department of the treasury employer_identification_number contact person - id number contact telephone number uil internal_revenue_service p o box cincinnati oh date date number release date legend g university h college j university k university l temple m name n academy y number dear you asked for advance approval of your scholarship grant procedures under internal_revenue_code sec_4945 this approval is required because you are a private_foundation that is exempt from federal_income_tax you requested approval of your scholarship program to fund the education of certain qualifying students our determination we approved your procedures for awarding scholarships based on the information you submitted and assuming you will conduct your program as proposed we determined that your procedures for awarding scholarships meet the requirements of code sec_4945 as a result expenditures you make under these procedures won't be taxable also awards made under these procedures are scholarship or fellowship grants and are not taxable to the recipients if they use them for qualified_tuition_and_related_expenses subject_to the limitations provide in code sec_117 letter catalog number 58263t description of your request your letter indicates you will operate a scholarship program for jewish education for converts to judaism the purpose of the scholarship program is to help the converts integrate into their new community of faith through the study of language culture history society and religious thought the scholarship amount is fifty percent of tuition and fees and the award will be paid for up to four college-level courses taken over two years the number of the awards is y in a given year the courses may be taken at g h j and k the education committee may approve courses at other colleges and universities with strong judaic studies programs the if the eligible candidate is not education committee is based in l and directed by m already at intermediate level in hebrew he must take two semesters of hebrew as his first two courses before signing up for other courses in jewish studies on-line classes like jewish education and jewish communal service are excluded the applicant must meet the following criteria a be a convert whose conversion took place up to years ago to judaism b must have graduated from a secondary school with a grade point average of at least b c for the first year of the program is a graduate of n and also a member of the synagogues participating in n d after the first year of the program is a convert who is a member of other conservative synagogues as well as orthodox reconstructionist and reform synagogues and unaffiliated converts the applicants must submit a an application form b a personal statement words c a plan of study and d the contact information of the sponsoring rabbi who can provide a letter of support the scholarship program will be publicized through distribution of flyers and advertisements in newspapers and on your website it will also be presented at religious gatherings and scheduled prayers in order to renew his grant the applicant must have achieved a grade point average of b in the previous course which was paid for by the scholarship fund the scholarship grants will be paid directly to the educational_institution should an individual fail to enroll or is not in good standing the money will be returned to you should a violation of the educational institution’s standard occur after the scholarship grant has been awarded the education committee will decline to consider that individual for future grants the grade will be reported to the committee via an official report from the institution or from a conversation with the office of registrar personnel the education committee must be familiar with judaic studies the committee at all times must have at least three university faculty members no member of the education committee officer or director or substantial_contributor will be eligible for scholarship grants letter cataiog number 58263t basis for our determination the law imposes certain excise_taxes on the taxable_expenditures of private_foundations code sec_4945 a taxable_expenditure is any amount a private_foundation pays as a grant to an individual for travel study or other similar purposes however a grant that meets all of the following requirements of code sec_4945 is not a taxable_expenditure the foundation awards the grant on an objective and nondiscriminatory basis the irs approves in advance the procedure for awarding the grant the grant is a scholarship or fellowship subject_to the provisions of code sec_117 the grant is to be used for study at an educational_organization described in code sec_170 other conditions that apply to this determination this determination only covers the grant program described above this approval will apply to succeeding grant programs only if their standards and procedures don't differ significantly from those described in your original request this determination applies only to you it may not be cited as a precedent you cannot rely on the conclusions in this letter if the facts you provided have changed substantially you must report any significant changes to your program to the cincinnati office of exempt_organizations at internal_revenue_service exempt_organizations determinations p o box cincinnati oh you cannot award grants to your creators officers directors trustees foundation managers or members of selection committees or their relatives all funds distributed to individuals must be made on a charitable basis and further the purposes of your organization you cannot award grants for a purpose that is inconsistent with code sec_170 you should keep adequate_records and case histories so that you can substantiate your grant distributions with the irs if necessary please keep a copy of this letter in your records letter catalog number 58263t if you have questions please contact the person listed at the top of this letter sincerely jeffrey cooper director exempt_organizations rulings and agreements letter catalog number 58263t


t c memo united_states tax_court ernest romero jr petitioner v commissioner of internal revenue respondent docket no 24327-07l filed date ernest romero jr pro_se cindy park for respondent memorandum findings_of_fact and opinion vasquez judge pursuant to sec_6330 petitioner seeks review of respondent’s determination to proceed with collection of his unpaid and income_tax liabilities the issue for decision is whether respondent abused unless otherwise indicated all section references are to the internal_revenue_code his discretion by sustaining the filing of the notice_of_federal_tax_lien against petitioner we find respondent did not abuse his discretion findings_of_fact some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found the stipulation of facts and the attached exhibits are incorporated herein by this reference petitioner resided in california at the time he filed the petition background petitioner requested and received extensions to file hi sec_2002 and income_tax returns these returns were due_date and respectively his return was due_date petitioner filed hi sec_2002 and income_tax returns on or about april april and date respectively on date respondent mailed to petitioner a notice_of_federal_tax_lien filing and your right to a hearing under sec_6320 notice_of_federal_tax_lien regarding tax_year sec_2002 and the notice_of_federal_tax_lien stated petitioner owed liabilities as follows type of tax form_1040 form_1040 form_1040 tax period amount owed dollar_figure dollar_figure dollar_figure on date petitioner timely submitted form request for a collection_due_process_hearing request regarding and to respondent petitioner’s offer-in-compromise proposal in the request petitioner stated the lien would impair his efforts to procure employment and would damage his credit he further stated he had previously suggested and again was suggesting the following offer-in-compromise oic if the penalties and interest were waived he would be able to borrow the money from his father and pay the taxes in full settlement officer vic morel officer morel was the appeals settlement officer assigned to petitioner petitioner requested a face-to-face collection_due_process_hearing cdp hearing before the cdp hearing officer morel requested that petitioner submit a completed form 433-a collection information statement for wage earners and self-employed individuals along with backup documentation and information petitioner submitted the requested information and officer morel used it to calculate petitioner’s tentative reasonable collection potential rcp to be dollar_figure future income value fiv of dollar_figure plus net equity in assets of dollar_figure at the time petitioner’s entire tax_liability including years not at issue in the notice_of_federal_tax_lien was approximately dollar_figure officer morel determined that petitioner’s rcp precluded him from having an oic accepted because he could pay the entire tax_liability and the sole basis on which petitioner sought an oic was doubt as to collectibility officer morel sent petitioner a letter scheduling the face- to-face cdp hearing and asking petitioner for additional information he asked petitioner to explain or describe special circumstances which might affect his ability to pay and to provide the following additional information for his use in recalculating petitioner’s rcp income information bank statements leases on his rental property and information on his transportation_expenses health care expenses and legal expenses petitioner sent officer morel most of the information requested and included reports from a psychiatrist and a psychologist to support his claim of special circumstances using this information officer morel decreased petitioner’s fiv which reduced petitioner’s rcp from dollar_figure to dollar_figure fiv of dollar_figure plus asset equity table value of dollar_figure however officer morel determined on the basis of the reports of the psychiatrist and the psychologist that petitioner did not meet the criteria