Chapter 6

54. a) For travel on or after October 1, 2012 and between October, 2011 and September 30, 2012, the maximum per diem rate for high cost areas is $242($177 for lodging and $65 for M & IE) and For any other CONUS locality, $163 ($111for lodging and $52 for M&IE)
(Source: http://tax.cchgroup.com/SmartCharts/template1.aspx?product=PerDiemHighLow&DI=D292B84D-596C-4869-BA4E3686A683122B&U=TempUser2815616&cfu=TAA&cpid=WKUS-TAA-IC_)

b) The author of the decision tree for qualified moving expenses is Sharon Stipe, M.T.A., J.D., and LL.M.
(Source: http://intelliconnect.cch.com.lib.kaplan.edu/scion/secure/ctx_contentbus_kaplan_edu_AC560_1202D_page_VhUUpniKxA_fP7pcmbyT2A_1_htm/index.jsp?cpid=WKUS-TAA-IC#page[34] Interactive Research Aids for Tax Research Consultant, 3, 400, Deducting Qualified Moving Expenses Decision Tree)

c) Yes the credit for the elderly is a refundable credit. Located in the first paragraph and second paragraph gives the percentage of credit which is 15% and also depending on income. Found on Code Sec. 22
Source: U.S. Master Tax Guide (2013), 1302.Credit for the Elderly or the Permanently and Totally Disabledhttp://intelliconnect.cch.com.lib.kaplan.edu/scion/secure/ctx_contentbus_kaplan_edu_AC560_1202D_page_VhUUpniKxA_fP7pcmbyT2A_1_htm/index.jsp?cpid=WKUS-TAA-IC#page[37]

d) The most recent Joint committee on Taxation Blue Book available in the Federal Tax Legislation heading is Joint Committee on Taxation, General Explanation of Tax Legislation Enacted in the 112th Congress (JCS-2-13), February 2013.
Source: http://intelliconnect.cch.com.lib.kaplan.edu/scion/secure/ctx_contentbus_kaplan_edu_AC560_1202D_page_VhUUpniKxA_fP7pcmbyT2A_1_htm/index.jsp?cpid=WKUS-TAA-IC#page[40] Joint Committee on Taxation, General Explanation of Tax Legislation Enacted in the 112th Congress (JCS-2-13), February 2013.

57) a) 2nd Paragraph U.S. Master Tax Guide (2013), 1195.Hobby Expenses and Losses
(Source: http://intelliconnect.cch.com.lib.kaplan.edu/scion/secure/ctx_contentbus_kaplan_edu_AC560_1202D_page_VhUUpniKxA_fP7pcmbyT2A_1_htm/index.jsp?cpid=WKUS-TAA-IC#page[53])

b) Hobby, / Activity for profit- retrieved 3257 documents c) A special election on Form 5213 d) See Tools: Determining Whether an Activity is Subject to Hobby Loss Rules for a decision tree that will help determine if the hobby loss rules apply (Interactive Research Aids 9,310).
Source: Interactive Research Aids for Tax Research Consultant,9,310,Determining Whether an Activity is Subject to Hobby Loss Rules Decision Tree Launch the Determining Whether an Activity is Subject to Hobby Loss Rules Decision Tree Decision Tree Authored by Mildred Carter, J.D. - http://intelliconnect.cch.com.lib.kaplan.edu/scion/secure/ctx_contentbus_kaplan_edu_AC560_1202D_page_VhUUpniKxA_fP7pcmbyT2A_1_htm/index.jsp?cpid=WKUS-TAA-IC#page[57]

