To court dating definition
The Tax Court recently held that an operational aircraft delivered and titled to a taxpayer late in December 2003 was not “placed in service” in 2003.
Accordingly, the court rejected the taxpayer’s claim of a bonus depreciation allowance for 2003.
30, 2003, “was complete in every way except for [the conference table and enlarged viewing screens] that [he] needed.” Brown made arrangements for those modifications, totaling a bit more than 0,000, to be made in early January 2004. The court noted that an asset does not need to be used before it is regarded as being placed in service.
The court opined that it is the taxpayer “who gets to determine what an asset’s ‘specifically assigned function’ is.” At trial, Brown argued that the jet was fully functional for his purpose of business travel when he took possession of it and that his modifications merely made it more comfortable for conducting business. However, the Tax Court cautioned that this does not necessarily mean that because an asset is used in a certain year, it has also been placed in service for that year. 30, 2003, Brown flew from Portland, Ore., to Seattle to meet a client and then to Chicago, where he met with another insurance agent, before returning to Portland, an approximately 4,000-mile round trip.
In both years, the bonus depreciation allowance was 50% of the adjusted basis for qualified property. Brown was entitled to claim the 2003 deduction of more than million in bonus depreciation on the Bombardier Challenger jet he took ownership of on Dec. The Tax Court described Brown as “an insurance genius” who sold only supersized life insurance policies to very high-net-worth clients.
On larger policies he sometimes earned more than million in commissions.
The court’s decision hinged on whether the aircraft was available for its “specifically assigned function.” Evidence presented at trial indicated that the taxpayer had particular needs for the aircraft, including a conference table and enlarged computer screens.
Should upgrades valued at roughly 2% of an operational asset’s value render it substantially unavailable for its specifically assigned function?
If any indictment or information is dismissed upon motion of the defendant, or any charge contained in a complaint filed against an individual is dismissed or otherwise dropped, and thereafter a complaint is filed against such defendant or individual charging him with the same offense or an offense based on the same conduct or arising from the same criminal episode, or an information or indictment is filed charging such defendant with the same offense or an offense based on the same conduct or arising from the same criminal episode, the provisions of subsections (b) and (c) of this section shall be applicable with respect to such subsequent complaint, indictment, or information, as the case may be.
If the defendant is to be tried upon an indictment or information dismissed by a trial court and reinstated following an appeal, the trial shall commence within seventy days from the date the action occasioning the trial becomes final, except that the court retrying the case may extend the period for trial not to exceed one hundred and eighty days from the date the action occasioning the trial becomes final if the unavailability of witnesses or other factors resulting from the passage of time shall make trial within seventy days impractical.
The sanctions of section 3162 apply to this subsection.
Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (b) of this section, for the first twelve-calendar-month period following the effective date of this section as set forth in section 3163(a) of this chapter the time limit imposed with respect to the period between arrest and indictment by subsection (b) of this section shall be sixty days, for the second such twelve-month period such time limit shall be forty-five days and for the third such period such time limit shall be thirty-five days.