department of the treasury internal_revenue_service washington d c contact person identification_number telephone number employer_identification_number tax_exempt_and_government_entities_division release number release date date march vil legend you state z supported charity donors corporation attorney_general dear we have considered your ruling_request dated date concerning whether the stock holdings in corporation are exempt from the application of the excess_business_holdings_excise_tax under sec_4943 of the internal_revenue_code_of_1986 as amended hereafter code’ facts you are a charitable_trust formed in state z in you provide annual grants to fund a scholarship program operated by supported charity a community_foundation the scholarship program provides educational opportunities for students of state z who do not have sufficient resources to pursue post-secondary education you and supported charity have selected three state z colleges and universities for participation in your scholarship program in the next eight years you plan to more than triple the size of your scholarship program by adding students and expanding the number of public institutions served from three to eight you are recognized by the internal_revenue_service as an exempt_organization under code sec_501 and are classified as a type_iii_supporting_organization under code sec_509 you are governed by seven trustees four of which are independent of donors one of the independent trustees is appointed by supported charity the remaining three trustees are the current president of corporation and donors’ two daughters donors have contributed to you cash and corporation stock you fund your scholarship program with dividends from corporation stock and cash gifted to you by donors the expansion of your scholarship program is to be funded by additional contributions of corporation stock and cash from donors and the corresponding increase in dividends received as a result of additional corporation stock contributions donors and their daughters own percent of the voting_stock of corporation donors have contributed to you a total of dollar_figure percent of the voting_stock of corporation by donors expect to have made additional annual contributions of corporation voting_stock to you raising your total holdings of said stock to dollar_figure percent you represent that donors and their daughters have expressed an intention to donate to you percent of corporation voting_stock currently owned by them and is considered a business_enterprise within the meaning of sec_4943 of the code corporation operates a business as a corporation in state z you are concerned that as your ownership of corporation stock exceed sec_2 percent of the corporation's total outstanding shares coupled with the shares held by donors and their daughters you would be subject_to the excess_business_holdings_excise_tax under sec_4943 of the code you represent that your ability to fund your scholarship program would be severely limited if you are forced to partially dispose_of your corporation stock holdings or limit your retention of future gifts of corporation stock you further represent that such a limitation would significantly reduce the aggregate number of scholarships you can award from through you state that a significant reduction in the anticipated number of scholarships awarded would impose a considerable restraint on access to higher education for thousands of capable but financially needy students and have a significant impact on state z and its colleges and universities you believe that an exemption from the excess business holding provisions will avoid the significant detrimental impact on your scholarship program the attorney_general of state z analyzed the impact on the community of eligible students and participating institutions that would result from your inability to fund your current scholarship program and your planned expansion because of a potential forced disposition of your corporation stock holdings the attorney_general also considered the potential economic impact on the community of state z that such a forced disposition might cause to evaluate the impact this disposition would cause the attorney general's office interviewed and collected information from supported charity's staff financial aid officers at the three participating public institutions the president of one of the universities participating students and other charitable organizations the attorney_general found that your scholarship program has enabled hundreds of students to obtain a college degree and that your plans to triple the program by adding more students and expand the program to eight public institutions would benefit hundreds of more students the attorney general's office also considered the expert opinion of an investment banker the investment banker reported to the attorney_general that because of corporation's dominant market position only an out-of-state purchaser would have the resources to enable it to purchase corporation sale to an out-of-state purchaser would result in a loss of jobs within the state a decrease in the investment of capital in the state and disruption to the scholarship program thus the attorney_general determined that a forced disposition of stock would have a severe detrimental impact on the community of students that would be eligible for scholarships the public higher education community and a severe detrimental economic impact on the community you entered into a memorandum of understanding with the attorney_general of state z the memorandum of understanding reflects your agreement and commitment to i pay annually to supported charity a minimum cash amount equal to percent or a lesser percentage if the secretary issues regulations establishing a payout rate below percent of the value of your assets valued on the last day of the preceding calendar_year ii provide prompt written notification to the attorney_general of state z of any intention to offer for sale shares of corporation stock other than the repurchase of shares by corporation iii expand the funding of the foundation scholarship program and iv submit a yearly report on march each year through to attorney_general of state z describing its progress of implementing the expansion of your scholarship program and explaining any material reduction in the planned expansion that may occur in any given year requested ruling you have requested a ruling that your corporation stock holdings are exempt from taxes imposed on excess_business_holdings pursuant to the secretary's authority under sec_4943 of the internal_revenue_code statement of the law sec_501 of the code exempts from federal_income_tax organizations organized and operated exclusively for charitable educational and other purposes provided that no part of the net_earnings inure to the benefit of any private_shareholder_or_individual sec_509 of the code excludes from the term private_foundation an organization which a is organized and at all times thereafter is operated exclusively for the benefit of to perform the functions of or to carry out the purposes of one or more organizations described in sec_509 or commonly referred to as a public charity b is operated supervised or controlled by or in connection with one or more publicly supported organizations and c is not controlled directly or indirectly by one or more disqualified persons sec_4943 of the code defines a type ill supporting_organization as an organization that meets the requirements of subparagraphs a and c of sec_509 and which is operated in connection with one or more public_charities sec_4943 of the code defines a functionally integrated type ii supporting_organization as a type_iii_supporting_organization that is not required under regulations established by the secretary to make payments to supported organizations due to the activities of the organization related to performing the functions or or carrying out the purposes of such supported organizations sec_4943 of the code imposes an excise_tax on the excess_business_holdings of any private_foundation in a business_enterprise during any taxable_year sec_4943 of the code provides for the application of the excise_tax on excess_business_holdings to a sec_509 type ii supporting_organization other than a functionally integrated type ii supporting_organization as if it was a private_foundation sec_4943 of the code defines the term excess_business_holdings to mean with respect to the holdings of any private_foundation in any business_enterprise the amount of stock or other interest in