Elliot Pisem

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

August 17, 2006 | New York Law Journal

David E. Kahen and Elliot Pisem, members of Roberts & Holland, write that in a recent tax court memo involving a shareholder who initially guaranteed corporate borrowings from a bank and then replaced those borrowings with "back-to-back" borrowings by the shareholder from the bank and by the corporation from the shareholder, the Tax Court addressed limitations on the pass-through of losses.

By David E. Kahen and Elliot Pisem

10 minute read

August 20, 2009 | New York Law Journal

Elliot Pisem and David E. Kahen, members of Roberts & Holland, write: Transactions effected under U.S. Treasury programs that are designed to preserve or enhance the viability of financial institutions can sometimes raise difficult tax issues. A recent private letter ruling describes a situation in which the IRS ruled favorably on certain issues that have been of concern in other contexts, and that could otherwise have detracted significantly from the attractiveness of a transaction intended to preserve the viability of a financial institution.

By Elliot Pisem and David E. Kahen

10 minute read

February 13, 2002 | New York Law Journal

S ection 355 of the Internal Revenue Code permits a corporation under certain circumstances to engage in a divisive, or "spinoff," transaction without the imposition of tax at either the corporate level (to reflect the unrealized appreciation in the assets or stock being distributed) or the shareholder level (to reflect receipt of what could otherwise be an ordinary taxable dividend).

By Elliot Pisem And David E. Kahen

10 minute read

December 16, 2010 | New York Law Journal

In their Taxation column, Elliot Pisem and David E. Kahen, members of Roberts & Holland, warn that the Internal Revenue Service or a court may find that reliance on a tax opinion, under all the facts and circumstances, does not evidence the requisite "reasonable cause" and "good faith."

By Elliot Pisem and David E. Kahen

13 minute read

August 21, 2008 | New York Law Journal

Elliot Pisem and David E. Kahen, partners at Roberts & Holland, write that a decision issued earlier this month in ongoing tax litigation by Valero Energy Corp., seeking to limit the production of documents in response to IRS summonses issued to one of its tax advisors, provides an opportunity to review rules relating to the permissible breadth of such summonses.

By Elliot Pisem and David E. Kahen

11 minute read

December 20, 2007 | New York Law Journal

David E. Kahen and Elliot Pisem, members of Roberts & Holland, analyze a recent Tax Court decision which supports the proposition that, as a general matter, assets of related taxpayers should not be aggregated for Federal tax purposes absent a clear statutory or regulatory mandate for aggregation.

By David E. Kahen and Elliot Pisem

12 minute read

August 18, 2011 | New York Law Journal

In their Taxation column, David E. Kahen and Elliot Pisem of Roberts & Holland discuss regulations under section 197 and a ruling by the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, which on review of a Tax Court decision against the taxpayers, determined whether a different result may apply where the ownership interest acquired is a minority interest.

By David E. Kahen and Elliot Pisem

12 minute read

February 17, 2005 | New York Law Journal

Elliot Pisem and David E. Kahen, members of Roberts & Holland LLP, write that when the founders of a family-owned corporation decide to retire and to transfer ownership of the corporation to one or more family members, a common concern is whether a cash distribution by the corporation to effect a "redemption" of the founders' stock can be treated as a sale or exchange of shares resulting in capital gain, rather than as a dividend, taxable as ordinary income under Internal Revenue Code �301.

By Elliot Pisem and David E. Kahen

10 minute read