A case currently before the Supreme Court, Charles Moore, G. Moore et ux. v. United States , has the court looking at some of the fundamentals of the Constitution’s treatment of taxation. Advocates of various views are hoping for an earthshaking result. Also, many “tax protester” arguments base themselves on misreading of Supreme Court decisions from around the time of the 16th Amendment. Knowing a fuller version of what surrounds the snippets they feed you probably won’t help you bring them around if they have drunk deep of the tax protester Kool-Aid, but it will help you maintain your own sanity. Let’s start with what the Moore case is about.
IRC Section 121 Exclusion: Nuances That Make a Big Difference
With the sale of a client’s primary residence, many tax professionals are familiar with the Section 121 exclusion, which allows taxpayers to exclude up to $500,000 ($250,000 for single – $500,000 for married filing jointly) on capital gains for the sale. Often, the only criteria mentioned is that the taxpayer must have owned and occupied the home for two of the most recent five years. However, this barely scratches the surface of Section 121; there’s much more money-saving potential in this portion of the tax code.