'MoneyGram' Tackles Definition of 'Bank'
In their Taxation column, Elliot Pisem and David E. Kahen, members of the law firm of Roberts & Holland, discuss a recent Tax Court case that interprets and applies the statutory definition of "bank" in the context of special provisions providing liberal rules under which "banks" may claim deductions for bad debts.
February 18, 2015 at 08:38 PM
10 minute read
Many rules in our tax law apply only to “banks,” as that term is defined in §581 of the Internal Revenue Code (the Code). Perhaps surprisingly, it is not always obvious whether an entity is or is not a “bank” within the meaning of that provision, and significant tax obligations may turn on that issue. A recent Tax Court case, MoneyGram International v. Commissioner,1 interprets and applies the statutory definition in the context of special provisions providing liberal rules under which “banks” may claim deductions for bad debts.
Background
MoneyGram International and its subsidiaries (collectively, MoneyGram) provided payment services to consumers and financial institutions. In the case of its consumer-oriented business, MoneyGram sold money orders and provided money transfer services through a variety of agents, including banks, credit unions, supermarkets, convenience stores, and other retail businesses.
Typically, a consumer would pay cash to an agent for the amount of a money order, plus a fee. The form completed by the consumer would state that the agent was not accepting a “deposit.” The money order would then be issued in blank, completed by the customer and delivered, and cleared through the banking system, typically within 10 days.
The agent would remit the cash received to MoneyGram, either immediately or at intervals of, most commonly, twice a week. MoneyGram would derive revenue from such transactions through the transaction fees and, with respect to international money transfers, from the management of currency exchange spreads.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllUS Judge Orders 'Prolific' Cooperating Witness to Pay Nearly $900,000 in Restitution
Sean Combs' Defense Counsel Seeks Accusers' Names as Civil Litigation Surges
Trending Stories
- 1The Law Firm Disrupted: Playing the Talent Game to Win
- 2Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
- 3GlaxoSmithKline Settles Most Zantac Lawsuits for $2.2B
- 4BD Settles Thousands of Bard Hernia Mesh Lawsuits
- 5Monsanto Moves to Pause PCB Trial That Starts This Week
Who Got The Work
Davis Polk & Wardwell partners Mari Grace and Edmund Polubinski III have entered appearances for Australia-based Bitcoin-mining company Iris Energy and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Eastern District Court by the Rosen Law Firm, contends that the defendants concealed the inadequacy of the company's site in Childress County, Texas, including it being 'ill-equipped' and unable to operate the company's proprietary design. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Peggy Kuo, is 1:24-cv-07046, Williams-Israel v. Iris Energy Limited et al.
Who Got The Work
Ryan S. Stippich of Reinhart Boerner Van Deuren has entered an appearance for biopharmaceutical company Veru Inc. and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Sept. 30 in Wisconsin Western District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of June Ovadias, accuses the defendant of failing to disclose that small sample sizes and other issues rendered it unlikely that the FDA would grant Emergency Use Authorization for the cancer drug candidate sabizabulin as a potential treatment for COVID-19. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge William M. Conley, is 3:24-cv-00676, Ovadias, June v. Steiner, Mitchell et al.
Who Got The Work
Holland & Knight partners Cynthia A. Gierhart and Thomas Willcox Brooke have entered appearances for Pakistani American Political Action Committee and Rao Kamran Ali in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The action, filed Sept. 24 in District of Columbia District Court by Jackson Walker on behalf of Pakistani American Public Affairs Committee, accuses the defendants of using a mark that's confusingly similar to the plaintiff's 'Pak-Pac' marks without authorization. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Randolph D. Moss, is 1:24-cv-02727, Pakistani American Public Affairs Committee v. Pakistani American Political Action Committee et al.
Who Got The Work
Lauren M. Rosenberg and Yonatan Even of Cravath, Swaine & Moore have stepped in to represent Israel-based Oddity Tech Ltd. in a pending securities class action. The case, filed Aug. 30 in New York Southern District Court by Pomerantz LLP and Holzer & Holzer, contends that the defendant made materially misleading statements regarding the capability of Oddity's AI technology and ongoing civil litigation, resulting in the artifical inflation of the market price of Oddity's securities. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Margaret M. Garnett, is 1:24-cv-06571, Hoare v. Oddity Tech Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Eleanor M. Lackman of Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp has entered an appearance for Canon, the Japanese camera maker, and the Brooklyn Nets in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The case, filed Sept. 16 in California Central District Court by T-Rex Law on behalf of technology company Phinge Corporation, pursues claims against the defendants for their ongoing use of the 'Netaverse' mark. The suit contends that the defendants' use of the mark in connection with a virtual reality platform will likely create consumer confusion. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Consuelo B. Marshall, is 2:24-cv-07917, Phinge Corporation v. Yankees Entertainment and Sports Network, LLC et al.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250