David E Kahen

April 28, 2005 | Law.com

Certain liquidations, corporate formation transactions and reorganizations are ordinarily nontaxable, in the sense that neither gain nor loss is recognized by a party disposing of stock or assets in such a transaction. The IRS has recently proposed regulations that address the consequences of a transfer of assets that, after taking into account obligations assumed or taken subject to, lack net value.

By Elliot Pisem and David E. Kahen

11 minute read

August 16, 2007 | New York Law Journal

David E. Kahen and Elliot Pisem, members of Roberts & Holland, write that, in general, a corporation is required to recognize gain upon the distribution to its shareholders of appreciated property with a value in excess of basis, to the extent of the built-in gain. Depending on the circumstances, such a distribution will also generally result in either dividend income or the recognition of other gains attributable to built-in gain at the shareholder level.

By David E. Kahen and Elliot Pisem

12 minute read

August 26, 2008 | Law.com

A decision issued earlier this month in ongoing tax litigation by Valero Energy Corp., seeking to limit the production of documents in response to Internal Revenue Service summonses issued to one of its tax advisers, provides an opportunity to review rules relating to the permissible breadth of such summonses, including the "work product doctrine" and the privilege created by Internal Revenue Code §7520 for certain communications between tax practitioners and their clients.

By Elliot Pisem and David E. Kahen

11 minute read

August 19, 2004 | New York Law Journal

David E. Kahen and Elliot Pisem, members of Roberts & Holland, write that a holder of securities issued by a corporation that is a party to a reorganization who exchanges those securities for securities in the same corporation or in another corporation which is a party to the reorganization is not required to recognize gain on that exchange, so long as the principal amount of the securities received by a holder does not exceed the principal amount of the securities surrendered.

By David E. Kahen

10 minute read

October 15, 2009 | New York Law Journal

Elliot Pisem and David E. Kahen, members of the law firm of Roberts & Holland, write that the Tax Court's recent decision in Taproot Administrative Services Inc. v. Commissioner represents, in a sense, only the latest addition to an ever-expanding - but not wholly consistent - body of law that seeks to determine, when provisions of the code confer a favorable tax status on a business entity only if it is owned solely by certain categories of persons, whether it is the identity of the owners, under local law, of interest in the entity or that of the person(s) ultimately entitled to the benefits and burdens of ownership that should be determinative of whether the desired status is available.

By Elliot Pisem and David E. Kahen

12 minute read

April 17, 2002 | New York Law Journal

T here has long been uncertainty as to the appropriate treatment by an accrual method taxpayer of an ordinary and necessary business expense producing a benefit that extends into the following tax year: for example, an annual premium for insurance coverage over a 12-month period straddling two taxable years. Can such an expense be deducted in the year it was made, or must it be capitalized and then written off over the term of the resulting asset (e.g., the insurance policy)?

By Elliot Pisem And David E. Kahen

10 minute read

February 17, 2011 | New York Law Journal

In their Taxation feature, Elliot Pisem and David E. Kahen of Roberts & Holland discuss how the conducting of a business within a joint venture or partnership arrangement does not compel the IRS to give effect to the arrangement or to the taxpayers' allocations of income.

By Elliot Pisem and David E. Kahen

11 minute read

June 19, 2008 | New York Law Journal

David E. Kahen and Elliot Pisem, members at Roberts & Holland, write that when one owner of an S corporation is to be bought out by the other owner or owners, tax considerations, including the effective date of the sale for allocation purposes and the manner of allocation of income for the final period, should be addressed at the time settlement negotiations are underway and resolved in the settlement agreement if at all possible.

By David E. Kahen and Elliot Pisem

13 minute read

June 17, 2010 | New York Law Journal

In their Taxation column, Elliot Pisem and David E. Kahen, members of Roberts & Holland, provide a cautionary example of a situation in which steps taken in one tax year combined with a novel reporting position in a following year fostered controversy and litigation, but no ultimate benefit to the taxpayers.

By Elliot Pisem and David E. Kahen

13 minute read

August 18, 2005 | New York Law Journal

Elliot Pisem and David E. Kahen, members of Roberts & Holland, analyze a recent IRS ruling concerning when tax becomes payable as employees exercise stock options, particularly in the face of a "substantial risk of forfeiture."

By Elliot Pisem and David E. Kahen

10 minute read