TAX POLICY & SAVINGS & LOAN CRISIS.
Term Paper ID:21456
|
|
|
Essay Subject:
Negative economic impact of double-dipping (federal policy allowing S&Ls to deduct losses which were reimbursed tax-free by govt.). Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, reform, retroactivity.... More...
|
15 Pages / 3375 Words
20 sources, 47 Citations,
TURABIAN Format
$120.00
Return to List of Papers
|
Paper Abstract:
Negative economic impact of double-dipping (federal policy allowing S&Ls to deduct losses which were reimbursed tax-free by govt.). Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, reform, retroactivity.
Paper Introduction:
The Savings and Loan Crisis and Double Dipping
This paper will discuss federal tax policy as it affected the savings and loan crisis during the late 1980s and early 1990s. Specifically, the paper will examine the problem of "double dipping," whereby savings and loan institutions were allowed to deduct losses which were reimbursed, tax free, by the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation ("FSLIC"). The first part of the paper will discuss the origins of the crisis and provide an overview of the tax treatment of the losses. The second part of the paper will examine in more detail the special provisions of the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981. The third part of the paper will discuss some of the legislative responses to double dipping since the 1981 Act. The fourth part of the paper will examine the issue of the retroactivity of the subsequen
Text of the Paper:
The entire text of the paper is shown below. However, the text is somewhat scrambled. We want to give you as much information as we possibly can about our papers and essays, but we cannot give them away for free. In the text below you will find that while disordered, many of the phrases are essentially intact. From this text you will be able to get a solid sense of the writing style, the concepts addressed, and the sources used in the research paper.
will examine the problem of double dipping whereby savings the origins of the crisis Tax Act of The third part of the paper The crisis in the savings relatively low interest rates these institutionswere required thrifts began paying more in interest on deposit accounts to more lucrative money market accounts in vast majority of the institutions taxincentives for mergers The Economic Recovery Tax Act interest rule giving the acquiring institution a carryoverbasis in imposed by Section onNOL carryforwards following an acquisition and Section encourage the private sector to bearthe these measures however the thrift loss of billion and areserve fund deficit of billion The few months of locked the government into the RTC questioned the tax treatment Thus if a covered asset of determining whether the acquirerin such a situation This double dipping was costing or expenses Such a deduction that the existing law in this area was unclear of taxes Congress did not Since the RTC and Treasury reports were issued In August of a bill was signed into the Act was being debated previous version of Section Section a basis thus implying that such assistancecould be considered contribution income to capital contribution thus assistancemay be in the form of a ten-year notecarrying interest type traditionallyheld to be consistent with specific services to be rendered by either corporationinvolved to ofa non-shareholder capital contribution the contribution must for the transferee commensurate withits value were notcompensation for any services production of additional income However treating was repealed by the Tax Reform Act taxable The fact that the sectionwas negative shareholder equity constitutedtax-exempt income which created earnings P resulted in a taxable eventto the institution through makedistributions without triggering Section e Thus assistance ischaracterized as Congress intended to provide a tax deductionfor losses rise to loss deductions as a result ofthe high carryover reason otherwisefor the high carryover basis Opponents of the Revenue Code are to question and if there exists ambiguity in the of troubled thrifts avoid taxable events which woulddissipate to provide such a deduction Therefore there is nostatutory or established the principle that reimbursedlosses FSLIC assistance from the amount realized under Section Nowhere assistance payments shouldbe included in the amount realized from a acquirer isentitled is directly connected to the for the loss Section a provides for a deduction of structuredto replace what was lost for less than its adjusted basis or applies to bothSections and Subsequent Legislative Developments Some by ERTAin In prior to the enactment of testimony concerning the assumption thatlosses reimbursed by letter ruling held that acquirers could to coveredlosses and reimbursed expenses The the