Boston Bean

[Boston Bean @Bostonbean90]

@AdamHKlein @fmeyrath This doesn’t make sense and sounds made up. The landlord can’t sue as there is no cause of action. The landlord could evict or raise rent, in which case the tenant would need to sue for breach of contract, and they would likely lose on the grounds that the contract wasn’t valid.

[Boston Bean @Bostonbean90]

@loganallec @CPATaxTeam The correct way of looking at it is to ask, “if the owner were totally absent, is it possible for the business to generate any revenue whatsoever?” If the answer is no, then 100% of the revenue is attributable to the owner’s services

[Boston Bean @Bostonbean90]

@myonlinetrust @CPATaxTeam Huh?

[Boston Bean @Bostonbean90]

@CPATaxTeam What type of business? Is the shareholder the only one generating revenue for the business or do they have other employees/hired labor?

[Boston Bean @Bostonbean90]

@MrNQDC @CPATaxTeam The OP had nothing to do with tax planning

[Boston Bean @Bostonbean90]

@ForemanTaxLaw This isn’t a new concept. Look at Utah

[Boston Bean @Bostonbean90]

@DWoods_EA @jakecrandall And you’re ignoring the assignment of income doctrine.

[Boston Bean @Bostonbean90]

@TKopelman It can’t even be the main reason. And it’s only the main reason in the first place cause people like you peddle misinformation

[Boston Bean @Bostonbean90]

@Pv20008 @bradncpa The IRS lost those cases because all the prongs of section 269 were not met, NOT because section 269 can’t be applied to an S corp

[Boston Bean @Bostonbean90]

@Pv20008 @bradncpa The S election is relevant because it constitutes an incorporation for federal tax purposes, placing it within the reach of section 269. There are court cases where the IRS applied 269 to an S corp. the IRS lost, but the court has never ruled that 269 doesn’t apply to an S corp

[Boston Bean @Bostonbean90]

@Pv20008 @bradncpa I said there are many cases where the initial incorporation constitutes an “acquisition” within the reach of section 269. So I’m not sure what your argument is at this point. Are you arguing that an S election is not an incorporation for federal tax purposes?

[Boston Bean @Bostonbean90]

@Pv20008 @bradncpa Also, your understanding of “incorporation” is also bad. For an entity to fall within the reach of sec. 269, it must be a corporation (C or S) for federal tax purposes, not necessarily under state law. ie, a state law partnership taxed as a corporation would be subject to sec 269

[Boston Bean @Bostonbean90]

@Pv20008 @bradncpa It covers S elections. Plenty of case law out there confirming that the initial incorporation of an entity constitutes an “acquisition” for purposes of section 269. And an S election constitutes an initial incorporation.

[Boston Bean @Bostonbean90]

@benruss501 @bradncpa Ur wife must like nerds

[Boston Bean @Bostonbean90]

@StrangeWill @TheNFTCPA Lol who is going to do the audits?