58) a) The code is Code Sec. 183(e)). and regulation is Reg. 1.183-1).
Source: http://intelliconnect.cch.com.lib.kaplan.edu/scion/secure/ctx_contentbus_kaplan_edu_AC560_1202D_page_VhUUpniKxA_fP7pcmbyT2A_1_htm/index.jsp?cpid=WKUS-TAA-IC#page[63]

b) Both the 1st and 2nd paragraph. c) d) During my research, I found the tax research consultant to be more efficient and effective than the standard Federal Income tax report as the prior readily gives you different search information under different headings and all information is on the same page . 59) a) Notice 2010-50 , IRB 2010-27 discusses about the Loss corporations: Ownership change triggering limitation on losses: Multiple classes of stock: Fluctuations in relative value: Guidance. It provides guidance concerning how to measure an owner shift in a loss corporation, for purposes of applying the Code Sec. 382 limitation on the use of net operating losses (NOLs), when the loss corporation has more than one class of stock outstanding whose values fluctuate relative to each other. It was issued on June 11, 2010
Source: http://intelliconnect.cch.com.lib.kaplan.edu/scion/secure/ctx_contentbus_kaplan_edu_AC560_1202D_page_VhUUpniKxA_fP7pcmbyT2A_1_htm/index.jsp?cpid=WKUS-TAA-IC#page[3] IRS Notices,Notice 2010-50,Internal Revenue Service,(Jun. 11, 2010) Notice 2010-50, I.R.B. 2010-27, June 11, 2010.[ Code Sec. 382]

b) 2010-21 IRB 691 lists the applicable average premium for self-only and family plans in the small group market in each State for the2010 taxable year and found under the Revenue Ruling 2010-13 . It was issued May 3, 2010.
Source: Revenue Rulings,Rev. Rul. 2010-13,Internal Revenue Service,(May 3, 2010) Rev. Rul. 2010-13, I.R.B. 2010-21, May 3, 2010.[ Code Sec. 45R] http://intelliconnect.cch.com.lib.kaplan.edu/scion/secure/ctx_contentbus_kaplan_edu_AC560_1202D_page_VhUUpniKxA_fP7pcmbyT2A_1_htm/index.jsp?cpid=WKUS-TAA-IC#page[22]

c) I found two titles both talked about regulation 381(a) and are from the same author Debra J. Bennett, CPA, M.S.T. TAXES - The Tax Magazine (2006 to Present), CORPORATE TAX WATCHAllocation of Earnings and Profits: Electivity vs. Administrability,(Aug. 1, 2012) and TAXES - The Tax Magazine (2006 to Present),CORPORATE TAX WATCHCorporate Equity Reduction Transactions Revisited: Part One,(Feb. 1, 2013)
Source: http://intelliconnect.cch.com.lib.kaplan.edu/scion/secure/ctx_contentbus_kaplan_edu_AC560_1202D_page_VhUUpniKxA_fP7pcmbyT2A_1_htm/index.jsp?cpid=WKUS-TAA-IC#page[38]

d) Code section that Federal Exercise Tax Reporter 34,275.01 is involved in is Code Sec. 4701. It is explained in the STANDARD FEDERAL INCOME TAX REPORTER at 33,943.CCH.
Source: http://intelliconnect.cch.com.lib.kaplan.edu/scion/secure/ctx_contentbus_kaplan_edu_AC560_1202D_page_VhUUpniKxA_fP7pcmbyT2A_1_htm/index.jsp?cpid=WKUS-TAA-IC#page[38]

Chapter 7
70. a) According to the program announced in Revenue Procedure 67-6, page 576, this Bulletin, listed rulings
published prior to 1953, which includes MS 347; 1950-1 CB 281 which relates to miscellaneous division (MS) ruling series declared as obsolete. As stated in Revenue Procedure 67-6, many of the older published rulings have become obsolete for various reasons. However, in the case of this particular Revenue Ruling, most of the listed rulings are inapplicable to future transactions because the statutory provisions under which they were issued subsequently have been repealed.
Source: http://intelliconnect.cch.com.lib.kaplan.edu/scion/secure/ctx_contentbus_kaplan_edu_AC560_1202D_page_VhUUpniKxA_fP7pcmbyT2A_1_htm/index.jsp?cpid=WKUS-TAA-IC#page[4]