issue In an explanation of the tax rules that otherwise apply and that provision Section c B which provided Section as explainedabove and Section and the clarification may be the expiration date of the specialthrift tax provisions by one tax benefits from double dipping was basedupon a mistake of fact Thus TAMRA was also contained aprovision which explicitly provides that n o regulation tax deductions for losses and expensesand an exclusion from make Section b retroactive failed This failure has been forcompensated losses even if legislation is not enacted Acquirers have by its own prior conduct Courts have if appliedto a specific case The Service never issued regard to the taxpayer towhom the thecircumstances in which it is laid ruling to clarify thisambiguity Conclusion a double tax benefit for troubled savings statutorylanguage clearly creates them Neither of the assistance agreements made in late Bibliography Savings and Loan Industry Tax Consequences of Financial Assistance the Tax Reform Act of th Cong st Sess Committee Report on Tax Issues Relating to opinion sub nom McDonnell v Commissioner v Commissioner T C Goodstein v Commissioner F d Private Letter Ruling June Private Letter Ruling intonearly as much detail as the Crane article The subject Tax Rev Note Tax Treatment of Savings Loan Mergers R C Cong Rec S daily ed July statement gradesecurities and investment in subsidiaries Crane supra note of Pub L No Stat See Crane Co U S Spragens Saving the June Priv Ltr Rul Dec Treasury Report supra note at Crane supra note at of the Tax Reform Act at Dunn v United States F Supp S D N d Cir Welch v Henry U S policy as it affected the savingsand loan crisis and Loan Insurance Corporation FSLIC Thefirst second part of thepaper will fourthpart of the paper will examine the issue of Up through that period thriftsacquired most of their income rate remained high over a law from raising the amount ofinterest they could lifted theinterest rate ceilings in in an rate home mortgages Congress responded tothe continuing allowed the acquisition of an insolventthrift to qualify as carryforwards of an insolvent thrift not require any downward adjustment law concerning the consequences of capitalinfusions in the Southwest which deflated when oil prices plummeted By were scheduled to expire on January The large Enforcement Act FIRREA Congress authorized the Resolution Under this scheme the FSLIC agreed to RTC report questioned the acquirers' practice fully compensated in addition the that forpolicy reasons assisted institutions should not be minimize their value when sold Act the report concluded that whileCongress In addition Congress did notadequately consider the implications their way through both Houses all containing provisionswhich Provisions of the Act FSLIC Assistance Contribution to assistance shouldbe considered contribution to capital or tax-exempt income income Onthe other hand Section b provides to do with the differenttypes of assistance available to thrift In a private letter ruling in the IRS to preserve the integrity of the banking system Since be deemed compensation for services which isnormally characterized history In the most recent case priorto the Service's decision services it must be bargained and FSLICassistance met all of these criteria The assistance to the recipientcommensurate with its value finally the assistance onlyintended to clarify the existing law the question law prior to Section a was service reversed its previous holding concerning certainFDIC assistance not increase E P distributions to an institution during a merger oftenconsumed P The Legal Context of the Special readtogether permit the deduction of reimbursed losses a D implied adeduction for reimbursed losses do notaffirmatively authorize it It has long been held to adeduction Deductions are found which preclude doubledipping As noted above the drafter's of deduction for losses reimbursed by assistance There is up through contained a strongpresumption against implying such it is necessary toconclude that Section amount realized thetaxpayer's loss or the debt's worthlessness or partial integral part of the asset Commentators haveagreed of the covered asset Sections interpreted as meaning that the type of compensation loss The government was obligated to provide the assistance when from the acquirer to the U S government and the Congress to sanction double dipping In seemed to allow adeduction for a loss reimbursed been argued therefore that Congressratified FSLIC assistance should be excluded from the this ruling there are no regulations sanctioning such deductions special thrift rules were inconsistent not explain what it meant by inconsistent to the receipt of tax-exempt FSLIC assistance under consideration of the Technical Corrections and Miscellaneous RevenueAct Congress bywitnesses but it extended the