|
||||
|
||||
The Fabricated Unwind Doctrine: The True Meaning of Penn v. RobertsonJohn PrebbleVictoria University of Wellington; Institut für Österreichisches und Internationales Steuerrecht, Wirtschaftsuniversität Wien; Monash University Chye-Ching HuangUniversity of Auckland 2011 Hastings Business Law Journal, Vol. 7, No. 1, 2011 Victoria University of Wellington Legal Research Paper No. 17/2011 Abstract: When taxpayers discover that their transactions have unwanted tax consequences, they routinely rely on the unwind doctrine found in Internal Revenue Service Revenue Rulings 80-58. Nowadays, “unwinding” has become a “common if not ubiquitous feature of tax practice.” This article finds that the unwind doctrine has no firm basis in case law. Instead, the unwind doctrine is an Internal Revenue Service (IRS) fabrication based on the IRS’s misinterpretation of the case Penn v. Robertson 115 F2d 167 (4th Cir 1940). If the authors are correct one result may be that recipients of TARP-funded bonuses who gave the money back in the face of public opprobrium may (a) be taxable on the bonuses and (b) be unable to set the repayment off against taxable receipts in calculating their taxable income.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 52 Keywords: income tax, tax law refrom, unwind doctrine, unwanted tax consequences, rescission doctrine JEL Classification: K34 Accepted Paper SeriesDate posted: March 8, 2011 ; Last revised: September 2, 2011Suggested CitationContact Information
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||
© 2013 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
FAQ
Terms of Use
Privacy Policy
Copyright
This page was processed by apollo2 in 0.359 seconds