for special circumstances the psychiatrist’ sec_2 the record is unclear for which tax periods in addition to and petitioner owed tax_liabilities however tax_liabilities for and were in uncollectible status report stated petitioner would be able to return to work by date and as of that date he would be considered fully recovered the psychologist’s report gave petitioner a guardedly optimistic prognosis and reported that petitioner ceased psychotherapeutic sessions on date face-to-face cdp hearing officer morel conducted the face-to-face cdp hearing on date at the irs appeals_office in los angeles as of date petitioner’s total outstanding tax_liability for all periods was approximately dollar_figure petitioner orally proposed an oic of dollar_figure officer morel explained to petitioner that he did not qualify for an oic because his rcp exceeded the liability owed and officer morel provided petitioner with copies of the income expense table asset equity table and the rcp calculation petitioner said he would pay the tax in full if penalties and interest were abated officer morel explained that absent reasonable_cause or administrative delay the penalties and interest could not be compromised officer morel suggested an installment_agreement and petitioner stated he was not interested petitioner did not dispute officer morel’s finding that he did not meet the criteria for special circumstances post-cdp hearing petitioner contacted officer morel after the cdp hearing and questioned the fiv officer morel determined and used in calculating petitioner’s rcp petitioner sent a letter to officer morel stating that his monthly income was lower than the figure officer morel used and that he expected his disability benefits to terminate in months petitioner stated that after his disability benefits terminated his monthly expenses would exceed his monthly income and he did not understand why he would not qualify for an oic subsequently officer morel talked with petitioner over the phone and decreased petitioner’s fiv which decreased petitioner’s rcp initially in calculating petitioner’s fiv officer morel included income from three sources employment with venturi staffing partners unemployment benefits and disability benefits petitioner informed officer morel that he had worked for venturi staffing for only days and officer morel decreased petitioner’s fiv by removing this as a source_of_income petitioner also informed officer morel that he received unemployment benefits biweekly instead of weekly officer morel adjusted petitioner’s fiv to reflect this change in timing finally petitioner informed officer morel that he expected his unemployment benefits to terminate in months but officer morel did not adjust petitioner’s fiv because it was a future event these adjustments resulted in a net decrease in petitioner’s fiv from dollar_figure to dollar_figure which decreased petitioner’s rcp from dollar_figure to dollar_figure even with these adjustments petitioner’s rcp still exceeded the tax_liability and officer morel determined acceptance of petitioner’s dollar_figure oic was precluded by statute and regulations officer morel informed petitioner of this and suggested an installment_agreement petitioner rejected the installment_agreement notice_of_determination on date officer morel issued a notice_of_determination concerning collection action s under sec_6320 and or notice_of_determination the notice_of_determination sustained the filing of the lien stated that petitioner had suggested a dollar_figure oic to satisfy his dollar_figure liability and this oic could not be accepted because it was less than petitioner’s rcp of dollar_figure and verified that the requirements of applicable laws had been met that the issues raised had been considered and that the proposed collection action balanced the need for efficient collection_of_taxes with the legitimate concerns that such action be no more intrusive than necessary see sec_6330 petitioner timely petitioned this court for review of the notice_of_determination sustaining the lien for and petitioner asserts officer morel made his determination with erroneous information and failed to recalculate his rcp once correct information was brought to his attention respondent asserts petitioner did not submit an oic for consideration and officer morel properly determined petitioner’s ineligibility for an oic i jurisdiction and standard of review opinion sec_6320 provides that the secretary shall furnish the person described in sec_6321 with written notice ie the hearing notice of the filing of a notice of lien under sec_6323 sec_6320 and b further provides that the taxpayer may request administrative review of the matter in the form of a hearing within a 30-day period the hearing generally shall be conducted in a manner consistent with the procedures set forth in sec_6330 d and e sec_6320 pursuant to sec_6330 a taxpayer may raise at the sec_6330 hearing any relevant issue with regard to the commissioner’s collection activities including spousal defenses challenges to the appropriateness of the commissioner’s intended collection action and alternative means of collection 114_tc_604 114_tc_176 where the validity of the underlying tax_liability is not at issue we review the commissioner’s determination for abuse_of_discretion sego v commissioner supra pincite petitioner does not dispute the underlying tax_liability rather petitioner disputes respondent’s rejection of his alleged oic accordingly we review this determination for abuse_of_discretion under an abuse_of_discretion standard we do not interfere unless the commissioner’s determination is arbitrary capricious clearly unlawful or without sound basis in fact or law 122_tc_32 vacated 439_f3d_1009 9th cir see also 112_tc_19 ii offer-in-compromise sec_7122 authorizes the commissioner to compromise a taxpayer’s outstanding liabilities the regulations and procedures under sec_7122 provide the exclusive method of effecting a binding nonjudicial compromise 889_f2d_910 9th cir affg norman v commissioner tcmemo_1987_265 648_f2d_1198 9th cir citing 278_us_282 affg in part revg in part and remanding per curiam on other grounds tcmemo_1979_71 sec_301_7122-1 proced admin regs provides an offer to compromise a tax_liability pursuant to sec_7122 must be submitted according to the procedures and in the form and manner prescribed by the secretary an offer to compromise a tax_liability must be made in writing must be signed by the taxpayer under penalty of perjury and must contain all of the information prescribed or requested by the secretary see nash v commissioner tcmemo_2008_250 harbaugh v commissioner tcmemo_2003_316 see also wagner v commissioner tcmemo_1990_443 compromise agreements under sec_7122 are required to be in writing prakash v commissioner tcmemo_1990_106 same foulds v commissioner tcmemo_1989_29 same an oic must be submitted on a special form prescribed by the secretary riederich v commissioner 985_f2d_574 9th cir affg without published opinion tcmemo_1991_164 laurins v commissioner supra pincite sec_601_203 statement of procedural rules identifies form_656 offer_in_compromise as the form required for an oic offers in compromise are required to be submitted on form_656 properly executed and accompanied by a financial statement on form_433 if based on inability to pay form_656 is used in all cases regardless of whether the amount of the offer is tendered in full at the time the offer is filed or the amount of the offer is to be paid_by deferred payment or payments see also godwin v commissioner tcmemo_2003_289 taxpayers who wish to propose an offer_in_compromise must submit a form_656 offer_in_compromise affd 132_fedappx_785 11th cir ringgold v commissioner tcmemo_2003_199 settlement of tax_liabilities for less than the amount owed requires the completion of form petitioner did not submit a form_656 or any other writing made under penalty of perjury to compromise his tax_liabilities petitioner proposed in writing an offer to pay the full amount of the tax in exchange for respondent’s waiving penalties and interest later petitioner orally proposed a dollar_figure oic petitioner was cooperative in submitting requested documentation to respondent and using this documentation respondent was able to calculate petitioner’s rcp using the information petitioner provided respondent repeatedly advised him that he would not qualify for an oic based on his rcp without the submission of a formal oic we cannot determine whether respondent abused his discretion in sustaining the filing of the lien see o’neil v commissioner tcmemo_2009_183 however assuming petitioner made a formal oic in either of the amounts he proposed we would sustain respondent’s calculation of petitioner’s rcp and find there was no abuse_of_discretion iii calculation of rcp petitioner asserts officer morel should have lowered his rcp to reflect the anticipated termination of petitioner’s disability benefits a compromise based on doubt as to collectibility which petitioner seeks may be accepted where the taxpayer’s assets and income are less than the full amount of the liability sec_301_7122-1 proced admin regs with respect to offers- in-compromise on this basis we observed in 125_tc_301 affd 469_f3d_27 1st cir generally under the commissioner’s administrative pronouncements an offer to compromise based on doubt as to collectibility will be acceptable only if the offer reflects the reasonable collection potential of the case ie that amount less than the full liability that the irs could collect through means such as administrative and judicial collection remedies revproc_2003_71 sec_4 c b see also internal_revenue_manual irm pt date absent special circumstances a doubt as to collectibility datc offer amount must equal or exceed a taxpayers sic reasonable collection potential rcp in order to be considered for acceptance the taxpayer’s rcp includes realizable equity in assets owned by the taxpayer as well as amounts collectible from the taxpayer’s future income after allowing for payment of necessary living_expenses id pt generally