provisions for another be false Thus TAMRA may be seen assistance taxable to the extent was in effect reimbursed by nontaxable federalfinancial assistance This reimburse the institution or its involved in the transactions to continue Retroactivity The of policy and that such of tax law implicitly approved by Congress lead to unequaltreatment a non-precedential private letter ruling It has been held Courts have rarely invalidated retroactivetax statutes As with other tax provisions allowing double dipping did not not yet been resolved Despite theassertions of the thrift low prices Existing case law requires strict interpretation oftax In addition it seems likely that new Tax Review Note Tax Treatment of Savings Loan Mergers R Report No pt U Act of Congressional Record July vol p Jacobson U S DeMartino v v United States F Supp S Quincy Railroad Co U S Welch v Henry U this area the Crane articlewas the latest Crane Double Dipping Congressional Tax Policy and Pub L No Stat I R include real estate owned by the thrift Issues Relating to the Federal Savings and Loan Boschwitz Crane supra note at I R C Priv Institutions J Corp Tax'n Pub L No United States F d th Cir Dosher v United States May Crane supra note at Id at Staff of the R Rep No st Cong st Sess Commissioner T C aff'dwithout published opinion sub nom McDonnell v The Savings and Loan Crisis and Double Dipping This andloan institutions were allowed to deduct losses and providean overview of the will discuss some ofthe legislative responses to and loan industry had its origins by law to invest most of their assets their deposit liabilitiesthan they could earn from their investments in non-thrift institutions As a result many thrift remainedunprofitable since they continued pay out more of ERTA included three provisions the assets of the acquired thrift Section l F providedthat any assistance payments from a deposit insurance burdens of the costs of saving the troubled industry remained introuble throughout the FSLIC entered into manyassistance agreements paying assistance to many institutions of losses on covered assets The with a bookvalue of was sold had suffered a tax loss on the the government in excess of explained Secretary Bradyin a letter accompanying the report Thus Congressional clarification of the law was perceive the deductibility of lossesto be crucial Congress hasattempted to take action to eliminate deductions for law which assertedthat double dipping in Congress one issue which washighlighted but never attempted to resolve the issue by providing that FSLIC assistance to capital The reason for either The Internal Revenue Service initially characterized FSLIC assistanceas non-shareholder at was made to promote the capital contribution treatment FDIC assistanceshould be the FDIC The Service had essentially followed the guidelines become apermanent part of the transferee's and the asset must be employed in or contribute they were bargained for since assistance as capital contributions negates thepurpose and It has beensuggested that Congress was originally unclear as later repealed may indicate then that Congress later intended torevoke and profits E P This the recapture of its bad debt tax-exempt income by Section a in order reimbursed by the FSLIC These proponents of double dippingargue basis in assets acquired from a failed thrift Thishigh carryover double dipping however argue that while theseprovisions are not be strictly construed andthe taxpayer has the language thelegislative history must be reviewed Thus weight must the benefit derived from FSLIC assistance This legislative basis for allowing a deduction are not deductible Under the amount realized rules in Section can it be found that the taxpayer may sale saying that the right of aninstitution to receive assistance disposition of the asset Even if FSLIC assistance is determined any loss which is not compensated forby insurance or FSLIC assistance is tied directly tocovered losses and bookvalue Thus it is analogous to insurance in that it have argued that the subsequent legislative developmentsdisplayed an the Tax Reform Act of the the FSLIC were deductible In deduct losses on coveredassets reimbursable ruling simply stated that Section did not Tax Reform Act the Joint acquisitions involving troubled thrifts would be subject to thegenerally that Section did not apply irrelevant to theissue The issue year to January The possibility andpractice of double dipping would reduce the amountof FSLIC assistance required without providing a not conclusive as to Congress'intent FIRREA enacted in abolished prescribed underthis section shall permit the utilization gross income of amounts received used as part of the inturn stated that they will challenge such overturned retroactiverevenue rulings in cases where regulations or a formalrevenue ruling concerning covered losses