the new law will be taxable to the recipients; and (2)
whether the State will be required to issue a Form 1099-G to each
If the payments constitute a gift to a class of recipients
rather than refunds of taxes previously paid, then the payments
are excluded from gross income under I.R.C. § 102. Based on the
available information, it does not appear that the payments
constitute excludable gifts, as they appear prompted by the
CC:SB:--2
:PREF-132125-05
State’s moral obligation to its taxpayers and/or by an
anticipated benefit, rather than out of disinterested generosity.
If the payments constitute a refund of taxes previously
paid, then the payments must be analyzed under the tax benefit
rule, as partially codified by I.R.C. § 111. Under the rule, a
refund is included in a recipient’s gross income under I.R.C. §
61 if it is a refund of tax deducted in a prior year, to the
extent the amount of the deduction reduced the recipient’s tax,
i.e., to the extent the deduction resulted in a tax benefit.
Based upon the available information, the payments appear to
be made to a designated class of recipients without regard to
whether the recipients made prior payments of tax, rather than
payments made to persons who are entitled to “refunds” of taxes
previously paid. The payments do not correspond to tax paid by
taxpayers but to the State’s surplus; the payments do not relate
to tax paid on account. In such case, the payments will
generally be deemed gross income under I.R.C. § 61, absent an
If the payments do not constitute a refund of State income
taxes, the State will not be required to report the payments to
the Service under I.R.C. § 6050E(a) or issue a Form 1099-G to
recipients who claimed itemized federal income tax deductions in
the preceding year under I.R.C. § 6050E(b). If the payments do
not exceed $600, the State would not be required to report the
payments under I.R.C. § 6041(a).
On --, 2005, the Governor ---- signed --------------------------- an “[a]ct relating to public finance,” which adds new
sections of law -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------. Section 1 of the act------------------------------------- reads as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- -- ----------------------------
CC:SB:--3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------:
---------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------Section 2 of the act------------------------------------reads as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ --- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Finally, section 3 of the act------------------------------------- reads as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC:SB:--4
--------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------The -- Constitution provides that, to ensure a balanced
annual budget, the State -----------must certify the total amount
of revenue which accrued during the preceding fiscal year (ending
-------------) to the General Revenue Fund and to each Special
Revenue Fund appropriated directly by the legislature, and must
also certify amounts available for appropriation for the next
ensuing fiscal year, showing separately the revenues to accrue to
the credit of each fund. -----------------------------------------. The certification is filed with the Governor and the
legislature, and the legislature cannot pass or enact any bill
making an appropriation of money for any purpose until such
certification is made and filed.
The -- Constitution also provides that surplus funds or
monies shall be any amount accruing to the General Revenue Fund
over and above the itemized estimate made by the State --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------. -----------------------------------------. All such surplus funds or
monies must be placed in a ---------- Fund (commonly referred to
as -----Fund”) by the State Treasurer until such time that the
amount of the Fund equals - (----%) of the General Revenue Fund
CC:SB:--5
certification for the preceding fiscal year.
Our office was provided with documents entitled
Apportionment of Statutory Revenues -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- for the fiscal years ending
--, 2004 and ------, 2005. The documents reflect the amount of
revenues in the General Revenue Fund and several special funds
(the ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Fund is not listed, perhaps because the report for the fiscal
year ending -, 2005 is dated -, 2004). The documents reflect
that the General Revenue Fund is composed of a variety of
sources, including excise taxes, licenses, individual and
corporate income tax, motor vehicle tax, sales tax, workers
compensation insurance tax, etc.
The apportionment document for the fiscal year ending -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------, 2004, which
is stated in dollars, reflects that of the total apportionment of
$------------, $------(approximately ----%) is apportioned to the
General Revenue Fund, and the remainder is apportioned to special
funds. Income taxes revenues have a total apportionment of $-----------------, $------of which is apportioned to the General
Revenue Fund. The $------income tax apportionment constitutes
approximately ----% of the total apportionment to the General
Revenue Fund. The Apportionment document for the fiscal year
ending --, 2005, which is stated in percentages, reflects that --------% of corporate income taxes and --% of individual income
taxes are apportioned to the General Revenue Fund. The ratio of
income tax apportionment to the total General Revenue
apportionment, however, cannot be determined.
While legislative history on the bill is apparently nonexistent, we note that the ------ contains a message of Governor
-------- message on the --Legislative Day, ----, 2005. In the
message, Governor - states:
CC:SB:--6
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Message of Governor ---- -------------------------.
