US Corporate & Business Tax

Correct answer: .

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act repealed the old graduated corporate rate schedule for tax years beginning after December 31, 2017, replacing it with a single flat 21% rate under IRC Section 11(b) that applies to all of a C corporation's taxable income from the first dollar, with no brackets and no distinction based on income level; this remains the applicable rate for the 2025 tax year. The option describing a graduated structure from 15% to 39% accurately reflects the pre-2018 law, including its old bubble-rate mechanism, but that structure no longer exists. The option describing a flat 15% rate on only the first $50,000 wrongly imports the bottom bracket of the old graduated system into a single-bracket framing, when the current law has no brackets at all. The option describing a flat 35% rate matches the top rate under the old law before the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act took effect, not the rate in force for 2025.

Source: IRC Section 11(b), as amended by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (Pub. L. 115-97)

Correct answer: .

IRC Section 1361(b)(1)(B) limits eligible S corporation shareholders to individuals, estates, and certain qualifying trusts; partnerships and corporations are not eligible shareholders even when they hold shares merely as a pass-through vehicle for otherwise-eligible individuals, so a domestic partnership appearing on the shareholder list disqualifies the corporation from S status. The option describing 85 individual shareholders does not disqualify the corporation, since Section 1361(b)(1)(A) caps eligible shareholders at 100 and 85 is comfortably under that limit. The option describing identical distribution and liquidation rights despite differing voting rights does not disqualify the corporation either, because Treasury regulations under Section 1361 treat differences in voting rights alone as not creating a second class of stock, so the one-class-of-stock requirement is still satisfied. The option describing a qualified subchapter S trust that made a valid election also does not disqualify the corporation, since such a trust is expressly treated as an eligible shareholder once the election is properly made.

Source: IRC Section 1361(b) and (c); Treas. Reg. Section 1.1361-1(l) (one class of stock)

Correct answer: .

IRC Section 1244(b) caps the amount of loss on qualifying small business stock that an individual may treat as an ordinary loss in a single year at $50,000, or $100,000 for spouses filing a joint return; any loss beyond that annual cap is treated as an ordinary capital loss subject to the usual capital loss limitations, regardless of how large the total loss is. The option stating $100,000 gives the joint-return figure, which does not apply to a single filer in this fact pattern. The option stating $250,000 confuses the annual ordinary-loss cap with a different number entirely: Section 1244(c)(3) separately requires that the corporation not have received more than $1,000,000 in aggregate money and property for its stock to qualify as a small business corporation in the first place, a test about the issuer's capitalization rather than about the amount of loss an investor may deduct. The option claiming there is no dollar cap ignores that the $50,000/$100,000 ceiling is a defining, mandatory feature of Section 1244 regardless of whether the issuing corporation met the small business corporation requirements.

Source: IRC Section 1244(b) and (c)(3)

Correct answer: .

IRC Section 243(a)(1) sets the general dividends-received deduction rate at 50% for dividends from a domestic corporation in which the recipient owns less than 20% of the stock; the rate rises to 65% under Section 243(c) once the recipient's ownership reaches the 20%-owned-corporation threshold, and to 100% under Section 243(a)(3) only for qualifying dividends between members of the same affiliated group. Because Corporation X owns just 10% of Corporation Y and the two are not affiliated, the general 50% rate applies. The option stating 100% wrongly assumes every domestic-to-domestic dividend qualifies for full deduction, when the 100% rate is reserved for the affiliated-group case that does not exist here. The option stating 65% applies the 20%-owned-corporation rate to a shareholder that owns only half of that 20% threshold. The option stating 0% is wrong because the dividends-received deduction is a general mechanism available to ordinary C corporation shareholders receiving domestic dividends, not a special benefit limited to insurers.

Source: IRC Section 243(a) and (c)

Correct answer: .

IRC Section 531 imposes the accumulated earnings tax at a flat 20% rate on a corporation's accumulated taxable income, as defined in Section 535, when the corporation is formed or availed of to shelter shareholders from individual-level tax on dividends by unreasonably accumulating earnings; this tax is additional to, not a substitute for, the corporation's regular Section 11 income tax liability, functioning as a penalty tax layered on top of ordinary corporate taxation. The option describing the 20% tax as replacing the regular corporate tax gets the relationship backwards; the corporation still owes its full Section 11 tax in addition to the accumulated earnings tax. The option describing a graduated 10%-to-37% rate invents an individual-style bracket structure that has no basis in Section 531, which imposes a single flat rate. The option describing a 15% rate confuses the accumulated earnings tax with the separate and unrelated corporate alternative minimum tax on adjusted financial statement income, which has its own distinct base, rate, and large-corporation applicability trigger.