its ruling is specifically addressed Legislation may be applied retroactively must be so harsh and oppressive asto transgress The issue of the deductibility and loans especiallyone which promoted the devaluation of these conditions has really beenmet ArticlesCrane Daniel M Double Dipping Payments to Troubled Institutions Journal of Corporate Taxation Government ReportsU Print U S Congress Senate Senator the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation Assisted F d d Cir aff'd F d d st Cir Holder v United States F d Dec Note To Client There is rather complexand attempting to and the FSLIC Tax Law Crane supra of Sen Boschwitz Crane supra note at at n Id at Id at Dept of supra note at See Cong Rec Savings and Loan Industry Tax Consequences Crane supra note at Id at Commissioner Estate of Bryan v Commissioner T C Crane of at Comm Print Crane supra note at Id Y Goodstein v Commissioner F Crane supra note at during the late s and early s Specifically thepaper part of the paper will discuss examine in more detail the special provisions of the EconomicRecovery the retroactivity of thesubsequent legislative actions in the area Introduction from fixed rate long-term home mortgageswhich had been set at long period of time however pay depositors began moving their money from low-yieldthrift attempt to make the thrifts morecompetitive But the crisis by pursuing a policy of deregulation and a tax-free G reorganization without regard to thecontinuity of tobe used without the general annual use limitation in basis Theintention behind these actions was to and mergers In spite of the FSLIC reported an overall annual net number of agreements made during the last TrustCorporation RTC to review the FSLIC deals In its subsequentreport protect acquirers against lossesrealized on covered assets of disregardingthe FSLIC assistance for the purposes acquirers were allowed to treat the FSLIC assistance astax-exempt allowed a deduction forreimbursed losses The letter also stated however intended that the FSLIC assistance not be reduced by theimposition of this deductibility and the perverse incentives associated with it limited the ability of acquirers to deduct losses which werecompensated Capital or Tax-Exempt Income While Thisconfusion had existed under the that receipt of FSLIC assistancewill not trigger a reduction in institutions They range incharacter from interest noted thatFDIC assistance to a bank which was both of these purposes are public benefits of the as income because there were no facts whichrevealed any the Court had set forth five characteristics for the assettransferred must result in a benefit payments wereintended to improve the recipient's capital structure they payments will beemployed in or contribute to the remains as to why theentire section addedto ensure that these payments were not payments It held that assistance payments whicheliminated a troubled institution's to shareholders in excess of E the acquiring institution's E P and impaired its ability to Provisions It has been argued that Congress must haverealized that Section would give there would be no logical that the deduction andexclusion provisions of by examining the language of thestatutes in Section were concerned withhelping the acquirers nothing in the Congressional Record which indicates that thedrafters intended a deduction The doctrine of amountrealized and Sections and a s exclusion from gross income also requiresthe exclusion of worthlessness TheTreasury concluded in its Report that FSLIC arguing that the amount of FSLIC assistance to which an and willgenerally be interpreted as preventing a deduction received must be such that it was theacquirer disposed of an asset nation as a whole This analysis and Congress extended the special tax provisions enacted by FSLIC assistance While debatingthe Act Congress heard the private letter ruling The amountrealized nor did it examine the applicability of Section and there are norevenue rulings on with the policies of normal The Act didcontain a new Section But a compensated loss is not allowable under of TAMRA This Act extended year because itbelieved that the asratifying the practice of double dipping but the ratification that theamount realized exceeds an asset's adjusted tax basis It provision was added so that financialinstitutions would not receive both successors forsuch losses and expenses An amendment to Treasury has stated that it will challenge deductions action by the Treasury should beestopped among similarly situated taxpayers or be unduly harsh that theService is not bound by these rulings except with statutes the nature of the tax and do unambiguously andacquirers did not seek a private letter industry it seems unlikely that Congress intendedto create statutes and the allowance of deductions only where the legislation may be appliedretroactively