Recently, it was reported that the chairman of the
House Appropriations and Budget Committee and co-sponsor
of the bill, ------, stated that surplus projections of
$- million for the fiscal year appeared overstated, that
CC:SB:--7
house analysts now project a $- million surplus, that
State payments may be $---- per taxpayer rather than $-,
and that final figures for the fiscal year will not be
known until legislators re-convene in --. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------. According to the report, the State Treasurer
stated that it may be August before officials know the
amount of the surplus, but that the -----Fund” will be
“maxed out” for the first time, thus enabling the
payments. Id.
Section 61 of the Internal Revenue Code provides that,
except as otherwise provided, gross income means all income from
whatever source derived. The Supreme Court has long recognized
that the definition of gross income is broad, and reflects
Congress’ intent to exert the full measure of its taxing power to
bring within the definition of income “any accession to wealth.”
Commissioner v. Schleier, 515 U.S. 323, 327 (1995); United
States v. Burke, 504 U.S. 229, 233 (1992). Thus, the payments
from the State will be taxable to recipients under I.R.C. § 61
unless the payments meet an exclusion provided by the Code, e.g.,
a non-taxable gift under I.R.C. § 102 or a non-taxable refund
under I.R.C. § 111.
Gift Characterization
Under I.R.C. § 102(a), gross income does not include the
value of property acquired by gift. Neither the Code nor
legislative history defines the term “gift.” The Supreme Court,
however, has explained that a gift proceeds from a “detached and
disinterested generosity,” and is made “out of affection,
respect, admiration, charity or like impulses.” Duberstein v.
Commissioner, 363 U.S. 278, 285 (1960). If a payment proceeds
primarily from “any moral or legal duty,” or from “the incentive
of anticipated benefit” of an economic nature, it is not a gift.
In general, payments made by a state government do not
qualify as non-taxable gifts because it is not the purpose of
governments to make gifts to its citizens. However, in certain
situations, a government payment may be treated as a non-taxable
CC:SB:--8
gift under I.R.C. § 102. In the few cases that treat payments by
governments as non-taxable gifts, the payments generally have
been made to a class of individuals and the payments have been
based on the activities of that class, such as veterans who
served in the armed forces during a certain war, or individuals
who worked on the construction of the Panama Canal. See Rev.
Rul. 76-131, 1976-1 C.B. 16, and Rev. Rul. 85-39, 1985-1 C.B. 21.
See e.g., Rev. Rul. 55-609, 1955-2 C.B. 34 (death gratuity
payments specifically designated by Congress as gifts were
gifts); Rev. Rul. 68-158, 1968-1 C.B. 47 (state payments to or on
behalf of veterans who served in the Armed Forces during war time
were not includible in gross income); and Dewling v. United
States, 101 F. Supp. 892 (Ct. Cl. 1952) (payments from the
federal government were gifts in recognition of the services
rendered for construction of the Panama Canal built thirty years
prior to payment).
In many cases, the government payments fail as gifts because
they are prompted by a moral or legal duty and/or in anticipation
of a future benefit. For instance, in Kroon v. United States,
74-2 U.S.T.C. ¶ 9,641 (D. Alaska), homeowners received payments
from the State of Alaska pursuant to the Alaska Mortgage
Adjustment Program to retire the mortgages on residences
destroyed by an earthquake. The court held that the payments
were not gifts under I.R.C. § 102 and were thus includible in the
homeowner’s gross income because the payments were prompted out
of the state’s moral obligation to its citizens rather than out
of charity and disinterested generosity. Id. The court stated:
The government and a private donor differ in nature.
Whereas in some instances a payment from the
government and a private donor could both be classed
as gifts, in this instance, the government owes a
type of duty not incumbent upon a private donor to
relieve hardship caused by a natural disaster.
Alternatively, it may be contended that the
government benefits more than a private donor in
these situations in that a stronger economy
increases the tax base.
Id. See also Foley v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 605, 609 (1986)
(payments from the West Berlin government to its residents and
workers designed to encourage consumption and spending to improve
West Berlin’s economic vitality were not gifts under I.R.C. §
102); Beattie v. United States, 635 F. Supp. 481 (D. Alaska
CC:SB:--9
1986), affd., 831 F.2d 916 (9th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 485
U.S. 1006 (1988) (Alaska state fund, consisting of oil royalties,
was created to effect an equitable distribution of a portion of
state wealth resulting from the royalties, encourage residential
longevity in the state, and encourage involvement by residents in
the management and expenditure of the fund, and thus, fund
dividend payments were not gifts).