where an appeals employee has followed the commissioner’s guidelines to ascertain a taxpayer’s rcp and rejected the taxpayer’s collection alternative on that basis we have found no abuse_of_discretion lemann v commissioner tcmemo_2006_37 see also schulman v commissioner tcmemo_2002_129 petitioner asserts officer morel abused his discretion in calculating petitioner’s rcp because officer morel did not reduce petitioner’s fiv after being informed that petitioner’s disability benefits were expected to terminate in months the irm defines future income as an estimate of a taxpayer’s ability to pay based on an analysis of gross_income less necessary living_expenses for a specific number of months into the future irm pt date the irm instructs the settlement officer to consider the taxpayer’s general overall situation including such facts as age health marital status number and age of dependents level of education or occupational training and work experience id pt the irm further states that some situations may warrant placing a different value on future income than current or past income indicates and lists inter alia two situations relevant here where income will increase or decrease or current necessary expenses will increase or decrease and where a taxpayer is temporarily unemployed or underemployed id pt where income or current necessary expenses will increase or decrease the irm instructs the settlement officer to adjust the amount or number of payments to what is expected during the appropriate number of months id where the taxpayer is temporarily unemployed or underemployed the irm instructs the settlement officer to use the level of income expected if the taxpayer were fully employed if the potential for employment is apparent id it further states that each case should be judged on its own merit including consideration of special circumstances or relating to effective tax_administration issues id we are satisfied officer morel judged petitioner’s case on the unique circumstances of petitioner’s individual situation and did not abuse his discretion in determining petitioner’s fiv and rcp officer morel repeatedly worked with petitioner in petitioner’s attempts to become eligible for an oic after a tentative rcp determination revealed petitioner was ineligible for an oic officer morel asked petitioner to explain special circumstance sec_3 and provide additional information which could in some cases the secretary will accept an offer of less than the reasonable collection potential of the case if there are special circumstances revproc_2003_71 sec_4 2003_2_cb_517 special circumstances are circumstances demonstrating that the taxpayer would suffer economic hardship if the irs were to collect from him an amount equal to the reasonable collection potential of the case or if no demonstration of such suffering can be made circumstances justifying acceptance of an amount less than reasonable collection potential of the case based on public policy or equity considerations irm pt date effective tax_administration and doubt as to collectibility with special continued affect his eligibility for an oic after the additional information revealed that petitioner did not meet the criteria for special circumstances and was still ineligible for an oic officer morel continued to communicate with petitioner about his calculations after discussing the matter with petitioner officer morel made adjustments to petitioner’s fiv to reflect the loss of a source_of_income venturi staffing and a difference in the timing of benefits biweekly but he did not make an adjustment to reflect the anticipated termination of petitioner’s disability benefits we are satisfied officer morel made appropriate adjustments to petitioner’s fiv although pursuant to the irm officer morel could have decreased petitioner’s fiv to reflect the anticipated termination of disability benefits he is equally justified in not decreasing petitioner’s fiv petitioner was unemployed and receiving unemployment and disability benefits when he began discussing the possibility of an oic upon receiving two mental health reports suggesting that petitioner was able to return to work immediately and was no longer disabled officer morel continued circumstances to demonstrate that compelling public policy or equity considerations justify a compromise the taxpayer must be able to demonstrate that because of exceptional circumstances collection of the full liability would undermine public confidence that the tax laws are being administered in a fair and equitable manner sec_301_7122-1 proced admin regs decided not to decrease petitioner’s fiv to reflect the anticipated termination of disability benefits where a taxpayer is presently unemployed the settlement officer is instructed to look to the level of income expected if the taxpayer were fully employed if the potential for employment is apparent although at one time petitioner was unable to work because of his disability this was no longer the case petitioner was not disabled and was able to work although petitioner anticipated losing a source_of_income the unique circumstances of petitioner’s situation suggested that petitioner was losing this source_of_income about the same time as he was gaining the ability to return to work accordingly we are satisfied that officer morel followed the irm in determining petitioner’s fiv and calculating petitioner’s rcp and did not abuse his discretion to reflect the foregoing decision will be entered for respondent


qwhuqdo 5hyhqxh 6huylfh department of the treasury number release date index no washington dc person to contact telephone number refer reply to cc ita - plr-123809-01 date date legend a b c d e w x y1 y2 y3 date date date date date date date date date date dear this is in response to your letter dated date submitted on behalf of a facts a is the common parent of an affiliated_group_of_corporations the a group prior to the reorganization described below a directly owned of the stock of b c and d collectively the first tier subs a indirectly owned through the first tier subs and other direct subsidiaries of the stock of e e owns certain intellectual_property and licenses such property to other members of the a group plr-123809-01 effective on date b c d and e agreed to sell certain assets to w an unrelated corporation the assets subject_to the agreement were all of the operating_assets used in their respective trades_or_businesses by b c and d and certain of the assets used in e’s business the sales agreement allowed b c d and e to assign their rights in the agreement to a qualified_intermediary such that the transaction could qualify as a like-kind_exchange under sec_1031 on date b c d and e each entered into an agreement with x pursuant to these agreements b c d and e agreed to transfer to x and x agreed to accept all rights in the property they were selling to w subject_to w’s right to purchase such property a represents that x is a qualified_intermediary within the meaning of sec_1_1031_k_-1 on date the sale of assets to w closed on that date the relinquished_property was transferred to w and x received the sale proceeds from w as of date a agreed to acquire replacement_property from y1 y2 and y3 all entities unrelated to the a group the purchase agreement allowed a to assign its rights under the agreement to any of its affiliates or to a qualified_intermediary for the purpose of qualifying the transaction as a like-kind_exchange under sec_1031 on date in anticipation of the merger and assignment described below b c d and e each identified as replacement_property an interest in the property that a had agreed to purchase from y1 y2 and y3 on date a assigned all of its rights under the purchase agreement with y1 y2 and y3 to b c d and e on date c merged with and into b with b as the surviving corporation a represents that this merger qualified as a statutory merger under sec_368 on date d assigned its rights in the purchase agreement with y1 y2 and y3 to b as a result of the merger and assignment b and e possessed the right to receive all of the assets covered by the purchase agreement with y1 y2 and y3 on date b and e assigned their rights in the purchase agreement with y1 y2 and y3 to x on date the purchase of the assets from y1 y2 and y3 closed y1 y2 and y3 received the purchase_price from x which then directed y1 y2 and y3 to transfer the assets to b and e ruling requested a requests a ruling that the merger of c into b does not disqualify the exchange by those corporations of their assets for the assets of y1 y2 and y3 from nonrecognition treatment under sec_1031 to the extent that sec_1031 otherwise applies to such exchange law and analysis sec_1031 provides that no gain_or_loss will be recognized on the exchange of property held for productive use in a trade_or_business or for investment if the property is exchanged solely for property of like_kind which is to be held either for plr-123809-01 productive use in a trade_or_business or for investment under sec_1031 any property received by the taxpayer the replacement_property will be treated as property that is not of a like_kind to the property transferred the relinquished_property if the replacement_property a is not identified within days of the taxpayer’s transfer of the relinquished_property or b is received after the earlier of i days after the taxpayer’s transfer of the relinquished_property or ii the due_date determined with regard to extensions for the taxpayer’s return for the year in which the transfer of the relinquished_property occurred sec_1_1031_k_-1 provides a safe_harbor by which a taxpayer can effect a like-kind_exchange through a qualified_intermediary without being considered to be in actual or constructive receipt of money or other_property for purposes of sec_1031 sec_381 provides that in the case of the acquisition of assets of a corporation by another corporation - in a distribution to such other corporation to which sec_332 applies or in a transfer to which sec_361 applies but only if the transfer is in connection with a reorganization described in