to and the FSLIC Tax Lawyer Spragens Janet R Saving the S Congress Joint Committee on Taxation General Explanation of S U S Department of the Treasury Commissioner T C aff'd without published D N Y Estate of Bryan S Treasury RulingsPrivate Letter Ruling July Private Letter Ruling May work I could find None of the other materials went the Savings and LoanCrisis Va C a D I R C l F I loans invarious stages of default delinquent loans non-investment Insurance Corporation Assisted Transactions March Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act Ltr Rul July United States v Chicago Burlington Quincy Railroad Stat Spragens supra note at Priv Ltr Rul F d th Cir Crane supra note at Id at Joint Comm on Taxation th Cong st Sess GeneralExplanation pt at Crane supra note Commissioner F d d Cir aff'd F d paper will discuss federal tax which were reimbursed taxfree by the Federal Savings tax treatment of the losses The double dipping since the Act The duringthe inflationary economy of the s in low-yield homemortgages As the inflation fixed rate home mortgages While these institutions were prevented by institutions edged towardscollapse Recognizing a serious problem the government first in deposit interest thanthey earned on long-term fixed which promoted the acquisition of failing thriftinstitutions Section a D permitted net operating loss NOL agency would bereceived tax-free and thrifts and to eliminatethe uncertainty in the tax s Many invested heavily in commercial realestate with troubled institutions in just before thespecial thrift tax provisions In when considering the Financial Institutions Reform Recoveryand agreements had provided acquirers with capital loss protection for the FSLIC paid the thrift for the bookloss The transaction Acquirerswere declaring tax losses even though these losses were billion In the Treasury Department issued a report stating induces institutions to hold coveredassets and needed Examining thelegislative record of the to the purpose of the Act covered losses Several bills made is not permitted The Special Thrift Tax clearly resolved was whether FSLIC isexempt from taxation thus classifying assistance as tax-exempt thecoexistence of the two subsections probably has capital contribution which would not be includible asgross income stability of banksthroughout the country and characterized as capital contribution In addition theassistance should not established bythe Supreme Court in earlier case working capital it must not becompensation for to theproduction of additional income for the transferee FDIC assistancemust be negotiated the amounts transferred do have value effect of Section a Even if Section a was to the character ofassistance payments under the the tax-exempt status In the wasimportant because capital contributions would reserves underSection e The losses to allowassistance to increase E that the three special provisions in the Act when basis which resulted from Section inconsistent with double dipping they burden of showing that he is entitled also be givento less expansive interpretations of these provisions is not the same however as sanctioning a for reimbursedlosses In addition the law in this area in order forSection to implicitly permit double dipping excludeor disregard FSLIC assistance in determination of the on the disposition of a covered assetshould be considered an to be excluded from the amountrealized on the disposition otherwise This language has been cannot be separated from the transaction which generatedthe provides capital lossprotection It shifted the risk of loss intent on the part of Service issued a private letter ruling which neither instance did italter the provisions It has through FSLIC tax-exempt assistance The ruling didnot discuss whether apply to disallow these deductions Besides Committeestated that Congress believed that the applicable rules after the special rules expired TheCommittee did so as to disallow otherwise allowable deductionsallocable of the deductibility of covered losses was raised duringthe were brought to the attention of windfall to acquirers This assumption turned out to the FSLIC and repealed Sections a and b leaving FSLIC of any deduction or other taxbenefit if such amount from the regulatoryinsurance agencies to argumentthat Congress intended to allow double dipping by those action as an arbitrary andcapricious change such action would alter establishedprinciples only guidance was in the formof unless doing so infringesupon constitutional rights the constitutional limitation In any event thestatutory of losses reimbursed by FSLICassistance during the late s has assets and their disposition atextremely with regard to the deductibility of reimbursed losses under Section Congressional Tax Policy and the Savings and Loan Crisis Virginia S Congress House st Cong st Sess H Boschwitz speaking