b) The name of the cases with Court Decision 1787, 1955-2 CB 211 is about Capital gains and losses: Capital asset
defined: Stock and securities: Corn Products doctrine. whereby it shows the Internal Revenue Service suspended its published revenue rulings that relied upon or applied the Corn Products doctrine, pending the United States Supreme Court's decision in Arkansas Best and Subsidiaries v. Commissioner, 800 F.2d 215 (8th Cir. 1986), cert. granted, March 23, 1987 (No. 86-751), which is an additional citation to the case1787, 1955-2 CB 211 which was about the Supreme Court's decision in Corn Products Refining Co. v. Commissioner, 350 U.S. 46 (1955), 19552 C.B. 511, which was construed to permit ordinary income (or loss) treatment for certain business-motivated transactions in stock and other capital assets. Other citations that pulled up in regards to this case is the Internal Revenue Service is suspending its published revenue rulings that rely upon or apply the " Corn Products doctrine," pending the Supreme Court's decision in Arkansas Best, CA-8, 86-2 USTC 9671. BACK REFERENCES: 87FED 1561.21, 87FED 4717.6835, 87FED 4717.6865, 87FED 4717.6868, 87FED 4717.687, 87FED 4717.6936 and 87FED 4717.6977.
Source: http://intelliconnect.cch.com.lib.kaplan.edu/scion/secure/ctx_contentbus_kaplan_edu_AC560_1202D_page_VhUUpniKxA_fP7pcmbyT2A_1_htm/index.jsp?cpid=WKUS-TAA-IC#page[45]

c) The date it was filed with Federal Register on December 29, 2009.Code section it applies to is Code Sec. 304 -Redemption of stock: Controlled corporations: Deemed issuing corporations. The regulations affect persons treated as receiving distributions in redemption of stock by reason of section 304. The text of the temporary regulations serves as the text of the proposed regulations in the notice of proposed rulemaking on this subject published in the Proposed Rules section of this issue of the Federal Register. (Source: http://intelliconnect.cch.com.lib.kaplan.edu/scion/secure/ctx_contentbus_kaplan_edu_AC560_1202D_page_VhUUpniKxA_fP7pcmbyT2A_1_htm/index.jsp?cpid=WKUS-TAA-IC#page[32])

71. a) Revenue Rulings, Rev. Rul. 55-290, Internal Revenue Service,(Jan. 1, 1955) : Rev. Rul. 55-290, 1955-1 CB 320, January 1, 1955. No the Rev. Ruling 55-290 has been modified and Superseded by Rev. Rul. 2001-60 (Source: http://intelliconnect.cch.com.lib.kaplan.edu/scion/secure/ctx_contentbus_kaplan_edu_AC560_1202D_page_VhUUpniKxA_fP7pcmbyT2A_1_htm/index.jsp?cpid=WKUS-TAA-IC#page[11])

b) Revenue Ruling 55-290 addresses capital expenditures; Expenditures incurred by a taxpayer in the original construction of greens on a golf course constitute capital expenditures to be added to the original cost of the land and are not subject to an allowance for depreciation. Subsequent operating expenses for sod, seed, soil and other sundry maintenance constitute ordinary and necessary business expenses which are deductible from gross income for Federal income tax purposes. c) REGULATIONS 118, SECTION 39.24(a)-2: Capital expenditures d) There was only one paragraph talking about the ruling (Source: http://intelliconnect.cch.com.lib.kaplan.edu/scion/secure/ctx_contentbus_kaplan_edu_AC560_1202D_page_VhUUpniKxA_fP7pcmbyT2A_1_htm/index.jsp?cpid=WKUS-TAA-IC#page[13])

73)

a) Revenue Procedure 2002-19, 2002-1 CB 696, March 14, 2002, addresses the accounting methods: Involuntary
change in accounting method: Adjustment period: Advance consent: Automatic change in accounting method.

The code sections involved include: Code Secs. 446 and 481 and Statement of Procedural Rules 601.204]
(Source: http://intelliconnect.cch.com.lib.kaplan.edu/scion/secure/ctx_contentbus_kaplan_edu_AC560_1202D_page_VhUUpniKxA_fP7pcmbyT2A_1_htm/index.jsp?cpid=WKUS-TAA-IC#page[26]) b) In