the enterprise which the foundation would have to dispose_of to a person other than a disqualified_person in order for the remaining holdings of the foundation in such enterprise to be permitted holdings sec_4943 of the code provides that permitted holdings in a corporation are percent of the voting_stock reduced by the percentage of the voting_stock owned by all disqualified persons sec_4943 of the code provides for a percent de_minimis_rule where a private_foundation shall not be treated as having excess_business_holdings in any corporation in which it does not own more than percent of the voting_stock and not more than in value of all outstanding shares of all classes of stock sec_4943 of the code excludes application of the excess_business_holdings tax to a supporting organization's holdings if the secretary determines that such holdings are consistent with the purpose or function constituting the basis for its exemption under sec_501 sec_4943 of the code directly and by reference to sec_4958 and defines the term disqualified_person sec_4958 of the code as adopted for purposes of sec_4943 describes a percent controlled_entity as a corporation in which disqualified persons own more than percent of the total combined voting power of the corporation such disqualified persons are described in sec_4943 as persons who for the last five years are in a position to exercise substantial influence over the affairs of the corporation or any member of such persons’ family as defined in sec_4958 when reviewing a request for exemption under sec_4943 of the code the legislative_history indicates that the secretary should consider the views of the state attorney_general as well as any additional factors that the staff of the joint_committee on taxation might enumerate in its technical explanation of the pension_protection_act of pub_l_no 120_stat_780 additionally the legislative_history suggests that the secretary may also consider as additional factors whether the shares held by donors and related_persons are controlling or whether donors and related_persons are bound to ultimately contribute all but a de_minimis amount shares to the organization and that they have no direct or indirect control_over the organization and its investments see cong rec s8754 - dollar_figure date in its technical explanation the staff of the joint_committee on taxation listed the following factors that the secretary should consider in making its determination a reasoned determination by the state attorney_general with jurisdiction over the supporting_organization that disposition of the holdings would have a severe detrimental impact on the community and a binding commitment by the supporting_organization to pay out at least five percent of the value of the organization's assets each year to its supported organizations a reasoned determination would require among other things evidence that any such determination was made pursuant to a serious study by the state attorney_general of the issues involved in disposing the excess holdings and findings by the state attorney_general about the detrimental economic impact that would result from such disposition lf as a result of such state attorney general's study and findings the state attorney_general directed as a matter of state law that permission of the state would be required prior to any sale of the holdings such a factor should be given strong consideration by the secretary technical explanation of h_r the pension_protection_act of as passed by the house on date and as considered by the senate on date jcx-38-06 pincite analysis generally under sec_4943 of the code a type_iii_supporting_organization other than one that is functionally integrated and all disqualified persons may not hold more than percent of the voting_stock of a corporation you are a type ill supporting_organization that is not functionally integrated you have received and will continue to receive a series of donations of corporation voting_stock from donors which places your total holdings of corporation voting_stock in excess of the percent de_minimis_rule under sec_4943 although this would exceed the permitted holdings under sec_4943 sec_4943 provides that the secretary may exempt the excess_business_holdings of a supporting_organization from the excess_business_holdings_excise_tax if the secretary determines that such holdings are consistent with the purpose or function constituting the basis for the organization's exemption under code sec_501 the attorney_general of state z has submitted a reasoned determination supported by findings made pursuant to a serious study the attorney_general found that limiting your corporation stock holdings to the permitted_holding provisions of sec_4943 of the code would have a severe detrimental impact on higher education in state z the attorney_general also found that a potential disposition of the holding would have a severe detrimental economic impact on state z you represent that the donors and their daughters are not in control of the corporation they own less than percent of the voting_stock of corporation an analogous provision sec_4958 of the code provides that a corporation is not a controlled_entity if disqualified persons own less than percent of the voting_stock you have also made a binding commitment with the attorney_general of the state of z that you would pay-out cash equal to percent or a lesser amount determined by future treasury regulations of the value finally you have agreed to notify the attorney of your assets each year to supported charity general before you intend to sell any shares of corporation stock other than as a repurchase by corporation accordingly based upon the information submitted in your ruling_request we rule subject_to the caveats provided below that you are exempt from the application of the excess_business_holdings_excise_tax under sec_4943 of the code with respect to your holdings of corporation stock donated by donors now or in the future because such holdings are consistent with the purpose or function constituting the basis for your exemption under sec_501 of the code assets this ruling will no longer apply if on an aggregate basis donors or their daughters acquire stock in the corporation that exceed sec_35 percent of the combined voting power furthermore this ruling will no longer apply if you fail to make an annual payment to supported charity of cash equal to or greater than percent of the aggregate fair_market_value of your this ruling will be made available for public inspection under sec_6110 of the code after certain deletions of identifying information are made for details see enclosed notice a copy of this ruling with deletions that we intend to make if you disagree with our proposed notice of intention to disclose available for public inspection is attached to notice deletions you should follow the instructions in notice the code provides that it may not be used or cited by others as precedent this ruling is directed only to the organization that requested it sec_6110 of this ruling is based on the facts as they were presented and on the understanding that this ruling does not address the applicability of there will be no material changes in these facts any section of the code or regulations to the facts submitted other than with respect to the sections described because it could help resolve questions concerning your federal_income_tax status this ruling should be kept in your permanent records you must attach a copy of this letter_ruling to any_tax or information_return to which it if you have any questions about this ruling please contact the person whose name and telephone number are shown in the heading of this letter in accordance with the power_of_attorney currently on file with the internal_revenue_service we are sending a copy of this letter to your authorized representative is relevant sincerely robert c harper jr manager exempt_organizations technical group enclosure notice