for the Economic Recovery Tax Transactions Washington D C GPO March CasesCommissioner v Cir Dosher v United States F d th Cir Dunn th Cir United States v Chicago Burlington isn't much published material in rework the page Crane article into double-spacedpages was extremely difficult note at Note supra note at Pub L No Stat Covered assets the Treasury Report on Tax S daily ed July statement of Sen ofFinancial Assistance Payments to Troubled v Jacobson U S see also Holder v supra note at Priv Ltr Rul at I R C b H d st Cir See e g DeMartino v will examine the problem of double dipping whereby savings the origins of the crisis Tax Act of The third part of the paper The crisis in the savings relatively low interest rates these institutionswere required thrifts began paying more in interest on deposit accounts to more lucrative money market accounts in vast majority of the institutions taxincentives for mergers The Economic Recovery Tax Act interest rule giving the acquiring institution a carryoverbasis in imposed by Section onNOL carryforwards following an acquisition and Section encourage the private sector to bearthe these measures however the thrift loss of billion and areserve fund deficit of billion The few months of locked the government into the RTC questioned the tax treatment Thus if a covered asset of determining whether the acquirerin such a situation This double dipping was costing or expenses Such a deduction that the existing law in this area was unclear of taxes Congress did not Since the RTC and Treasury reports were issued In August of a bill was signed into the Act was being debated previous version of Section Section a basis thus implying that such assistancecould be considered contribution income to capital contribution thus assistancemay be in the form of a ten-year notecarrying interest type traditionallyheld to be consistent with specific services to be rendered by either corporationinvolved to ofa non-shareholder capital contribution the contribution must for the transferee commensurate withits value were notcompensation for any services production of additional income However treating was repealed by the Tax Reform Act taxable The fact that the sectionwas negative shareholder equity constitutedtax-exempt income which created earnings P resulted in a taxable eventto the institution through makedistributions without triggering Section e Thus assistance ischaracterized as Congress intended to provide a tax deductionfor losses rise to loss deductions as a result ofthe high carryover reason otherwisefor the high carryover basis Opponents of the Revenue Code are to question and if there exists ambiguity in the of troubled thrifts avoid taxable events which woulddissipate to provide such a deduction Therefore there is nostatutory or established the principle that reimbursedlosses FSLIC assistance from the amount realized under Section Nowhere assistance payments shouldbe included in the amount realized from a acquirer isentitled is directly connected to the for the loss Section a provides for a deduction of structuredto replace what was lost for less than its adjusted basis or applies to bothSections and Subsequent Legislative Developments Some by ERTAin In prior to the enactment of testimony concerning the assumption thatlosses reimbursed by letter ruling held that acquirers could to coveredlosses and reimbursed expenses The the issue In an explanation of the tax rules that otherwise apply and that provision Section c B which provided Section as explainedabove and Section and the clarification may be the expiration date of the specialthrift tax provisions by one tax benefits from double dipping was basedupon a mistake of fact Thus TAMRA was also contained aprovision which explicitly provides that n o regulation tax deductions for losses and expensesand an exclusion from make Section b retroactive failed This failure has been forcompensated losses even if legislation is not enacted Acquirers have by its own prior conduct Courts have if appliedto a specific case The Service never issued regard to the taxpayer towhom the thecircumstances in which it is laid ruling to clarify thisambiguity Conclusion a double tax benefit for troubled savings statutorylanguage clearly creates them Neither of the assistance agreements made in late Bibliography Savings and Loan Industry Tax Consequences of Financial Assistance the Tax Reform Act of th Cong st Sess Committee Report on Tax Issues Relating to opinion sub nom McDonnell v Commissioner v Commissioner T C Goodstein v Commissioner F d Private Letter Ruling June Private Letter Ruling intonearly as much detail as the Crane article The subject Tax Rev Note Tax Treatment of Savings Loan Mergers R C Cong Rec S daily ed July statement gradesecurities and investment in subsidiaries Crane supra note of Pub L No Stat See Crane Co U S Spragens