Source: IRC Section 531 and Section 535

Correct answer: .

For net operating losses arising in tax years beginning after December 31, 2017, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act amended IRC Section 172 to eliminate the general two-year carryback (aside from narrow farming and certain insurance-company exceptions), allow the loss to be carried forward indefinitely, and cap the deduction in any carryforward year at 80% of that year's taxable income computed without regard to the net operating loss deduction itself. The option describing a two-year carryback to 2023 and 2024 describes the pre-2018 rule that Section 172 no longer applies to a 2025 loss outside the narrow statutory exceptions. The option allowing a full 100%-of-income offset correctly notes that the carryforward period is unlimited in duration but wrongly ignores the 80% cap that applies to post-2017 losses. The option limiting use of the loss to the current year alone ignores that indefinite carryforward is exactly what current law permits; the loss is not forfeited simply because it is not fully used in its origin year.

Source: IRC Section 172, as amended by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (Pub. L. 115-97)

Correct answer: .

The established ordering rule requires that a partner's or shareholder's basis limitation be applied first, since a loss cannot be deducted beyond available basis in the first place; the at-risk rules under IRC Section 465 are then applied to whatever loss survives the basis limitation, disallowing any amount exceeding the taxpayer's economic exposure to the activity; and finally the passive activity loss rules under IRC Section 469 are applied only to the portion of the loss that has cleared both the basis and at-risk hurdles. A loss stopped at an earlier stage is suspended there and never reaches a later test. The option placing the passive activity limitation first inverts this sequence and supplies a rationale, that more recently enacted rules take precedence, that plays no role in how these provisions actually interact. The option placing the at-risk limitation first correctly emphasizes economic exposure but wrongly places it ahead of the basis test, which must be satisfied before at-risk rules are even relevant. The option treating all three tests as simultaneous, taxpayer-elected alternatives misdescribes a strictly sequential and mandatory framework as if it offered a choice.

Source: IRC Section 465; IRC Section 469; IRS Publication 925, Passive Activity and At-Risk Rules

Correct answer: .

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act amended IRC Section 168(k) to permanently reinstate 100% bonus depreciation, with no future scheduled phase-down, for qualified property acquired after January 19, 2025; equipment acquired and placed in service in March 2025 satisfies that acquisition-date test and therefore qualifies for full first-year expensing of its cost. The option stating 40% reflects the rate that the original Tax Cuts and Jobs Act phase-down schedule had scheduled for property placed in service during 2025, stepping down twenty percentage points per year from 100% in 2022, a schedule the new law repealed for property acquired after its January 19, 2025 cutoff. The options stating 60% and 80% each state rates from that same repealed phase-down schedule, but for earlier placed-in-service years, 2024 and 2023 respectively, neither of which governs equipment acquired after the new law's effective date.

Source: IRC Section 168(k), as amended by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, Pub. L. 119-21 (2025)

Correct answer: .

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act raised the maximum IRC Section 179 expensing election to $2,500,000 and raised the investment-based phase-out threshold to $4,000,000, both effective for property placed in service in tax years beginning after December 31, 2024; the deduction is reduced dollar-for-dollar once qualifying property placed in service for the year exceeds the $4,000,000 threshold, reaching a full phase-out once such property reaches $6,500,000. The option describing a $1,000,000 deduction and $2,500,000 threshold states the prior, pre-existing Tax Cuts and Jobs Act era limits that the new law superseded rather than left unchanged. The option describing a $500,000 deduction and $2,000,000 threshold describes an older, smaller set of figures that predates the current statutory framework entirely. The option claiming there is no cap at all is wrong because Section 179 retains its own explicit statutory dollar cap and phase-out mechanism, which is separate from, and unaffected by, the unrelated 100% bonus depreciation provision under Section 168(k).

Source: IRC Section 179, as amended by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, Pub. L. 119-21 (2025)

Correct answer: .