t c summary opinion united_states tax_court jose a alonso petitioner v commissioner of internal revenue respondent docket no 8828-12s filed date jose a alonso pro_se peter n scharff for respondent summary opinion dean special_trial_judge this case was heard pursuant to the provisions of sec_7463 of the internal_revenue_code in effect when the petition was filed pursuant to sec_7463 the decision to be entered is not reviewable by any other court and this opinion shall not be treated as precedent for any other case unless otherwise indicated subsequent section references are to the internal_revenue_code in effect for the year in issue and all rule references are to the tax_court rules_of_practice and procedure respondent issued petitioner a notice_of_deficiency for in which he determined a federal_income_tax deficiency of dollar_figure and a sec_6662 accuracy-related_penalty of dollar_figure the issues for decision are whether petitioner is entitled to unreimbursed employee_business_expense deductions claimed on schedule a itemized_deductions is entitled to charitable_contribution deductions is entitled to medical and dental expense deductions and is liable for a sec_6662 accuracy-related_penalty background some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found the stipulation of facts and the attached exhibits are incorporated herein by reference petitioner resided in new york when he filed his petition petitioner was a program administrator for the department of social services for the county of westchester new york county in as a program administrator petitioner managed an electronic system that tracked over big_number cases of in-home pediatric and geriatric care patients petitioner managed this system at the county’s office in new york during regular business hours as a county employee petitioner received both medical and dental benefits although the county did not require petitioner to work from home he used the third floor of his home as office space where he held meetings and performed work-related activities petitioner commuted to work daily with his personal vehicle and also used his vehicle to attend work-related meetings including travel to cincinnati ohio although these meetings pertained to his position with the county the county did not require petitioner to attend any of these meetings in petitioner engaged in fundraising activities for numerous charitable organizations including heart walk for westchester county and the american cancer society he often solicited donations from friends family members colleagues and vendors some of these individuals made their donations online while others gave money directly to petitioner to donate on their behalf petitioner deposited the cash donations he received from others into his checking account and then wrote a check to the organization when he calculated the amount of his charitable_contributions for federal_income_tax purposes petitioner included all the amounts paid from his checking account to fundraising organizations petitioner did not produce any copies of the checks he wrote to fundraising organizations during the year at issue petitioner timely filed his federal_income_tax return claiming deductions on schedule a for medical and dental expenses of dollar_figure charitable_contributions of dollar_figure and unreimbursed employee business_expenses of dollar_figure petitioner attached form 2106-ez unreimbursed employee business_expenses to his federal_income_tax return on form 2106-ez petitioner claimed unreimbursed employee_business_expense deductions consisting of vehicle expenses of dollar_figure parking fees tolls and transportation_expenses of dollar_figure travel_expenses of dollar_figure and other business_expenses of dollar_figure other claimed employee_business_expense deductions included home_office expenses of dollar_figure supply expenses of dollar_figure cell phone expenses of dollar_figure telephone expenses of dollar_figure and internet expenses of dollar_figure on schedule a petitioner claimed a deduction of dollar_figure for union and professional dues respondent issued petitioner a notice_of_deficiency disallowing all of the claimed medical and dental expense deductions charitable_contribution deductions and unreimbursed employee_business_expense deductions for the amount deducted is dollar_figure after the sec_67 reduction of miscellaneous itemized expense deductions by of adjusted_gross_income respondent also determined that petitioner was liable for a sec_6662 accuracy-related_penalty of dollar_figure discussion generally the commissioner’s determinations are presumed correct and the taxpayer bears the burden of proving that those determinations are erroneous rule a see 503_us_79 290_us_111 in some cases the burden_of_proof with respect to relevant factual issues may shift to the commissioner under sec_7491 petitioner did not argue or present evidence showing that he satisfied the requirements of sec_7491 see sec_7491 i schedule a deductions deductions and credits are a matter of legislative grace and the taxpayer bears the burden of proving that he or she is entitled to any claimed deduction or credit rule a 308_us_488 292_us_435 89_tc_816 credits like deductions are a matter of legislative grace a taxpayer must substantiate all expenses by maintaining books_and_records sufficient to establish the amounts of his income and deductions sec_6001 65_tc_87 aff’d per curiam 540_f2d_821 5th cir sec_1_6001-1 e income_tax regs as a general matter petitioner asserts that the records substantiating all the deductions at issue were destroyed during hurricane sandy respondent however requested petitioner’s documentation months before the occurrence of hurricane sandy between the time respondent initiated an examination for petitioner’s tax_year and the occurrence of hurricane sandy petitioner failed to provide any documents substantiating his claimed deductions when respondent requested documents during the examination petitioner’s response consisted largely of faxes of blank pages in addition petitioner did not attempt to reconstruct his records following hurricane sandy and did not provide any corroborating evidence to establish the elements of his expenses the court specifically addresses each claimed schedule a deduction below a unreimbursed employee business_expenses sec_162 allows a taxpayer to deduct all ordinary and necessary expenses paid_or_incurred by the taxpayer in carrying_on_a_trade_or_business the performance of services as an employee is considered a trade_or_business 54_tc_374 thus an employee may deduct expenses that are ordinary and necessary to his or her employment 79_tc_1 in order to deduct unreimbursed employee business_expenses a taxpayer must not have received reimbursement and must not have had the right to obtain reimbursement from his employer see 788_f2d_1406 9th cir aff’g tcmemo_1984_533 generally if a taxpayer establishes that he or she paid_or_incurred a deductible business_expense but does not establish the amount of the deduction the court may estimate the amount of the allowable deduction bearing heavily against the taxpayer whose inexactitude is of his or her own making 39_f2d_540 2d cir in order for the court to estimate the amount of an expense there must be some basis upon which an estimate may be made 85_tc_731 without such a basis an allowance would amount to unguided largesse 245_f2d_559 5th cir parking fees tolls and transportation petitioner offered no testimony or documentation to substantiate his claimed deductions for parking fees tolls and transportation_expenses respondent’s determination on this issue is sustained expenses subject_to strict substantiation requirements business_expenses with respect to any listed_property may not be estimated under the cohan_rule because of the strict substantiation requirements of sec_274 see sec_280f 50_tc_823 aff’d per curiam 412_f2d_201 2d cir listed_property includes any passenger_automobile and cellular telephone sec_280f for these expenses only certain types of other_sufficient_evidence will suffice sec_1_274-5t temporary income_tax regs fed reg date petitioner did not provide any such evidence to substantiate his claimed deductions for automobile and cell phone expenses since he has not met the strict substantiation requirements of sec_274 petitioner is not entitled to any claimed deductions for travel and transportation_expenses and cell phone expenses with respect to listed_property other unreimbursed employee business_expenses other claimed employee_business_expense deductions which are not subject_to the strict substantiation requirements under sec_274 may be estimated under the cohan_rule however there must be a reasonable basis for the court to make an estimate see vanicek v commissioner t c pincite petitioner did not provide any documentation to substantiate his claimed unreimbursed employee_business_expense deductions for union and professional dues supplies internet and telephone expenses see 87_tc_74 finally petitioner has not shown that he was ineligible for reimbursement from the county for any of his employee business_expenses he did not present any evidence regarding the county’s