sec_368 c d f or g the acquiring_corporation shall succeed to and take into account as of the close of the day of distribution or transfer the items described in sec_381 of the distributor or transferor_corporation subject_to certain conditions and limitations sec_361 provides that no gain_or_loss shall be recognized to a corporation if such corporation is a_party_to_a_reorganization and exchanges property in pursuance of the plan_of_reorganization solely for stock_or_securities in another corporation a party to the reorganization sec_368 provides that the term reorganization includes a statutory merger or consolidation sec_1_381_a_-1 provides in part that sec_381 does not apply to the carryover of an item or tax attribute not specified in sec_381 and that no inference is to be drawn from sec_381 as to whether any such item or tax attribute should be taken into account by the successor_corporation sec_381 does not refer to like_kind_exchanges under sec_1031 however the legislative_history of sec_381 explains that sec_381 is not intended to affect the carryover treatment of an item or tax attribute not specified in the section or the carryover treatment of items or tax_attributes in corporate transactions not described in subsection a no inference is to be drawn from the enactment of this section whether any item or tax attribute may be utilized by a successor or predecessor_corporation under existing law h_r rep no 83rd cong 2d sess a135 thus congress did not intend sec_381 to be the exclusive list of attributes that should be carried over after a reorganization the legislative_history further reveals that the purpose of sec_381 was to put into practice the policy that economic realities rather than such artificialities as the legal form of the reorganization ought to control in the question of whether a tax attribute from an acquired_corporation is to be carried over to the acquiring_corporation sec_381 was enacted to enable the successor_corporation to step into the ‘tax shoes’ of its predecessor_corporation without necessarily conforming to artificial legal requirements plr-123809-01 which then existed at the time of its enactment under court-made law s rep no 83rd cong 2d sess the special treatment of like_kind_exchanges under sec_1031 has been explained primarily on two grounds first a taxpayer making a like_kind exchange has received property similar to the property relinquished and therefore has not cashed out of the investment in the relinquished_property second administrative problems may arise with respect to valuing property that is exchanged solely or primarily for similar_property see eg staff of the joint_committee on taxation general explanation of the revenue provisions of the deficit_reduction_act_of_1984 98th cong 2d sess 602_f2d_1341 9th cir these concerns are equally applicable when following a reorganization under sec_368 the surviving corporation receives like-kind_property in exchange for property transferred by a predecessor_corporation prior to the merger accordingly in this case we conclude that b steps into the shoes of c for purposes of receiving the replacement_property c identified before the merger conclusion based on the facts presented above we rule that the merger of c into b does not disqualify the exchange by those corporations of their assets for the assets of y1 y2 and y3 from nonrecognition treatment under sec_1031 to the extent that sec_1031 otherwise applies to such exchange caveats except as expressly provided herein no opinion is expressed or implied concerning the tax consequences of any aspect of any item discussed or referenced in this ruling in particular we express no opinion on whether the transaction meets the other requirements of sec_1031 as to b or c or whether sec_1031 has any application to a d or e a copy of this ruling must be attached to any income_tax return to which it is relevant this ruling is directed only to the taxpayer s requesting it sec_6110 provides that it may not be used or cited as precedent sincerely douglas a fahey assistant to branch chief branch office of associate chief_counsel income_tax accounting


internal_revenue_service department of the treasury washington dc person to contact telephone number refer reply to cc corp 2-plr-104071-00 date date number release date index number legend corporation x corporation y state a state b business son father mother trust c d e date date date date date plr-104071-00 date date dear this responds to your letter dated date requesting rulings as to the federal_income_tax consequences of a proposed transaction additional information was received in letters dated june and date the information submitted for consideration is summarized below corporation x is a state a corporation engaged in business in state b corporation x has a calender taxable_year and uses the accrual_method of accounting corporation x has outstanding a single class of voting common_stock corporation x was formed on date the initial shareholders of corporation x were son and corporation y to finance his initial capital_contribution to corporation x son borrowed dollar_figurec from father and mother jointly referred to hereafter as parents providing them with a note in exchange therefor son’s note parents are the grantors trustees and beneficiaries of trust which they caused to be created on date trust is described under the grantor_trust_rules of subpart e of part of subchapter_j on date parents transferred son’s note to trust on date corporation y’s interest in corporation x was completely redeemed leaving son as the sole owner of all of corporation x’s outstanding_stock on date which date is within years of the proposed transaction described herein son caused corporation x to transfer d shares of common_stock to trust in satisfaction of son’s note and to encourage father to take an active part in the business this transaction was later determined by the internal_revenue_service to be a sale_or_exchange under sec_1001 of the internal_revenue_code of son’s shares in corporation x as a result trust now owns d shares of the outstanding_stock while son owns e shares father was retained by corporation x as a consultant for a period of five years pursuant to a consulting agreement the agreement entered into on date the agreement specifically provided that father was not engaged as an employee or in management of corporation x the agreement terminated on date father no longer provides consulting services to corporation x corporation x intends to redeem all of the corporation x stock held by trust in exchange for a promissory note the corporation x note and cash the corporation x note and cash will have an aggregate face_amount equal to the fair_market_value of plr-104071-00 the stock redeemed bear interest at the applicable_federal_rate on the date of closing and be payable in equal annual installments over no more than years sec_453 provides that income from an installment_sale which is defined by sec_453 as a disposition of property where at least one payment is to be received after the close of the taxable_year in which the disposition occurs shall be reported under the installment_method except as otherwise provided in sec_453 sec_453b provides in part that if an installment_obligation is satisfied at other than its face value or distributed transmitted sold or otherwise_disposed_of gain_or_loss shall result to the extent of the difference between the basis of the obligation and the fair_market_value of the obligation at the time of distribution transmission or disposition in the case of the distribution transmission or disposition otherwise than by sale_or_exchange sec_453b provides that for purposes of sec_453b if any installment_obligation is canceled or otherwise becomes unenforceable the obligation shall be treated as if it were disposed of in a transaction other than a sale_or_exchange and if the obligor and obligee are related_persons within the meaning of sec_453 the fair_market_value of the obligation shall be treated as not less than its face_amount the following representations have been made in connection with the proposed transactions a there are no outstanding options or warrants to purchase corporation x stock nor are there any outstanding debentures or other obligations that are convertible into corporation x stock or would be considered corporation x stock b in no event will the last payment on any note or other obligation be made more than years after the date_of_issuance of the note or other obligation c none of the consideration from corporation x including interest consists entirely or partly of corporation x’s promise to pay an amount that is based on or contingent on future earnings_of corporation x an amount that is contingent on working_capital being maintained at a certain level or any other similar contingency d any note or other obligation to be issued to trust or parents will not be subordinated to the claims of general creditors of corporation x e in the event of default on any note or other obligation no shares of stock will revert to or be received by trust or parents nor will trust or parents be permitted to purchase the stock at public or private sale plr-104071-00 f no shareholder of corporation x has been or will be obligated to purchase any of the stock to be redeemed g the redemption described in this ruling_request is an isolated transaction and is not related to any other past or future transaction h there have been no redemptions issuances or exchanges by corporation x of its stock in the past five years i corporation x has no plan or intention to issue redeem or exchange additional shares of its stock j after the redemption neither trust nor parents will have any interest in corporation x including as interest as officer director or employee other than an interest as a creditor described in sec_1_302-4 of the income_tax regulations and constructive_ownership under sec_318 of the code k trust and parents will execute and file the agreement required by sec_302 of the code with respect to the acquisition of any interest in corporation x within