Saving the June Priv Ltr Rul Dec Treasury Report supra note at Crane supra note at of the Tax Reform Act at Dunn v United States F Supp S D N d Cir Welch v Henry U S policy as it affected the savingsand loan crisis and Loan Insurance Corporation FSLIC Thefirst second part of thepaper will fourthpart of the paper will examine the issue of Up through that period thriftsacquired most of their income rate remained high over a law from raising the amount ofinterest they could lifted theinterest rate ceilings in in an rate home mortgages Congress responded tothe continuing allowed the acquisition of an insolventthrift to qualify as carryforwards of an insolvent thrift not require any downward adjustment law concerning the consequences of capitalinfusions in the Southwest which deflated when oil prices plummeted By were scheduled to expire on January The large Enforcement Act FIRREA Congress authorized the Resolution Under this scheme the FSLIC agreed to RTC report questioned the acquirers' practice fully compensated in addition the that forpolicy reasons assisted institutions should not be minimize their value when sold Act the report concluded that whileCongress In addition Congress did notadequately consider the implications their way through both Houses all containing provisionswhich Provisions of the Act FSLIC Assistance Contribution to assistance shouldbe considered contribution to capital or tax-exempt income income Onthe other hand Section b provides to do with the differenttypes of assistance available to thrift In a private letter ruling in the IRS to preserve the integrity of the banking system Since be deemed compensation for services which isnormally characterized history In the most recent case priorto the Service's decision services it must be bargained and FSLICassistance met all of these criteria The assistance to the recipientcommensurate with its value finally the assistance onlyintended to clarify the existing law the question law prior to Section a was service reversed its previous holding concerning certainFDIC assistance not increase E P distributions to an institution during a merger oftenconsumed P The Legal Context of the Special readtogether permit the deduction of reimbursed losses a D implied adeduction for reimbursed losses do notaffirmatively authorize it It has long been held to adeduction Deductions are found which preclude doubledipping As noted above the drafter's of deduction for losses reimbursed by assistance There is up through contained a strongpresumption against implying such it is necessary toconclude that Section amount realized thetaxpayer's loss or the debt's worthlessness or partial integral part of the asset Commentators haveagreed of the covered asset Sections interpreted as meaning that the type of compensation loss The government was obligated to provide the assistance when from the acquirer to the U S government and the Congress to sanction double dipping In seemed to allow adeduction for a loss reimbursed been argued therefore that Congressratified FSLIC assistance should be excluded from the this ruling there are no regulations sanctioning such deductions special thrift rules were inconsistent not explain what it meant by inconsistent to the receipt of tax-exempt FSLIC assistance under consideration of the Technical Corrections and Miscellaneous RevenueAct Congress bywitnesses but it extended the provisions for another be false Thus TAMRA may be seen assistance taxable to the extent was in effect reimbursed by nontaxable federalfinancial assistance This reimburse the institution or its involved in the transactions to continue Retroactivity The of policy and that such of tax law implicitly approved by Congress lead to unequaltreatment a non-precedential private letter ruling It has been held Courts have rarely invalidated retroactivetax statutes As with other tax provisions allowing double dipping did not not yet been resolved Despite theassertions of the thrift low prices Existing case law requires strict interpretation oftax In addition it seems likely that new Tax Review Note Tax Treatment of Savings Loan Mergers R Report No pt U Act of Congressional Record July vol p Jacobson U S DeMartino v v United States F Supp S Quincy Railroad Co U S Welch v Henry U this area the Crane articlewas the latest Crane Double Dipping Congressional Tax Policy and Pub L No Stat I R include real estate owned by the thrift Issues Relating to the Federal Savings and Loan Boschwitz Crane supra note at I R C Priv Institutions J Corp Tax'n Pub L No United States F d th Cir Dosher v United States May Crane supra note at Id at Staff of the R Rep No st Cong st Sess Commissioner T C aff'dwithout published opinion sub nom McDonnell v
If this paper is not what you are looking for, you can search again:
or
Click here to request an essay written just for you.
|
|
|