reimbursement policy nor did he claim that the county lacked a reimbursement policy accordingly petitioner is not entitled to any employee_business_expense deductions the court sustains respondent’s determination on this issue home_office expenses as a general_rule sec_280a denies deductions with respect to the use of a dwelling_unit that the taxpayer uses as a residence during the taxable_year sec_280a however permits the deduction of expenses allocable to a portion of a dwelling_unit that the taxpayer uses exclusively and regularly as the principal_place_of_business for the taxpayer’s trade_or_business petitioner alleged that he held work-related meetings in his home in the case of an employee the exception applies only if the use of the home_office is for the convenience_of_the_employer and if there is no other fixed location of the trade_or_business where the under sec_262 basic service on the first telephone line in a taxpayer’s residence is considered a nondeductible personal_expense taxpayer conducts substantial administrative or management activities of the trade_or_business see sec_280a petitioner did not show that the requirements of sec_280a had been met the county provided office space for petitioner which he used regularly during normal business hours given that petitioner’s employer_provided him office space and did not require him to work from home petitioner may not deduct any portion of his home_office expenses the court finds that petitioner has not substantiated any of the above claimed unreimbursed employee business_expenses accordingly the court sustains respondent’s determination b charitable_contributions sec_170 allows a deduction for any charitable_contribution made by a taxpayer during the taxable_year a charitable_contribution is defined as a contribution or gift to or for_the_use_of a charitable_organization sec_170 certain charitable_contributions may be verified by maintaining a canceled check sec_1_170a-13 income_tax regs charitable_contributions of more than dollar_figure must be verified by a written acknowledgment of the contribution by the donee organization sec_170 at trial petitioner claimed that he did not make donations on behalf of others however he admitted to commingling solicited donations with his personal donations petitioner deposited the solicited donations into his personal checking account and then drafted checks from that account to various fundraising organizations at trial in an effort to substantiate his charitable_contributions petitioner produced a copy of a computer screen printout of donations to the american cancer society some of which were associated with his name the printout indicates that petitioner made six separate donations to the american cancer society on the same day date for dollar_figure dollar_figure dollar_figure dollar_figure dollar_figure and dollar_figure the printout also indicates that petitioner again made five separate donations to the american cancer society on the same day date for dollar_figure dollar_figure dollar_figure dollar_figure and dollar_figure when questioned by the court as to why he made multiple contributions to the same organization in one day petitioner explained that he made the multiple contributions because he felt he could afford it petitioner failed to provide any canceled checks or written acknowledgments from a donee organization verifying his charitable_contributions while the court agrees that petitioner may have participated in fundraising activities and may have made personal donations the court is unable to conclude that the claimed charitable_contributions were petitioner’s personal donations alone petitioner has not substantiated his charitable_contributions therefore the court sustains respondent’s determination c medical and dental expenses under sec_213 individuals are allowed to deduct medical and dental expenses paid during the taxable_year that are not_compensated_for_by_insurance_or_otherwise but only to the extent the expenses exceed of adjusted_gross_income a taxpayer must substantiate claims for deductible medical_expenses by furnishing the name and address of each payee and the amount and date paid sec_1_213-1 income_tax regs claims must be substantiated by a statement or invoice from the payee that identifies the patient type of service rendered specific purpose of the expense and the amount and date of payment id petitioner failed to provide documentation to show that he made any payments for medical and dental expenses in accordingly respondent’s determination is sustained ii sec_6662 accuracy-related_penalty sec_6662 and b and authorizes the commissioner to impose a penalty equal to of the portion of an underpayment_of_tax that is attributable to negligence or disregard of rules or regulations or any substantial_understatement_of_income_tax the commissioner bears the initial burden of production with respect to the taxpayer’s liability for the sec_6662 penalty sec_7491 at trial the commissioner must introduce sufficient evidence indicating that it is appropriate to impose the relevant penalty 116_tc_438 if the commissioner satisfies his initial burden of production the burden of producing evidence to refute the commissioner’s evidence shifts to the taxpayer and the taxpayer must prove that the penalty does not apply id pincite respondent determined that petitioner was liable for a sec_6662 accuracy-related_penalty of dollar_figure due to negligence or disregard of rules or regulations and or to a substantial_understatement_of_income_tax we address only respondent’s claim that petitioner’s underpayment for was attributable to a substantial_understatement_of_income_tax under sec_6662 the court does so because a finding that there was a substantial_understatement_of_income_tax alone would be determinative that petitioner is liable for the sec_6662 accuracy-related_penalty see sec_1_6662-2 income_tax regs for purposes of sec_6662 an understatement is equal to the excess of the amount of tax required to be shown on the tax_return over the amount of tax shown sec_6662 the difference is considered substantial in the case of an individual if the amount of the understatement for the taxable_year exceeds the greater of of the tax required to be shown in the return for that taxable_year or dollar_figure sec_6662 petitioner’s return reported tax of dollar_figure respondent determined and the court agrees that the tax required to be shown on the return was dollar_figure thus the understatement_of_tax is dollar_figure ten percent of the tax required to be shown is dollar_figure the dollar_figure understatement exceeds dollar_figure which is greater than of the tax required to be shown on the return respondent has therefore met his burden of production for the accuracy-related_penalty on the basis of a substantial_understatement_of_income_tax a taxpayer may avoid the application of an accuracy-related_penalty by proving he acted with reasonable_cause and in good_faith see sec_6664 see also higbee v commissioner t c pincite sec_1_6664-4 income_tax regs we analyze whether a taxpayer acted with reasonable_cause and in good_faith by examining the relevant facts and circumstances and most importantly the extent to which the taxpayer attempted to determine his proper tax_liability see 85_tc_934 stubblefield v commissioner tcmemo_1996_537 sec_1_6664-4 income_tax regs in order for the reasonable_cause exception to apply the taxpayer must prove that he exercised ordinary business care and prudence as to the disputed items 115_tc_43 aff’d 299_f3d_221 3d cir petitioner did not contest the application of the accuracy-related_penalty the court finds that petitioner is liable for the accuracy-related_penalty we have considered all of petitioner’s arguments and to the extent not addressed herein we conclude that they are moot irrelevant or without merit to reflect the foregoing decision will be entered for respondent