In this case, whether the payments by the State of ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ to -- taxpayers
are gifts depends upon all the facts and circumstances. The new
act creating the ------------Fund, by its own terms, is one
“relating to public finance.” Also, the Governor’s message
indicates that the act is referred to as the -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Act and is a
“tax-relief and investment package.” Further, the purpose of the
act’s other fund, the -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fund, is to promote various State
economic and social interests. The legislative intent gleaned
from these facts suggests that the payments are prompted by the
anticipated economic benefit to the State rather than out of
charitable impulses or disinterested generosity. Lastly, although
according to the Governor’s message, the excess funds are to be
returned to ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ taxpayers “who most deserve it,” the payments are based on a
taxpayer’s filing of a state income tax return for the prior year
and the payment amount merely depends on the filing status on the
return, not the needs of the recipient.
Based on the available facts, it does not appear that the
payments would proceed from a “detached and disinterested
generosity,” made “out of affection, respect, admiration, charity
or like impulses,” including charitable impulses motivated by the
needs of the recipient, but instead arise from a “moral or legal
duty” and/or an “incentive of anticipated benefit” of an economic
nature. Furthermore, the payments made by the State of ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ to -- taxpayers
are not limited to a class of recipients based on merit or
service. Consequently, the facts and circumstances, including
CC:SB:--10
the legislative intent behind the payments, lead us to conclude
that the payments are not gifts under I.R.C. § 102.
Refund Characterization
As indicated, the payments from the State appear not to be
gifts. The question then arises as to whether the payments are
made to a designated class of recipients without regard to
whether the recipients made prior payments of tax, or whether the
payments are made to persons who are entitled to “refunds” of
taxes previously paid. In the case of the former, the payments
will generally be deemed gross income under I.R.C. § 61, absent
an exclusion. In the case of the latter, the recovery of the
refund of taxes previously paid will only be deemed gross income
under the “tax benefit rule” to the extent the taxpayer claimed a
federal deduction for the payment in the preceding year.
The tax benefit rule is partially codified under I.R.C.
§ 111(a), which provides that gross income does not include
amounts attributable to the recovery during the taxable year of
any amount deducted in any prior year to the extent that the
amount did not reduce the amount of federal income tax imposed by
the Code. The tax benefit rule generally requires the inclusion
in income of amounts that were deducted by a taxpayer in a prior
taxable year to the extent those amounts generated a tax benefit
to the taxpayer through a reduction in the amount of the tax
liability in the prior year. See Rev. Rul. 93-75, 1993-2 C.B.
63; Hillsboro National Bank v. Commissioner and United States v.
Bliss Dairy, Inc., 460 U.S. 370 (1983).
The purpose of the rule is to achieve a rough transactional
parity, i.e., the taxpayer is “put in more or less the same
after-tax position as if only the proper amount had been
deducted.” Id., citing S. Print 98-169, Vol. I, 98th Cong., 2d
Sess. 472 (1984). Thus, a refund of State tax paid that was
previously deducted is includible in gross income in the year of
receipt to the extent of the difference between the taxpayer’s
deductions in the prior year and the deductions the taxpayer
would have claimed had the taxpayer paid the proper amount of
State tax in the prior year and not received a State tax refund
in a subsequent year. Id.
In other words, the payment will be a taxable refund to the
extent that the taxpayer took a deduction in a prior year for
that payment. For example, a taxpayer who took a federal income
CC:SB:--11
tax deduction (e.g., Schedule A itemized deduction or Schedule C
business deduction) for State income taxes, personal property
taxes, sales taxes, etc., in the preceding year would have a
taxable refund of those taxes to the extent the taxpayer
benefited from the deduction. Likewise, a taxpayer who did not
claim a deduction for State or local tax paid would not have a
taxable refund.