terms of the current status, since the issuance of Rev. Proc. 2002-19, questions have arisen regarding the application of the new one-year adjustment period to pending or recently approved applications for accounting method changes under Rev. Proc. 97-27 and to applications filed under Rev. Proc. 2002-9. The new revenue procedure, which is effective for tax years ending on or after December 31, 2001, also modifies sections 4.10(1) through (4) and 4.02 of the Appendix of Rev. Proc. 2002-9 to clarify the scope of those provisions and to add certain accounting method changes. Those portions of the Appendix deal with certain uniform capitalization methods used by small resellers, formerly small resellers, resellerproducers, and producers.
(Source: http://intelliconnect.cch.com.lib.kaplan.edu/scion/secure/ctx_contentbus_kaplan_edu_AC560_1202D_page_VhUUpniKxA_fP7pcmbyT2A_1_htm/index.jsp?cpid=WKUS-TAA-IC#page[31])

c) The

Rev. Proc. 2002-19 has been modified and amplified by Rev. Proc. 97-27, Rev. Proc. 2002-9 and also Amplified and clarified by: Rev. Proc. 2002-54

Chapter 8 38) Online University - Campus Offices in Florida a) Under the franchise and Capital Stock Taxes Tab current article State Tax Day - Current,S.8,Florida Multiple Taxes: Floating Interest Rate Remains Set at 7% for the First Half of 2013,(Nov. 9, 2012) State selected Florida: Under the Corporation Income tab current article is State Tax Day - Current, S.5, FloridaMultiple Taxes: Cap for Tax Credit Scholarship Program Increased, (Jun. 27, 2013)
(Source: http://intelliconnect.cch.com.lib.kaplan.edu/scion/secure/ctx_TRUE/index.jsp?cpid=WKUS-TAA-IC#page[18])

b) Most recent case for Florida State under CCH is Cases and Rulings in the News States A-M, FL Alachua County v. Expedia, Inc., District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District, (Feb. 28, 2013) Sales and use c)In the State Tax Reporters the meaning of "Escheat" is defined as the vesting in the state of title to unclaimed property. Florida has made it an official policy that it will take possession of all unclaimed money and property of Florida residents for the benefit of the people and the state. ( Sec. 716.01, F.S. ) Found in 1st paragraph under the Explanation heading Florida State Tax Reporter,37351,Florida,Unclaimed Property. The governing laws in Florida are Chapter 717, Florida Statutes (the Florida Disposition of Unclaimed Property Act) which is the law of general applicability, and Chapter 716, Florida Statutes (the law on escheats) which applies specifically to funds in the possession of federal agencies. The Unclaimed Property Act is essentially adopted from the Uniform Unclaimed Property Act of 1981. A revision of some of the presumptive periods of abandonment (called "dormancy periods" in the Florida statute) was enacted effective December 1, 1996. (Source: http://intelliconnect.cch.com.lib.kaplan.edu/scion/secure/ctx_TRUE/index.jsp?cpid=WKUS-TAA-IC#page[17]) d) Using the topical Index for Multistate Property Tax guide while performing the keyword search for dining car Florida State does not really have any mention of the word Dining Car. But the other states information could be found under cases, Laws or agency materials headings. 40) a) Yes Alaska had a personal income tax. The income tax on individuals and fiduciaries was repealed by Chs. 1 and 2, Laws 1980.
Source: Alaska State Tax Reporter,15-001,Alaska,Overview. http://intelliconnect.cch.com.lib.kaplan.edu/scion/secure/ctx_TRUE/index.jsp?cpid=WKUS-TAA-IC#page[65]

b) For 2013, the Florida tax rate on diesel fuel for 2012, 30.5 per gallon. diesel rate is Connecticut at 51.2 per gallon.

The state with the highest

(Source: Multistate Quick Answer Charts,575-214,Connecticut, Connecticut and Multistate Quick Answer Charts,575-220,Florida, Florida http://intelliconnect.cch.com.lib.kaplan.edu/scion/secure/ctx_TRUE/index.jsp?cpid=WKUS-TAA-IC#page[19])

c) State Tax Day - Current, S.9, and Florida Corporate Income Tax: Revised Limited Liability Companies Act Created, (Jun. 20, 2013) Florida has enacted legislation that creates the Revised Limited Liability Companies Act, but the changes do not affect the current corporate income tax treatment of limited liability companies. The legislation carries over many provisions from the current law to a new chapter with some changes. d) State of Florida 44) a) The taxes in question area sales taxes assessed by the Mississippi State Tax Commission
against the appellant, Complete Auto Transit, Inc., for the period from August 1, 1968, through July 31, 1972. 1) Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Brady, Chairman, and Mississippi State Tax Commission. U.S. Supreme Court, Docket No. 76-29, 430 U.S. 274, 97 S.Ct. 1076, March 7, 1977. Blackmun, J., delivered the opinion for a