office_of_chief_counsel internal_revenue_service memorandum number release date cc intl b01 qphuynh postu-154100-04 uilc date date third party communication none date of communication not applicable to steven j mandelkorn appeals officer from m grace fleeman international subject nih visiting fellow from china this chief_counsel_advice responds to your request for assistance this advice may not be used or cited as precedent legend ------------------------------------------------ ---------------------- ------------------------ -------------------------- the taxpayer date date date issues whether payments made under a visiting fellow award granted to the taxpayer by the national institutes of health nih visiting fellow program are exempt from u s federal_income_tax under the u s -china income_tax treaty the treaty agreement between the government of the united_states of america and the government of the people’s republic of china for the avoidance of double_taxation and the prevention of tax_evasion with respect to taxes on income effective on date postu-154100-04 conclusions based on the information provided it appears that the payments the taxpayer received under his visiting fellow award are exempt from u s federal_income_tax under article b of the treaty facts the taxpayer was a resident of the people’s republic of china immediately before date the date of his arrival in the united_states the taxpayer came to the united_states on a j-1 visa exchange visitor to engage in research training as a part of the nih visiting fellow program he is not a u s citizen and he has not become a lawful permanent resident_of_the_united_states he participated in the visiting fellow program until date a date that is more than three years after date the visiting fellow program provides research training experience according to the nih website candidates are required to have a doctoral degree or equivalent in the health sciences and not more than five years of relevant postdoctoral research experience at the start of the fellowship period visiting fellows receive a monthly stipend during the award period to cover living_expenses awards are generally made for two years but are renewable for up to five years visiting fellows are not considered employees of nih the taxpayer took the position that his monthly stipends were exempt from federal_income_tax under article b of the treaty however the service disallowed the taxpayer’s claim of treaty benefits for the tax period ending on date on the grounds that he could claim treaty benefits for only the first three years he participated in the visiting fellow program you have asked whether we agree that the taxpayer is eligible for treaty benefits for only three years law and analysis there are two potentially applicable treaty articles article teachers and lecturers and article students and trainees article of the treaty provides an individual who is or immediately before visiting a contracting state was a resident of the other contracting state and is temporarily present in the first-mentioned contracting state for the primary purpose of teaching giving lectures or conducting research at a university college school or other accredited educational_institution or scientific research institution in the first-mentioned contracting state shall be exempt from tax in the first- mentioned contracting state for a period not exceeding three years in the http www nih gov od ors dirs isb isb htm postu-154100-04 aggregate in respect of remuneration for such teaching lectures or research the technical explanation3 to article of the treaty states this article provides that a resident of a contracting state who goes to the other contracting state for the primary purpose of teaching lecturing or conducting research at an accredited educational_institution or scientific research institution in that other state will be exempt from tax in that other state on the remuneration for such activities for a period of up to three years in the aggregate thus for example a resident of china who visits the united_states to conduct research at the national institute of health nih for two years and returns to china for a year and then comes back for another year of research at nih in would be exempt from tax on his nih remuneration for each of the three years however if he stayed at nih in or returned at a later time the exemption would no longer be available the exemption provided in this article is not available if the research is not undertaken in the public interest but for the private gain of a specific person or persons this article is excepted from the saving clause of paragraph of the protocol so its benefits are available to persons who otherwise qualify even if they become u s residents article of the treaty provides a student business apprentice or trainee who is or was immediately before visiting a contracting state a resident of the other contracting state and who is present in the first-mentioned contracting state solely for the purpose of his education training or obtaining special technical experience shall be exempt from tax in that contracting state with respect to a b c payments received from abroad for the purpose of his maintenance education study research or training grants or awards from a government scientific educational or other tax-exempt_organization and income from personal services performed in that contracting state in an amount not in excess of big_number united_states dollars or its equivalent in chinese yuan for any taxable_year treasury_department technical explanation of the agreement between the government of the united_states of america and the government of the people’s republic of china for the avoidance of double_taxation and the prevention of tax_evasion with respect to taxes on income postu-154100-04 the benefits provided under this article shall extend only for such period of time as is reasonably necessary to complete the education or training due to the fact that article covers researchers and the technical explanation included an example involving an nih research program you have asked whether article is the applicable treaty article if so then the taxpayer was eligible for treaty benefits for only the first three years he participated in the visiting fellow program and the disallowance of treaty benefits for subsequent years was correct nih is the sponsor of several different programs that are treated differently for treaty purposes depending on the specific nature of the program compare revrul_80_98 1980_1_cb_368 amounts received under visiting fellow program exempt under article of former treaty with japan with revrul_87_40 1987_1_cb_372 amounts received under visiting associate program and visiting scientist program not exempt under former treaty with japan the technical explanation to article of the treaty does not specify which program was under consideration in our view the payments that the taxpayer received under the visiting fellow program should be eligible for benefits under article b of the treaty the taxpayer was a trainee who immediately before coming to the united_states was a resident of china and who was present in the united_states between date and date solely for purposes of his training at nih the taxpayer was not an employee of nih and his monthly stipend constituted a grant or award from a government scientific educational or other tax-exempt_organization the only issue is whether the period of time was reasonably necessary for the taxpayer to complete his training under the circumstances where a visiting fellow award is renewable for up to five years and the taxpayer participated in the program for fewer than five years it appears that the period of time the taxpayer participated in the program can be considered to be reasonably necessary we recommend that treaty benefits be allowed for the entire period case developments hazards and other consideration this writing may contain privileged information any unauthorized disclosure of this writing may undermine our ability to protect the privileged information if disclosure is determined to be necessary please contact this office for our views please call -------------------at --------------------- if you have any further questions