However, the payments in this case appear to be made to a
designated class of recipients without regard to whether the
recipients made prior payments of tax, rather than payments made
to persons entitled to “refunds” of taxes previously paid. While
individuals eligible to receive the payments are those
individuals who filed a State income tax return for the preceding
year, the payment is not based upon State or local tax that an
individual taxpayer reported and paid, but on whether the
taxpayer claimed a personal exemption. This eligibility
requirement appears to simply be a method for designating a class
of individuals to whom the State desires to make a payment of
Also, persons entitled to refunds of monies may file a claim
for refund at any time within three years from the due date of
the return. ---------------------. Such claims shall be filed
and paid under section -, and if allowed, shall be paid under the
provisions of that section. Section - provides that, if upon
review and adjustment, any refund is found to be due any
taxpayer, it shall be paid out of the -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Account created by ---------------- in the same manner as refunds are paid under that
section. -----------------------------. The amount of the
refund shall not exceed the portion of the tax paid during the
three-year period immediately preceding the filing of the claim.
The payments in this case do not appear to have the
character of refunds of tax previously paid. As indicated above,
the payment is not based upon tax that a taxpayer actually paid,
but relates solely to whether a taxpayer claimed a personal
exemption in the preceding year. The payments do not relate to
taxes paid by taxpayers on their account, i.e., the payments do
not represent refunds of overpayments on the accounts. The
payments also do not result from amounts erroneously paid by
taxpayers, through error of fact, computation, or
CC:SB:--12
misrepresentation of law. Because the payments do not relate to
taxes paid on account, they are not paid out of the -------------------- Account, as are normal refunds. Instead, they are paid
out of the excess of the ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Fund from a multitude of revenue streams that
flow into the ----Fund from the General Revenue Fund.
Further, the new act does not provide that the payments are
specifically termed “refunds” of tax. Also, there is no
indication that taxpayers would have the same right to payment of
the payment as they would a refund, whereby they may claim a
refund for taxes paid relating to the payments within three
years. The payment, rather, appears to be solely a result of the
State’s increased revenues for the preceding year in an amount
which exceeds the -----------Fund. Based upon these facts, the
payments appear to be made to a designated class of recipients
without regard to whether the recipients made prior payments of
tax, rather than payments made to persons entitled to “refunds”
of taxes previously paid, and are includible in gross income
under I.R.C. § 61.
To the extent the payments constitute a refund of State
income tax, I.R.C. § 6050E(a) provides that every person who,
with respect to any individual during any calendar year, refunds,
credits, or offsets State income tax aggregating $10 or more
shall make a return setting forth the aggregate amount of such
payments, credits, or offsets, and the name and address of the
individual with respect to whom such payment, credit, or offset
is made. Under I.R.C. § 6050E(b), every person required to make
a return under subsection (a) is also required to furnish each
individual whose name is required to be set forth in the return a
written statement showing the name of the State and the
information required to be shown on the information return with
respect to refunds, credits, and offsets to the individual.
No such written statement shall be required, however, if it
is determined that the individual did not claim itemized
deductions for the taxable year giving rise to the refund,
credit, or offset, i.e., “non-itemizers.” I.R.C. § 6050E(b);
Treas. Reg. § 1.6050E-1(k)(2). Verification is made from the
State income tax return, as an individual who itemizes deductions
for federal income tax purposes must either attach a copy of
CC:SB:--13
Schedule A to the State return, or transcribe the Schedule A
information to the State return. Id. Under Treas. Reg. §
1.6050E-1(c), every refund officer who makes payments of refunds
of State income taxes aggregating $10 or more for an individual
in any calendar year, shall make an information return for that
calendar year. Thus, the return is required even if, under the
exception for non-itemizers, the refund officer is not required
to furnish a statement to the applicable taxpayer. See Rev. Rul.
1986-140, 1986-2 C.B. 195.
Even if the payments do not constitute a refund of State
income or other taxes, I.R.C. § 6041(a) provides that all persons
engaged in a trade or business and making payment in the course
of such trade or business to another person, of rent, salaries,
wages, premiums, annuities, compensation, remuneration,
income of $600 or more in any taxable year shall render a true
and accurate return to the Service, setting forth the amount of
such gains, profits, and income, and the name and address of such
payment. The regulations provide that payments made by a state
or a political subdivision are subject to this reporting
requirement. Treas. Reg. § 1.6041-1(b)(1). If the amount of the
payment is less than $600, then there is no reporting requirement
under I.R.C. § 6041.
CC:SB:--14
taxpayers but to the State’s surplus, and the payments do not
relate to tax paid on account. In such case, the payments will
If you have any questions, please call -----, the attorney
in our office assigned to this case, at extension -.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Associate Area Counsel (SB/SE)
--------, --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Attn: ----
Documents Similar To US Internal Revenue Service: 060901f