years from the date of redemption l trust and parents and each related_person will agree to be jointly and severally liable for any deficiency including interest and additional tax resulting from an acquisition of an interest in corporation x within years from the date of redemption m none of the stock to be redeemed is sec_306 stock within the meaning of sec_306 of the code n there are no declared but unpaid dividends or funds set apart for dividends on any of the stock to be redeemed o at the time of the exchange the fair_market_value of the consideration to be received by trust and parents will be approximately equal to the fair_market_value of the corporation x’s stock to be exchanged therefor p the price to be paid for corporation x’s stock to be redeemed will not result in a loss with respect to those shares of stock q the redemption of corporation x stock i is not a disposition of personal_property on the installment_plan by a person who regularly sells or otherwise disposes of personal_property on the installment_plan and ii is not a disposition of personal_property of a kind required to be included in the inventory of any redeemed shareholder at the close of the taxable_year any note or other obligation to be issued to a plr-104071-00 redeemed shareholder will not be issued in any form designed to render it readily tradeable on an established_securities_market based solely on the information and representations submitted we rule as follows the transfer of shares of corporation x stock to trust as described above did not have as one of its principal purposes the avoidance of federal_income_tax within the meaning of sec_302 provided that trust and parents execute and file the agreement described in sec_302 in accordance with sec_1_302-4 and the conditions in sec_302 and ii are satisfied the redemption by corporation x of all the shares of its stock held by trust will constitute a complete termination of parents’ interest within the meaning of sec_302 the amount distributed in the redemption will be treated as a distribution in full payment in exchange for the stock redeemed as provided in sec_302 pursuant to sec_302 sec_318 will not apply to the proposed transaction as provided in sec_1001 parents will realize and recognize gain on the redemption of the corporation x stock measured by the difference between the redemption price and the adjusted_basis of the shares of corporation x stock surrendered as determined under sec_1011 provided that sec_341 relating to collapsible_corporations is not applicable and the corporation x stock is a capital_asset in the hands of parents the gain will constitute capital_gain subject_to the conditions and limitations of subchapter_p of chapter of the code pursuant to the provisions of sec_267 no loss will be allowable unless parents elect out of the installment_method they shall report the gain realized from the redemption of the corporation x stock for the cash and corporation x note on the installment_method pursuant to the provisions of sec_453 the amount of income that parents shall recognize for any taxable_year with respect to the corporation x note will be that proportion of the payments received in such year which the gross_profit realized or to be realized when payments are completed bears to the contract_price the total redemption price less the amount of indebtedness if any to which the parents’ corporation x stock is subject such gross_profit will be the sales_price total redemption price less the adjusted_basis as determined under sec_1011 of the shares redeemed in addition any interest_income received or made available is includible in parents’ gross_income under sec_61 if the corporation x note is canceled or otherwise becomes unenforceable the amount of income recognized by parents will be determined in accordance with the provisions of sec_453b son will not receive a constructive_dividend as a result of the redemption of all the corporation x stock held by trust rev_rul 1969_2_cb_42 revrul_58_614 c b plr-104071-00 no opinion is expressed about the tax treatment of the above transactions under other provisions of the code and regulations or about the tax treatment of any conditions existing at the time of or effects resulting from the transactions that are not specifically covered by the above rulings in particular no opinion is expressed with respect to the tax treatment of the excess if any of the fair_market_value of the corporation x stock to be exchanged by trust over the sum of the cash and fair_market_value of the corporation x note to be received similarly no opinion is expressed regarding the tax treatment of the excess if any of the sum of the cash and the fair_market_value of the corporation x note to be given trust over the fair_market_value of the corporation x stock to be transferred to corporation x by trust in addition no opinion is expressed as to whether the corporation x note is debt or equity because the determination is primarily one of fact sec_4 of revproc_2000_3 2000_1_irb_103 this ruling is directed only to the taxpayer s requesting it sec_6110 of the code provides that it may not be used or cited as precedent a copy of this letter should be attached to the federal_income_tax returns of the taxpayers involved for the taxable_year in which the transaction covered by this ruling letter is consummated in accordance with a power_of_attorney on file with this office a copy of this letter is being sent to the taxpayer’s authorized representative sincerely assistant chief_counsel corporate by lewis k brickates assistant to chief branch


department of the treasury internal_revenue_service washington d c date number info release date the honorable richard g lugar united_states senate washington d c attention darlee mccollum dear senator lugar i am responding to your letter dated date to mr floyd williams national director for legislative affairs on behalf of about the lack of a totalization_agreement between the united_states and puerto rico sometimes sends u s employees to work temporarily at the facilities of its puerto wants to use a split-pay arrangement for these employees under and rican affiliate which part of the employee’s pay including all the benefits would be paid_by part by would enable lilly to create a split-pay arrangement he indicates a special problem in the area of k contributions because the puerto rican contribution limit is lower than the u s limit believes a totalization_agreement ’s puerto rican affiliate totalization agreements coordinate two social_security systems a totalization_agreement coordinates the u s social_security system with the social_security system of a foreign_country in two ways first the agreement eliminates double social_security taxation for active workers from one country who are working in the other country second the agreement allows work credits under both systems to be combined to determine if an individual is entitled to social_security_benefits after he or she quits working this enables workers who would not be eligible for regular benefits from either country to receive totalization benefits based on their combined work record the united_states currently has seventeen social_security totalization agreements with foreign countries there is no need for a totalization_agreement with puerto rico although puerto rico is generally treated as foreign for federal_income_tax purposes sec_3121 of the internal_revenue_code provides that puerto rico is treated as part of the united_states for purposes of the social_security_tax puerto rican employers are required to withhold and pay tax into the u s social_security system our existing totalization agreements are all with foreign countries that maintain their own social_security systems those agreements are needed to ensure individuals from one country who are working in the other country will not be required to pay social_security_tax to both countries and will receive work credits toward retirement based on their entire work record puerto rico has no separate social_security system that would need to be coordinated with the u s system therefore a totalization_agreement with puerto rico is not necessary sec_401 contribution limits we cannot respond to the taxpayer’s concern about k contribution limits because we do not understand the link between a totalization_agreement and k contribution limits the two appear to be unrelated if your office can obtain more information about the exact nature of the concern i would be happy to address it i hope this information is of assistance to you as requested i am sending this reply in duplicate and returning your enclosure if you have any questions please contact me or grace fleeman at sincerely elizabeth u karzon chief branch office of the associate chief_counsel international enclosures


id cca_2018101214595853 uilc number release date from sent friday date pm to cc bcc subject re need to know question - tpp apma hi thanks for the clarification based on the information you provide below sec_6103 applies here to authorize the disclosure of return_information to your employees hope that helps if you have further questions please feel free to contact me


internal_revenue_service department of the treasury index number washington dc number release date person to contact telephone number refer reply to cc dom corp - plr-118769-99- date date the purpose of this letter is to make a correction to our letter to you dated date plr-119761-98 concerning your corporation prior letter_ruling on page of the prior letter_ruling ruling is replaced with the following the basis of the assets received by controlled will be the same as the basis of such assets in the hands of distributing immediately prior to the transaction described above increased in the amount of gain recognized to distributing under paragraph above sec_362 the basis of the assets received by controlled will be the same as the basis of such assets in the hands of distributing immediately prior to the transaction described above sec_362 no opinion is expressed concerning the federal_income_tax treatment of the proposed transaction under other provisions of the code or regulations or about the tax treatment of any conditions existing at the time of or effects resulting from the transactions that are not specifically covered by the above rulings this ruling is directed only to the taxpayer who requested it sec_6110 of the code provides that it may not be used or cited as precedent a copy of this letter along with a copy of the prior letter_ruling should be attached to the federal_income_tax returns of the taxpayers involved for the taxable_year in which the transaction covered by this ruling letter is consummated sincerely assistant chief_counsel corporate debra l carlisle chief branch by