internal_revenue_service department of the treasury index number washington dc number release date person to contact telephone number refer reply to cc dom p si plr-117152-99 date date legend x t q1 q2 d1 d2 d3 d4 d5 this letter responds to your letter dated date written on behalf of x requesting rulings under sec_1362 of the internal_revenue_code facts according to the information submitted x was incorporated on d1 and filed an election to be an s_corporation effective d2 at the time the election was filed one of x’s shareholders t a testamentary_trust was not an eligible shareholder under sec_1361 x and its shareholders relied on the advice of x’s accountant and did not realize that this caused x’s s election to be invalid until x consulted with an attorney on d4 shortly after d4 all of the x shares held by t were distributed to the beneficiaries for the period from d2 to d4 all of the income of x allocated to t was reported by a beneficiary of t plr-117152-99 in the period between d2 and d4 shares of x stock were transferred to two irrevocable trusts that are not eligible shareholders under sec_1361 x represents that the trusts q1 and q2 were intended to be qualified subchapter_s trusts qssts effective d3 however the beneficiaries or their legal representatives did not make the qsst elections x and its shareholders relied on the advice of x’s accountant and did not realize that the transfer of x’s stock to q1 and q2 was a termination event until x consulted with an attorney on d5 x represents that as soon as the invalid election and termination were brought to its attention it took steps to obtain relief x also represents that there was no intent to knowingly make an invalid s election or to terminate its s election and that the events that resulted in the invalid election and termination were not motivated by tax_avoidance or retroactive tax planning x and its shareholders have agreed to make any adjustments that the secretary may require consistent with the treatment of x as an s_corporation the service has been asked to rule that x will be treated for federal tax purposes as a subchapter_s_corporation effective d2 x’s s election will not be treated as terminated because of transfers of x stock to q1 and q2 between d2 and d4 and q1 and q2 meet the requirements of an qsst under sec_1361 and thus are permitted shareholders of x under sec_1361 law and analysis sec_1361 of the code provides that the term s_corporation means with respect to any taxable_year a small_business_corporation for which an election under sec_1362 is in effect for such year sec_1361 of the code provides that the term small_business_corporation means a domestic_corporation which is not an ineligible_corporation and which does not have as a shareholder a person other than an estate and other than a_trust described in sec_1361 who is not an individual sec_1361 provides that for purposes of sec_1361 a_trust all of which is treated under subpart e of part i of subchapter_j of this chapter as owned by an individual who is a citizen or resident_of_the_united_states may be a shareholder sec_1361 provides that a qualified_subchapter_s_trust with respect to which a beneficiary makes an election under sec_1361 shall be treated as a_trust described in sec_1361 sec_1361 provides that a beneficiary of a qualified_subchapter_s_trust or his legal_representative may elect to have this subsection apply sec_1361 defines a qualified_subchapter_s_trust as a_trust a the terms of which require that i during the life of the current income_beneficiary there shall be plr-117152-99 only income_beneficiary of the trust ii any corpus distributed during the life of the current income_beneficiary may be distributed only to such beneficiary iii the income_interest of the current income_beneficiary in the trust shall terminate on the earlier of such beneficiary’s death or the termination of the trust and iv upon the termination of the trust during the life of the current income_beneficiary the trust shall distribute all of its assets to such beneficiary and b all of the income within the meaning of sec_643 of which is distributed or required to be distributed currently to individual who is a citizen or resident_of_the_united_states sec_1_1361-1 provides that if a corporation’s s election terminates because of a late qsst election the corporation may request inadvertent termination relief under sec_1362 sec_1362 of the code provides that if an election under sec_1362 by any corporation a was not effective for the taxable_year for which made determined without regard to sec_1362 by reason of a failure to meet the requirements of sec_1361 or to obtain shareholder consents or b was terminated under paragraph or of sec_1362 the secretary determines that the circumstances resulting in such ineffectiveness or termination were inadvertent no later than a reasonable period of time after discovery of the circumstances resulting in such ineffectiveness or termination steps were taken a so that the corporation is a small_business_corporation or b to acquire the required shareholder consents and the corporation and each person who was a shareholder of the corporation at any time during the period specified pursuant to this subsection agrees to make such adjustments consistent with the treatment of the corporation as an s_corporation as may be required by the secretary with respect to such period then notwithstanding the circumstances resulting in such ineffectiveness or termination the corporation shall be treated as an s_corporation during the period specified by the secretary s rep no 97th cong 2d sess 1982_2_cb_718 in discussing sec_1362 of the code states in part if the internal_revenue_service determines that a corporation's subchapter_s_election is inadvertently terminated the service can waive the effect of the terminating event for any period if the corporation timely corrects the event and if the corporation and the shareholders agree to be treated as if the election had been in effect for such period the committee intends that the internal_revenue_service be reasonable in granting waivers so that corporations whose subchapter_s eligibility requirements have been inadvertently violated do not suffer the tax consequences of a termination if no tax_avoidance would result from the continued subchapter_s treatment in granting a waiver it is hoped that taxpayers and the government will work out agreements that protect the revenues without undue_hardship to taxpayers it is expected that the waiver may be made retroactive for all years or retroactive for the period in plr-117152-99 which the corporation again became eligible for subchapter_s treatment depending on the facts conclusions after applying the law to the facts submitted and the representations made we conclude that x’s s_corporation_election was ineffective for the taxable_year beginning d2 because t was an ineligible shareholder of x we conclude that the ineffectiveness of x’s s_corporation_election constituted an inadvertent invalid election within the meaning of sec_1362 of the code we also conclude that x’s s_corporation_election under sec_1362 was terminated when shares of x stock were transferred to q1 and q2 and the beneficiaries or their legal representatives of q1 and q2 did not make timely qsst elections under sec_1361 we conclude that the termination constituted an inadvertent termination within the meaning of sec_1362 we conclude that q1 and q2 meet the requirements under sec_1361 to be qssts and will be treated as qssts under sec_1361 beginning on d3 provided that within days from the date of this letter the beneficiaries or their legal representativess of q1 and q2 file with the appropriate service_center elections to be qssts under sec_1362 with an effective date of d3 a copy of this letter should be attached to each qsst filed with the service_center under the provisions of sec_1362 of the code x will be treated as being an s_corporation from d2 and thereafter provided that apart from the inadvertent termination ruling above x's s_corporation_election was otherwise valid and is not otherwise terminated under sec_1362 this ruling is contingent on x and all of its shareholders treating x as having been an s_corporation for the period beginning d2 and thereafter accordingly all of the shareholders in x in determining their respective income_tax liabilities for the period beginning d2 and thereafter must include their pro_rata share of the separately and nonseparately computed items of x as provided in sec_1366 make adjustments to stock basis as provided in sec_1367 and take into account any distributions made by x as provided by sec_1368 except as specifically set forth above no opinion is expressed concerning the federal tax consequences of the facts described above under any other provision of the code specifically no opinion is expressed regarding the effects of the redemption further no opinion is expressed regarding whether x is otherwise eligible to be an s_corporation 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 plr-117152-99 under a power_of_attorney on file with this office a copy of this letter will be sent to x sincerely yours william p o’shea chief branch office of the assistant chief_counsel passthroughs and special industries enclosures copy of this letter copy for sec_6110 purposes