unanimous Court. 2) Illinois State Tax Reporter, Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Brady, Chairman, Mississippi State Tax Commission, U.S. Supreme Court, 200-884, 430 U.S. 274, (Mar. 7, 1977) Blackmun, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. Mr. Justice Blackmun delivered the opinion of the Court. b) In Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, 504 US 298 (1992), the U.S. Supreme Court first made a distinction between the Due Process Clause minimum connection requirement and the Commerce Clause substantial nexus requirement, holding that the Commerce Clause, but not the Due Process Clause, barred North Dakota from requiring an out-of-state mail-order company to collect use tax on goods sold to North Dakota customers because the company had no outlets, sales representatives, or significant property in the state. In drawing a distinction between the two tests, the Court reasoned that the Due Process and Commerce Clauses address different constitutional concerns. Parallel citation Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, 504 US 298 (1992) U.S. Supreme Court, No. 91-194 , 504 U.S. 298, 112 S.Ct. 1904, May 26, 1992. reversing North Dakota Supreme Court, May 7, 1991 470 N.W.2d 203, 112 S.Ct. 1904, by Stevens, Justice: Case: North Dakota Sales Tax Guide, Quill Corporation v. North Dakota, by and through its Tax Commissioner, Heitkamp, U.S. Supreme Court, 200-399, (May 26, 1992) c) Wisconsin Department of Revenue (DOR) does not have the power to tax the net income of the William Wrigley, Jr. Company (Wrigley) for the years 1973 to 1978.

Parallel citations 400-058. 400-058. U.S. Supreme Court, No. 91-119, 504 U.S 214, 505 U.S. 214 , 112 S.Ct. 2447 , June 19, 1992. Reversing and remanding Wisconsin Supreme Court, 160 Wis. 2d 53, , 465 N.W.2d 800, 505 U.S. 214 , 112 S.Ct. 2447 , (1991) [CCH Wisconsin State Tax Reports at 203-220, 505 U.S. 214 , 112 S.Ct. 2447 , ]. Wisconsin Department of Revenue v. William Wrigley, Jr., Co., 505 U.S. 214, 112 S.Ct. 2447, 120 L.Ed.2d 174 (1992). William Wrigley, Jr., Co. v. Wisconsin Department of Revenue; Wisconsin Department of Revenue v. William Wrigley, Jr., Co 203-220. Supreme Court of Wisconsin, No. 88-2265, 160 Wis. 2d 53, 465 N.W. 2d 800, February 19, 1991. William Wrigley, Jr. Co., v. DOR, 153 Wis. 2d 559, 579, 451 N.W.2d 444 (Ct. App. 1989) Thomas Creeron III, Assistant Attorney General of Wisconsin, argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs was James E. Doyle, Attorney General. E. Barrett Prettyman, Jr., argued the Cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Andre M. Saltoun, H. Randolph Williams, Barbara J. Janaszek, and Richard J. Sankovitz

Yes there were dissenting opinions. One from Judge Dykman, in his dissent, stated that the majority should have analyzed this case in the context of the manner by which the chewing gum industry sells its product. Id. at 580. Wrigley's salespeople were making the product attractive to induce customers to place an order. Id. Creating an attractive display is an important part of selling guman impulse sale product. Id. Judge Dykman stated that the sum of Wrigley's activities does not remove Wrigley from the protection of 15 U.S.C. sec. 381. Id. Instead, the sum of the questioned activities is de minimis. Id. at 581.

d) Taxed being questioned was the severance tax imposed on mineral production The two clauses addressed in this case were Supremacy Clause and commerce clause Parallel citation U.S. Supreme Court Dkt. 80-581 453 U.S. 609, 101 S. Ct. 2946July 2, 1981. Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Montana, 453 U.S. 609 (USSCt 1981).