internal_revenue_service department of the treasury number release date index number washington dc person to contact telephone number refer reply to cc corp - plr-116820-02 date date legend purchaser target sellers date a date b date c company official tax professional dear this letter responds to a letter dated date submitted on behalf of purchaser and sellers requesting an extension of time under sec_301_9100-1 through of the procedure and administration regulations to file an election purchaser and sellers are requesting an extension to file a sec_338 election under sec_338 and sec_338 of the internal_revenue_code and sec_1_338_h_10_-1t c of the income_tax regulations with respect to purchaser’s acquisition of the stock of target sometimes hereinafter referred to as the election on date b all citations in plr-116820-02 this letter to regulations under sec_338 are to regulations in effect on date b additional information was received in a letter dated date the material information is summarized below purchaser is an s_corporation target was an s_corporation that had no subsidiaries all of target’s stock was owned by sellers who are individuals on date a purchaser and sellers entered into a stock purchase agreement for purchaser to acquire all of the target stock from sellers on date b purchaser acquired all of the stock of target from sellers in exchange for cash and certain payments adjusted for changes in stock value it is represented that purchaser’s acquisition of the stock of target qualified as a qualified_stock_purchase as defined in sec_338 purchaser and sellers intended to file the election the election was due on date c but for various reasons a valid election was not filed after the due_date for the election it was discovered that the election had not been filed subsequently this request was submitted under sec_301_9100-1 for an extension of time to file the election the period of limitations on assessment under sec_6501 has not expired for purchaser’s target’s or sellers’ taxable years in which the acquisition occurred the taxable years in which the election should have been filed or any taxable years that would have been affected by the election had it been timely filed sec_338 permits certain stock purchases to be treated as asset acquisitions if the purchasing_corporation makes or is treated as having made a sec_338 election or a sec_338 election and the acquisition is a qualified_stock_purchase sec_338 permits the purchasing and selling corporations to elect jointly to treat the target_corporation as deemed to sell all of its assets and distribute the proceeds in complete_liquidation a sec_338 election may be made for target only if purchaser acquires stock meeting the requirements of sec_1504 from a selling_consolidated_group a selling affiliate or the s_corporation shareholders in a qualified_stock_purchase sec_1_338_h_10_-1t c under sec_301_9100-1 the commissioner has discretion to grant a reasonable extension of time to make a regulatory election or a statutory election but no more than six months except in the case of a taxpayer who is abroad under all subtitles of the internal_revenue_code except subtitles e g h and i sec_301_9100-1 through provide the standards the commissioner will use to determine whether to grant an extension of time to make a regulatory election sec_301_9100-1 sec_301_9100-2 provides automatic extensions of time for making certain elections requests for relief under sec_301_9100-3 will be granted when the taxpayer provides evidence to establish that the taxpayer acted reasonably and in good_faith and that granting relief will not prejudice the plr-116820-02 interests of the government sec_301_9100-3 in this case the time for filing the election is fixed by the regulations ie sec_1_338_h_10_-1t c therefore the commissioner has discretionary authority under sec_301_9100-1 to grant an extension of time for purchaser and sellers to file the election provided purchaser and sellers show they acted reasonably and in good_faith the requirements of sec_301_9100-1 and sec_301_9100-3 are satisfied and granting relief will not prejudice the interests of the government information affidavits and representations submitted by purchaser sellers company official and tax professional explain the circumstances that resulted in the failure to timely file a valid election the information establishes that purchaser reasonably relied on a qualified_tax professional who failed to make or advise purchaser to make the election the request for relief was filed before the failure to make the election was discovered by the internal_revenue_service and that the government will not be prejudiced if relief is granted see sec_301_9100-3 and v based on the facts and information submitted including the representations made we conclude that purchaser and sellers have shown they acted reasonably and in good_faith the requirements of sec_301_9100-1 and sec_301_9100-3 are satisfied and granting relief will not prejudice the interests of the government accordingly an extension of time is granted under sec_301_9100-1 until days from the date on this letter for purchaser and sellers to file the election with respect to the acquisition of the stock of target as described above within days of the date on this letter purchaser and sellers must file the election on form_8023 executed on or after the date on this letter in accordance with sec_1_338_h_10_-1t c and the instructions to the form a copy of this letter must be attached to form_8023 within days of the date on this letter all relevant parties must file or amend as applicable all returns and amended returns if any necessary to report the transaction as a sec_338 transaction for the taxable_year in which the transaction was consummated and for any other affected_taxable_year a copy of this letter and a copy of form_8023 must be attached to the returns the above extension of time is conditioned on the taxpayers' purchaser's sellers’ and target’s tax_liability if any being not lower in the aggregate for all years to which the election applies than it would have been if the election had been timely made taking into account the time_value_of_money no opinion is expressed as to the taxpayers’ tax_liability for the years involved a determination thereof will be made by the applicable director’s office upon audit of the federal_income_tax returns involved further no opinion is expressed as to the federal_income_tax effect if any if it is determined that the taxpayers’ tax_liability is lower sec_301_9100-3 plr-116820-02 we express no opinion as to whether the acquisition sale of the target stock qualifies as a qualified_stock_purchase under sec_338 whether the acquisition sale of target stock qualifies for sec_338 treatment or any other tax consequences arising from the election in addition we express no opinion as to the tax consequences of filing the election late under the provisions of any other section of the code and regulations or as to the tax treatment of any conditions existing at the time of or resulting from filing the election late that are not specifically set forth in the above ruling for purposes of granting relief under sec_301_9100-1 we relied on certain statements and representations made by the taxpayers however the director should verify all essential facts in addition notwithstanding that an extension is granted under sec_301_9100-1 to file the election penalties and interest that would otherwise be applicable if any continue to apply purchaser must provide sellers with a copy of this letter this letter is directed only to the taxpayer s who requested it sec_6110 provides that it may not be used or cited as precedent pursuant to the power_of_attorney on file in this office a copy of this letter is being sent to the taxpayer sincerely yours ken cohen senior technician reviewer branch office of associate chief_counsel corporate