cca_2018011817033953 id 7508a uilc number release date from sent thursday date pm to cc bcc subject re follow up to our conversation hello -------- sorry for the delay the service credits overpayments to other assessed federal tax_liabilities pursuant to sec_6402 before it allows or makes refunds this is a statutory provision and not a policy nothing in sec_7508a overrides this provision accordingly a taxpayer with both an overpayment in one module and an assessed balance-due liability in another module will have the overpayment first offset against the assessed balance-due liability contrast this with a taxpayer who has both an overpayment in one module and a determined but unassessed liability in another module the service does have policies under which such an overpayment would be held for up to six months irm or could be credited to such a liability irm rather than disbursed because the service hopes to convert its determination into an assessment once assessed the overpayment would then be used to offset the newly assessed liability there would only be an actual refund if the overpayment amount exceeded the amount of the assessed liability plus other offsets under sec_6402 these policies have nothing to do with disaster relief and are not affected by any federally_declared_disaster collection policy could implement exceptions to the refund hold policy and allow overpayments to be refunded to taxpayers who are afforded relief under sec_7508a addresses manual release of a refund hold under specified circumstances including when the taxpayer is in a declared disaster_area and has self identified as an affected taxpayer we did not locate a parallel provision applicable to credits under irm such policy decisions are not made and are not required to be made under the authority of sec_7508a indeed it appears that collection policy has done so irm i hope this helps me if you have further questions about this please feel free to contact --------------- --------------------- ------------------------------------ ------------------


internal_revenue_service department of the treasury index no washington dc number release date dear person to contact john t sapienza jr id no telephone number refer reply to cc dom it a - cor-130694-00 date date commissioner rossotti asked me to respond to your letter concerning obesity and weight-loss programs you asked the internal_revenue_service to issue a revenue_ruling allowing obese individuals to deduct the costs of weight-loss programs as medical_care expenses under sec_213 of the internal_revenue_code the current irs position on weight-loss programs is stated in revrul_79_151 1979_1_cb_116 this ruling holds that if participation in the program was to improve the participant’s appearance general health and sense of well-being the expenses of the program are not for medical_care and therefore are not deductible of course the expenses of a weight-loss program prescribed to treat a specific disease are for medical_care and are deductible we appreciate your suggestion and the references you provided to studies on obesity each year the irs and the department of the treasury review the many suggestions for revenue rulings and other forms of guidance to be published the projects selected are announced in the annual priority guidance plan input such as you have provided is helpful to us in selecting projects for the priority guidance plan i hope this information is helpful please call john t sapienza jr at the number above if you have any questions sincerely associate chief_counsel income_tax accounting by robert a berkovsky chief branch


t c summary opinion united_states tax_court francine edwards petitioner v commissioner of internal revenue respondent docket no 10467-05s filed date francine edwards pro_se jamie j song for respondent dean special_trial_judge this case was heard pursuant to the provisions of sec_7463 of the internal_revenue_code in effect when the petition was filed pursuant to sec_7463 the decision to be entered is not reviewable by any other court and this opinion shall not be treated as precedent for any other case unless otherwise indicated subsequent section references are to the internal_revenue_code in effect for the year in issue and all rule references are to the tax_court rules_of_practice and procedure the issues for decision are whether the court has jurisdiction in this proceeding to review the grant by the internal_revenue_service irs of innocent spouse relief to petitioner’s former spouse and petitioner’s liability should be limited to percent of the deficiency background some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found the stipulation of facts and the exhibits received into evidence are incorporated herein by reference at the time the petition was filed petitioner resided in fall river massachusetts petitioner and jacob edwards former spouse filed a joint federal_income_tax return for petitioner and her former spouse reported dollar_figure on line total income respondent’s third party payer reports however showed that petitioner received and failed to report the following items of income dollar_figure as compensation_for services reported on a form_w-2 wage and tax statement dollar_figure in unemployment_compensation reported on a form 1099-g certain government payments dollar_figure in interest reported on a form 1099-int interest_income and dollar_figure in gross distributions from an individual_retirement_account reported on a form 1099-r distributions from pensions annuities retirement or profit-sharing_plans iras insurance contracts etc respondent initiated an examination based on the third party payer reports during the examination petitioner’s former spouse filed a form_8857 request for innocent spouse relief and respondent granted his request pursuant to sec_6015 the former spouse was relieved from joint_and_several_liability with respect to the deficiency thereafter respondent issued a notice_of_deficiency to petitioner determining a dollar_figure deficiency petitioner has since conceded that she received and failed to report the items of income discussion generally the commissioner’s determinations in a notice_of_deficiency are presumed correct and the taxpayer has the burden to prove that the determinations are in error see rule a 290_us_111 but the burden_of_proof on factual issues that affect a taxpayer’s tax_liability may be shifted to the commissioner where the taxpayer introduces credible_evidence with respect to such issue see sec_7491 the burden will shift only if the taxpayer has complied with the substantiation requirements and has cooperated with the commissioner’s reasonable requests for witnesses information documents meetings and interviews see sec_7491 petitioner has not alleged or proven that sec_7491 applies accordingly the burden remains on her review of the irs’s decision to grant innocent spouse relief petitioner contends that the irs erred in granting innocent spouse relief to her former spouse because he knew about the unreported items of income and shared in the proceeds of their tax_refund the tax_court is a court of limited jurisdiction and can exercise its jurisdiction only to the extent provided by congress sec_7442 88_tc_1175 85_tc_527 see also rules a b with respect to innocent spouse relief claims the court has three jurisdictional bases for reviewing a claim as an affirmative defense in a deficiency redetermination proceeding pursuant to sec_6213 as a stand-alone petition pursuant to sec_6015 where the commissioner has issued a final_determination denying the electing spouse’s claim for relief or the commissioner has failed to rule on the claim within months of its filing and in the context of a petition for review of a lien or levy action pursuant to sec_6320 or sec_6330 see sec_6015 sec_6213 sec_6214 sec_6320 sec_6330 d 119_tc_267 affd 360_f3d_361 2d cir see also 114_tc_354 baumann v commissioner tcmemo_2005_31 hale exemption trust v commissioner tcmemo_2001_89 with respect to a nonelecting spouse sec_6015 does not provide an independent basis for this court to exercise its jurisdiction and to review the irs’s decision to grant relief unless there is a deficiency proceeding where the claim is raised as an affirmative defense by the electing spouse pursuant to sec_6213 the electing spouse has filed a petition with the court under sec_6015 or there is a petition for review of a lien or levy action pursuant to sec_6320 or sec_6330 and the claim for innocent spouse relief is raised as a defense pursuant to sec_6330 see maier v commissioner f 3d pincite cf hale exemption trust v commissioner supra 115_tc_118 corson v commissioner supra baumann v commissioner supra this results because sec_6015 contemplates that the court have jurisdiction only when the electing