Treas. Reg. § 1.409A-1(b)(9)(iii) (relating to payment upon involuntary separation of service of up to two times the lesser of an employee’s annual rate of compensation or the Code § 401(a)(17) limit on includible compensation for qualified plans); and/or
Treas. Reg. § 1.368-2(g) (tax-free reorganization “must be undertaken for reasons germane to the continuance of the business of a corporation a party to the reorganization”). See also Xxxxxxx x. Xxxxxxxxx, 000 X.X. 000 (1935).
Treas. Reg. 1.409A-1(d), any Cash Severance Benefit payment will be subject to the distribution requirements of Section 409A(a)(2)(A) of the Code, including, without limitation, the requirement of Section 409A(a)(2)(B)(i) of the Code that such payment be delayed until 6 months after your separation from service if you are a “specified employee” within the meaning of the aforesaid section of the Code at the time of such separation from service.
Treas. Reg. 5.20 Warrant Consideration 3.1(d)
Treas. Reg. §1.7874-1(c)(2).
Treas. Reg. § 301.7122-1(c)(2)(i). 27 IRM 5.15.1.7 (Oct. 2, 2012). Nearly 300,000 taxpayer accounts that should have qualified for currently not collectible status … (69 percent) are being resolved by the taxpayer making payments, not because of abatements by the IRS or offsets of the taxpayers’ refunds, indicating that the taxpayers are paying their accounts despite having total positive income less than Allowable Living Expenses, suggesting the taxpayers are prioritizing paying the IRS over meeting their necessary living expenses. consider necessary to function in today’s society . For example, the IRS considers childcare to be an “other expense” rather than a necessary expense, even where both parents are employed full time, thus leaving it to the determination of the individual IRS employee as to whether the expense will be considered necessary .28 It would be counter-productive for this expense to be disallowed where both parents are working and would be better able to pay their tax liability with two incomes .29 TAS research suggests that the IRS is placing taxpayers into IAs where their total positive income (TPI) is less than their ALEs . Taxpayers may agree to an IA they can’t afford out of fear of the IRS, a misunderstanding of the options available, or out of obligation to repay their debts at any costs . Nearly 300,000 taxpayer accounts that should have qualified for currently not collectible (CNC) status had entered into installment agreements in calendar year 2014 despite their income being below the IRS ALEs .30 These taxpayer accounts (69 percent) are being resolved by the taxpayer making payments, not because of abatements by the IRS or offsets of the taxpayers’ refunds, indicating that the taxpayers are paying their accounts despite having TPI less than ALEs, suggesting the taxpayers are prioritizing paying the IRS over meeting their necessary living expenses .31 By the IRS’s definition, taxpayers who cannot meet their necessary living expenses are experiencing economic hardship .32 These taxpayers would therefore qualify for a mandatory release of an IRS levy, yet the IRS accepts IAs from these taxpayers despite the payments causing economic hardship .33 Additionally, TAS research found higher default rates for taxpayers with TPI less than ALEs . Taxpayers with TPI less than ALEs and balances due of $1,001 to $10,000 who entered into IAs in FY 2014 defaulted at a rate of nearly 25 percent by FY 2016, compared to an overall default rate in this ...
Treas. Reg. Section 1.1502-6 (or any similar provision of state, local, or foreign law), as a transferee or successor, by contract, or otherwise.
Treas. Reg. Section 1.704-1(b)(2)(ii)(h)
Treas. Reg. §1.409A-1(b)(4) shall not be subject to Section 409A of the Code. Whenever a payment under this Agreement may be paid within a specified period, the actual date of payment within the specified period shall be within the Company’s sole discretion.
Treas. Reg. § 301.7701-1 to -3 (1996).