i sw gus internal_revenue_service ga- ee department of the treasury washington dc contact persov telephone number in reference to date may j999 op 0-t- dear sir or madam this is in reference to your letter of date requesting advance approval of your grant-making procedures under sec_4945 of the internal_revenue_code in a letter dated date you were granted recognition of exemption under sec_501 classified a sec_509 of the code and a private_foundation within the meaning of section in furtherance of your exempt purposes you propose to make scholarship grants each year to between three and six high school students to enable the recipient to complete an undergraduate education at the college or other educational_institution of his or her choice scholarship recipients will be chosen from b c and d in the eb the basic criterion for selection will be academic state of achievement in high school by placement in the top of the in addition students who have a financial graduating class need will be given priority consideration but it will not be required criterion a scholarship recipient must be a candidate_for_a_degree at a qualifying educational_institution defined as one which normally maintains a regular faculty and curriculum and normally has a regularly organized body of students in attendance at the place where the educational activities occur your trustees will contact high school administrators and guidance counselors to advise them of the availability of scholarships and to request that deserving students submit completed application forms to the guidance counselors of the respective schools who will select four candidates whose cep list fan ferme ail be feruriedecd ber rten mr n i t n a w the trustees will select the scholarship recipients from among students who have been selected as finalists each scholarship will be paid directly to the educational_institution for_the_use_of the scholarship recipient educational_institution must agree in writing to use the funds to defray the scholarship recipient’s expenses or to pay the funds or a portion thereof to the recipient only if the recipient is enrolled at such educational_institution and his or her standing at such educational_institution is consistent with the purposes and conditions of the grant each scholarship grants are required to be awarded on an objective and nondiscriminatory basis awarded to your creator trustees officers or to any disqualified_person with respect to you or for a purpose that is inconsistent with the purposes described in sec_170 b no grants are to be you will investigate any possible misuse of funds and seek recovery_of any misused funds sec_4945 of the code provides for the imposition of taxes on each taxable_expenditure of a private_foundation sec_4945 of the code provides that the term taxable_expenditure private_foundation as or other similar purposes by such individual unless such grant satisfies the requirements of sec_4945 means any amount_paid or incurred by a an individual for travel study a grant to sec_4945 of the code provides that section shall not apply to an individual grant awarded on an d objective and nondiscriminatory basis pursuant to approved in advance by the secretary if is demonstrated to the satisfaction of the secretary that the grant constitutes a scholarship or fellowship_grant which is subject_to the provisions of sec_117 educational_institution described in sec_170 the code to be used for study at a procedure a ii of and is an it based upon the information submitted and assuming your program will be conducted as proposed with a view to providing objectivity and nondiscrimination in the awarding of scholarship grants we rule that your procedures for the awarding of scholarship grants comply with the requirements of sec_4945 with these procedures will not constitute taxable_expenditures within the meaning of sec_4945 are eligible for the exclusion from income provided for thus expenditures made in accordance of the code of the code and as such in sec_117 actually used for qualified_tuition_and_related_expenses within the meaning of sec_117 of the code to the extent that such grants are of the code this ruling is conditioned on the understanding that there is based is further conditioned on the premise that no grants will be will be no material changes in the facts upon which it it awarded to creators officers directors trustees or members of the selection committee or for a purpose inconsistent with the purposes described in sec_170 b of the code please note that this ruling is only applicable to grants awarded under your program as outlined above before you enter into any other scholarship programs you should submit a request for advance approval of that program we are informing your key district_director of this action please keep a copy of this ruling with your organization's permanent records this ruling is directed only to the organization that requested it may not be used or cited as precedent sec_6110 of the code provides that it sincerely yours gerald v sack chief exempt_organizations technical branch


william prentice cooper iii petitioner v commissioner of internal revenue respondent docket nos 24178-09w 24179-09w filed date p filed two claims for a whistleblower award with r under sec_7623 i r c r sent a letter to p denying the claims because an award_determination could not be made under sec_7623 i r c p subsequently filed petitions in this court seeking review of r’s denial of the whistleblower claims r filed motions to dismiss these cases for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that no determination notice under sec_7623 i r c was sent to p to which p objected that the letter r sent was a valid determination notice held r’s letter was a determination conferring jurisdiction on this court we shall therefore deny r’s motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction joseph g giannola and robert j mauceri for petitioner holly h styles and alex shlivko for respondent verdate 0ct date jkt po frm fmt sfmt v files cooper sheila cooper v commissioner opinion kroupa judge these cases are before the court on respondent’s motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction we decide for the first time whether a letter sent by respondent to petitioner denying petitioner’s whistleblower claims con- stitutes a determination within the meaning of sec_7623 that would confer on us jurisdiction to review denial of the claims we find that the letter was a determina- tion and that we therefore have jurisdiction background the following is stated for purposes of resolving the pending motions at the time of filing the peti- tions petitioner resided in nashville tennessee information petitioner an attorney submitted two form sec_211 applica- tion for award for original information to the internal rev- enue service irs in concerning alleged violations of the code he alleged in the two claims that certain parties had failed to pay millions of dollars in estate and generation- skipping transfer_tax petitioner alleged in one claim that a_trust having over dollar_figure million in assets was improperly omitted from the gross_estate of dorothy dillon eweson ms eweson resulting in a possible dollar_figure million underpayment in federal estate_tax he learned of the alleged omission by representing the widow of ms eweson’s grandson who is also the guardian of a pur- ported beneficiary of the trust he also verified the informa- tion by examining the public records and the records of his client petitioner alleged in the other claim that ms eweson impermissibly modified two trusts as part of a scheme to avoid the generation-skipping_transfer_tax the trusts at issue had a combined value of over dollar_figure million at the time of ms eweson’s death in petitioner learned of the alleged violation through his representation of the widow of ms eweson’s grandson he also verified the information by examining the public records and the records of his client petitioner submitted additional information to support the allegation several months after filing the claim he provided all section and code references are to the internal_revenue_code unless otherwise indicated verdate 0ct date jkt po frm fmt sfmt v files cooper sheila united_states tax_court reports newly discovered filings from a new york surrogate’s court_proceeding in which a corporate trustee challenged the trust modifications as designed primarily to evade taxation peti- tioner also provided a legal memorandum and draft legal documents from ms eweson’s attorneys that indicated the trusts were modified as part of a scheme to avoid the genera- tion-skipping transfer_tax respondent’s whistleblower office whistleblower office notified petitioner that it had received the whistleblower claims the office explained that petitioner’s information would be used to determine whether to further investigate the alleged violations the whistleblower office also told petitioner that he would be informed at the conclusion of the review and investigation whether petitioner’s information met the criteria for paying an award the whistleblower office did not contact petitioner again until nine months later when the office sent him a letter denying the claims the letter the letter stated that respondent had considered petitioner’s whistleblower claims it explained that an award_determination could not be made under sec_7623 because petitioner did not identify federal tax issue s upon which the irs will take action the letter further explained that an award was not warranted for either claim because petitioner’s informa- tion did not result in the detection of the underpayment of taxes petitioner filed two separate petitions in this court in response to respondent’s denial of the whistleblower claims respondent filed motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction in both proceedings on the ground that no determination notice had been issued to petitioner petitioner objected to the motions that the letter constituted a determination confer- ring jurisdiction on this court under sec_7623 to review respondent’s denial of the whistleblower claims discussion we decide for the first time whether respondent’s letter denying petitioner’s whistleblower claims constitutes a determination that gives this court jurisdiction under sec_7623 we begin with the tax court’s jurisdiction the full text of sec_7623 is set forth in the appendix verdate 0ct date jkt po frm fmt sfmt v files cooper sheila cooper v commissioner the tax_court is a court of limited jurisdiction and may exercise jurisdiction only to the extent authorized by con- gress 88_tc_1175 85_tc_527 the tax_court is without authority to enlarge upon that statu- tory grant see 92_tc_885 we nevertheless have jurisdiction to determine whether we have jurisdiction 118_tc_348 83_tc_626 83_tc_309 we turn now to an overview of our jurisdiction regarding whistleblower claims i overview of the whistleblower award program the secretary has long had the discretion to pay awards to persons providing information that aids in detecting underpayments of tax and detecting and bringing to trial and punishment persons guilty of violating the internal rev- enue laws sec_7623 the discretionary whistleblower awards have been arbitrary and inconsistent however because of a lack of standardized procedures and limited managerial oversight see treasury_inspector_general_for_tax_administration rept the informants’ rewards program needs more centralized_management oversight date it took an average of years for a discretionary award to