spouse has timely filed a petition and has satisfied certain other requirements the nonelecting spouse is only afforded a right to notice and an opportunity to intervene once the electing spouse has initiated a proceeding in this court see sec_6015 see also rules a b a and b b here the electing spouse did not petition the court for review under sec_6015 the petition for review did not arise within the context of a lien or levy action pursuant to sec_6320 or sec_6330 and the issue was not raised as an affirmative defense within our traditional deficiency jurisdiction pursuant to sec_6213 therefore the court lacks jurisdiction to review the irs’s decision to grant innocent spouse relief to petitioner’s former spouse joint_and_several_liability petitioner contends that she should not be liable for the full amount of the deficiency rather she argues her liability should be limited to percent since it was a joint_return her former spouse knew about the unreported items and he received the benefits of the erroneous joint_return ie she alleges that he received half of the dollar_figure refund and had the items been reported correctly the refund would have been about dollar_figure in general sec_6013 provides that if a joint_return is filed the tax is computed on the individuals’ aggregate income and liability for the resulting tax is joint_and_several see also sec_1_6013-4 income_tax regs a fundamental characteristic of joint_and_several_liability is that the irs at its option may proceed against the taxpayers separately and may obtain a separate judgment against each see 44_tc_420 the decision to assess or not assess tax against one of the spouses who filed a joint_return does not prevent the irs from proceeding against the other see id see also 98_tc_383 therefore the court has no basis for limiting petitioner’s liability to percent as she requests this is especially true in the light of the fact that petitioner does not qualify for innocent spouse relief in her own right since she admits to receiving and failing to report the items of income petitioner does not qualify for relief under sec_6015 because she cannot establish that she did not know or had no reason to know that there was an understatement_of_tax when she signed the return see sec_6015 and because the items giving rise to the deficiency were directly allocable to petitioner sec_6015 does not provide any avenue for relief see also sec_1_6015-3 income_tax regs stating that erroneous items of income are allocated to the spouse who was the source of the income finally it is not inequitable to hold petitioner liable for the deficiency since she fails one of the threshold conditions for relief ie the income_tax_liability from which the requesting spouse seeks relief is attributable to an item of the other spouse revproc_2003_61 sec_4 2003_2_cb_296 see also id sec_4 a iii b c b pincite stating that actual knowledge of the item giving rise to the deficiency weighs strongly against relief accordingly respondent’s determination is sustained to reflect the foregoing decision will be entered for respondent


of f i c e of c h i ef c ou n sel department of the treasury i n t e r n al r e v e n u e s e r v i c e w ashington d c date cc ita b04 genin-142508-08 number info release date uil ----------------------------- ------------------------ ------------------------ dear ------------ thank you for your letter dated date while we understand the arguments you present for the treatment of termination_payments as capital_gain our position continues to be that such payments are ordinary_income to the recipients moreover every court considering this issue has agreed with the commissioner of internal revenue in holding that termination_payments are ordinary_income and not capital_gain the cases you cite in your recent letter which hold that termination_payments are not subject_to self employment_tax do not conclude that termination_payments are to be accorded capital_gain treatment this letter has called your attention to certain general principles of the law it is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute a ruling see revproc_2008_1 sec_2 2008_1_irb_7 date in addition we enclose a copy of the cover letter transmitting our letter of date to senator shelby if you have any additional questions please contact our office at -------------------- sincerely michael j montemurro chief branch office of associate chief_counsel income_tax and accounting enclosure


department of the treasury internal_revenue_service washington d c jul number release date cc tege eoeg et1 - cor-120977-01 uilc memorandum for from subject office of division counsel associate chief_counsel tax exempt and government entities cc tege eoeg et1 - cor-120977-01 railroad retirement act tax status in accordance with the coordination procedure established between the service and the railroad retirement board rrb the rrb has provided us with its opinion that the following business ceased being an employer under the railroad retirement act and the railroad unemployment insurance act effective date we have reviewed the opinion of the rrb and based upon the information submitted to the rrb we also conclude that ceased being an employer under the railroad_retirement_tax_act effective date please take the appropriate action regarding this business cc will e mcleod


internal_revenue_service department of the treasury number release date index number washington dc person to contact cc psi b01-plr-127475-02 date aug legend x country date dear this letter responds to a letter dated date written on behalf of x requesting a ruling that x be granted an extension of time under sec_301_9100-3 of the procedure and administration regulations to file an election under sec_301_7701-3 to be treated as a partnership for federal tax purposes facts according to the information submitted x is a country entity incorporated on date x represents that it is an entity that is eligible to elect under sec_301 c to be a partnership for federal_income_tax purposes however the form_8832 entity classification election was not timely filed law and analysis sec_301_7701-3 provides guidance on the classification of a foreign eligible_entity for federal tax purposes generally a foreign eligible_entity is treated as an association_taxable_as_a_corporation if all members have limited_liability unless the entity makes an election to be treated otherwise if a foreign eligible_entity has more than one owner it may elect to be treated as a partnership pursuant to the rules in sec_301_7701-3 sec_301_7701-3 provides that an entity classification election must be filed on form_8832 and can be effective up to days prior to the date the form is filed or up to months after the date on which the form is filed under sec_301_9100-1 the commissioner may 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 plr-127475-02 the code except subtitles e g h and i sec_301_9100-1 defines the term regulatory election as including an election whose deadline is prescribed by a regulation published in the internal_revenue_bulletin sec_301_9100-1 through provide the standards the commissioner will use to determine whether to grant an extension of time to make an election sec_301_9100-1 sec_301_9100-2 provides automatic_extension of time for making certain elections sec_301_9100-3 provides extensions of time for making elections that do not meet the requirements of sec_301_9100-2 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 interests of the government sec_301 a conclusion based solely on the facts submitted and the representations made the requirements of sec_301_9100-3 have been satisfied as a result x is granted an extension of time of days from the date of this letter to file form_8832 with the appropriate service_center and elect to be treated as a partnership for federal tax purposes effective date a copy of this letter should be attached to the election except as specifically set forth above no opinion is expressed or implied as to the federal_income_tax consequences of the transactions described above under any other provision of the code this ruling is directed only to the taxpayer on whose behalf it was requested sec_6110 of the internal_revenue_code provides that it may not be used or cited as precedent pursuant to a power_of_attorney on file with this office a copy of this letter is being sent to the taxpayer and the second listed authorized representative sincerely heather c maloy associate chief_counsel passthroughs and special industries enclosures copy of this letter copy for sec_6110 purposes