be paid and an average of months for a claim to be rejected id pincite moreover most rejected claims did not provide the rationale for the reviewer’s deci- sion because of concerns about disclosing confidential return_information to the whistleblower id pincite congress enacted legislation in to address perceived problems with the discretionary award regime the legislation tax relief and health care act of trhca publaw_109_432 div a sec_406 120_stat_2958 effective date the legislation amended sec_7623 to require the secretary to pay nondiscretionary whistleblower awards and to provide this court with jurisdiction to review such awards a whistleblower is now entitled to a minimum nondiscretionary award of percent of the collected pro- ceeds if the commissioner proceeds with administrative or judicial action using information provided in a whistleblower verdate 0ct date jkt po frm fmt sfmt v files cooper sheila united_states tax_court reports claim sec_7623 the whistleblower ha sec_30 days from the issuance of a non-discretionary award_determination to file a petition in this court sec_7623 the legislation also directed the secretary to issue guidance for the operation of a whistleblower office adminis- tered by the irs trhca sec_406 120_stat_2959 the whistleblower office is responsible for reviewing submitted whistleblower claims or assigning them to the appropriate irs office for review id sec_406 120_stat_2960 the office is authorized to seek additional assistance from the whistleblower if necessary id sec_406 the commissioner issued guidance to taxpayers on filing nondiscretionary whistleblower award claims in early see notice_2008_4 2008_1_cb_253 whistleblowers must fully complete and submit a form_211 id sec_3 c b pincite the whistleblower office will acknowledge receipt of the claim in writing id sec_3 c b pincite the whistleblower office will send correspondence to the whistleblower once a final_determination regarding the claim has been made id sec_3_11 c b pincite final whistleblower office determinations regarding awards may be appealed to this court id awards will not be paid how- ever until there is a final_determination of the tax_liability and the amounts owed are collected id sec_3 c b pincite the commissioner also issued procedural guidance on how whistleblower claims will be processed see internal_revenue_manual irm pt date in general whistle- blower claims will be denied where the information provided does not a identify a federal tax issue upon which the irs will act b result in the detection of an under- payment of taxes or c result in the collection of proceeds see id pt the whistleblower will be notified by the award is reduced in certain circumstances for example the award is reduced where the whistleblower planned or initiated the actions that led to the underpayment_of_tax sec_7623 and furthermore an award is available only if the taxpayer had gross_income exceeding dollar_figure for any year at issue and if the amount in dispute including tax penalties additions to tax and additional_amounts exceeds dollar_figure million sec_7623 120_stat_2960 the legislation also requires the secretary to provide an annual report to congress on whistleblower claims filed and awards issued under sec_7623 tax relief and health care act of publaw_109_432 div a sec_406 120_stat_2960 irm pt was updated on date to provide additional guidance for evaluating a whistleblower claim verdate 0ct date jkt po frm fmt sfmt v files cooper sheila cooper v commissioner the whistleblower office once an award decision has been made see id pt ii analysis a section determination under we must now decide whether respondent’s letter con- stituted b respondent argues that there was no award_determination because petitioner’s information was not used to detect underpayments of tax or to collect proceeds respondent argues that there can be a determination for jurisdictional purposes only if the whistleblower office undertakes an administrative or judicial action and thereafter determines to make an award respondent incorrectly interprets sec_7623 the statute expressly permits an individual to seek judicial review in this court of the amount or denial of an award_determination see staff of joint comm on tax- ation technical explanation of h_r the tax relief and health care act of pincite j comm print the provision permits an individual to appeal the amount or a denial of an award_determination to the united_states tax_court within days of such determination accordingly we find that our jurisdiction is not limited to the amount of an award_determination but includes any deter- mination to deny an award respondent further contends that the letter was not a determination because it was not labeled a determination we find the labeling not dispositive we have held that the name or label of a document does not control whether the document constitutes a determination see 131_tc_47 moreover we have held in other contexts that our jurisdiction is established when the commissioner issues a written notice that embodies a deter- mination 119_tc_252 a form decision letter issued after an equivalent_hearing con- stituted a determination conferring jurisdiction under sec_6330 117_tc_159 a written notice to proceed with the collection action constitutes a determination 114_tc_492 a determination notice is the jurisdic- tional equivalent of a deficiency_notice pursuant to sec_6212 verdate 0ct date jkt po frm fmt sfmt v files cooper sheila united_states tax_court reports respondent’s letter was issued in accordance with the award_determination procedures these procedures were established in the irm and notice_2008_4 respondent issued the letter to petitioner after receiving and reviewing the whistleblower claims respondent issued the letter to peti- tioner after several months of investigating whether to pursue the claims the letter states respondent’s final conclu- sion that petitioner is not entitled to an award and provides an explanation for this conclusion moreover respondent’s reasons for denying the claim are taken verbatim from the irm list of possible reasons for denying claims see irm pt there is no dispute that the letter put mr cooper on sufficient notice to file a petition with this court as he did so timely respondent’s letter is therefore a deter- mination because it constitutes a final administrative deci- sion regarding petitioner’s whistleblower claims in accord- ance with the established procedures accordingly we find that we have jurisdiction to review the denial of the claims for the foregoing reasons we shall deny respondent’s motions to dismiss appropriate orders will be issued sec_7623 provides as follows appendix sec_7623 awards to whistleblowers - in general -if the secretary proceeds with any administrative or judicial action described in subsection a based on information brought to the secretary’s attention by an individual such individual shall sub- ject to paragraph receive as an award at least percent but not more than percent of the collected_proceeds resulting from the action or from any settlement in response to such action the determination of the amount of such award by the whistleblower office shall depend upon the extent to which the individual substantially contributed to such action award in case of less substantial contribution - a in general -in the event the action described in paragraph is one which the whistleblower office determines to be based prin- cipally on disclosures of specific allegations other than information provided by the individual described in paragraph resulting from a judicial or administrative hearing from a governmental report hearing audit or investigation or from the news media the whistle- verdate 0ct date jkt po frm fmt sfmt v files cooper sheila cooper v commissioner blower office may award such sums as it considers appropriate but in no case more than percent of the collected_proceeds including penalties interest additions to tax and additional_amounts resulting from the action including any related actions or from any settlement in response to such action taking into account the significance of the individual’s information and the role of such individual and any legal_representative of such individual in contributing to such action b nonapplication of paragraph where individual is original source of information -subparagraph a shall not apply if the information resulting in the initiation of the action described in para- graph was originally provided by the individual described in para- graph reduction in or denial of award -if the whistleblower office determines that the claim for an award under paragraph or is brought by an individual who planned and initiated the actions that led to the underpayment_of_tax or actions described in subsection a then the whistleblower office may appropriately reduce such award if such individual is convicted of criminal conduct arising from the role described in the preceding sentence the whistleblower office shall deny any award appeal of award_determination -any determination regarding an award under paragraph or may within days of such determination be appealed to the tax_court and the tax_court shall have jurisdiction with respect to such matter application of this subsection -this subsection shall apply with respect to any action- a against any taxpayer but in the case of any individual only if such individual’s gross_income exceeds dollar_figure for any taxable_year subject_to such action and b if the tax penalties interest additions to tax and additional_amounts in dispute exceed dollar_figure additional rules - a no contract necessary -no contract with the internal rev- enue service is necessary for any individual to receive an award under this subsection b representation -any individual described in paragraph or may be represented by counsel c submission of information -no award may be made under this subsection based on information submitted to the secretary unless such information is submitted under penalty of perjury f verdate 0ct date jkt po frm fmt sfmt v files cooper sheila