For qualified small business stock acquired after July 4, 2025, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act introduced a tiered exclusion under IRC Section 1202: a 50% exclusion of eligible gain at a three-year holding period, 75% at four years, and 100% at five years or more, alongside a raised $75,000,000 aggregate gross assets test and a higher $15,000,000 per-issuer gain cap. An investor who holds the stock for exactly four years therefore excludes 75% of eligible gain, not the full amount. The option claiming 100% wrongly treats the four-year mark as already qualifying for the maximum exclusion, when the schedule specifically reserves the full 100% exclusion for stock held five years or more. The option claiming 0% wrongly assumes no exclusion is available before the five-year mark, missing the entire point of the new tiered structure, which grants meaningful partial exclusions starting at three years. The option claiming the law cut the benefit to a flat 50% has the direction of the change backwards: the new schedule preserves the 100% exclusion for five-year holders and adds more generous partial exclusions at the three- and four-year marks on top of it, rather than reducing anything.

Source: IRC Section 1202, as amended by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, Pub. L. 119-21 (2025)

Correct answer: .

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act permanently restored the more favorable method of computing adjusted taxable income under IRC Section 163(j) by reinstating the addback of depreciation, amortization, and depletion for tax years beginning after December 31, 2024, reversing the stricter method that excluded those items and had applied to tax years beginning after December 31, 2021; because adding these items back increases adjusted taxable income, the change generally increases the amount of business interest expense a taxpayer may currently deduct. The option describing continued exclusion of those items describes the stricter, pre-existing method as if it still applied, when the new law specifically reverses it for 2025 and later years. The option claiming the items are removed from the computation altogether mischaracterizes the change; they are deliberately added back, not omitted from the calculation. The option claiming no change was made for years after 2021 gets the timing exactly backwards, since restoring the addback specifically for tax years beginning after December 31, 2024, is the entire point of the amendment.

Source: IRC Section 163(j), as amended by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, Pub. L. 119-21 (2025)

Correct answer: .

The recognition period for the built-in gains tax under IRC Section 1374 is the five-year period beginning with the first day of the corporation's first tax year as an S corporation, which here runs from January 1, 2025 through the end of 2029; a sale in 2028 of an asset holding gain that had built up before the conversion falls squarely within that window and triggers the built-in gains tax, computed at the highest corporate rate under Section 11(b), on the recognized built-in gain. The option claiming outright repeal is wrong because the built-in gains tax remains part of current law; only the length of its recognition period has changed over time. The option describing a one-year window invents a recognition period that has never applied under any version of Section 1374. The option describing a ten-year window states the recognition period that applied before the PATH Act permanently shortened it to five years for tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2015, well before this corporation's 2025 conversion.

Source: IRC Section 1374(d)(7), as amended by the Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes (PATH) Act of 2015

Correct answer: .

Section 351(a) grants nonrecognition only when the persons who transferred property are, as a group, 'in control' of the corporation immediately after the exchange, and Section 368(c) defines control as owning at least 80% of the corporation's voting power and at least 80% of every other class of stock. Stock issued solely for services isn't treated as issued for property, so it doesn't count toward the transferors' side of that test, but it still counts in the total shares outstanding used as the denominator — which is exactly why the four property transferors' 75% stake, diluted by the service provider's 25% stake, falls under the 80% threshold. The option ignoring the service shares entirely misreads the rule: they're excluded from the numerator, not from the denominator. Section 351 has never required 100% ownership, only 80%. And Section 351 nonrecognition is automatic when its statutory conditions are met; there is no elective statement that substitutes for actually satisfying the control test.

Source: IRC Section 351(a); Section 368(c) control definition; Treas. Reg. Section 1.351-1(a)(1)

Correct answer: .

Section 267(b) treats an individual who owns more than 50% of a corporation's outstanding stock as a related person to that corporation, and Section 267(a)(1) disallows any loss realized on a sale or exchange of property between related persons, regardless of the price paid or either party's intent — so the individual's $15,000 loss is nondeductible in 2025 and in every later year. The option allowing a full deduction is wrong because Section 267's related-person definitions reach individual-to-corporation ownership above 50%, not only corporation-to-corporation relationships. The option prorating the disallowance by ownership percentage invents a partial rule; Section 267(a)(1) disallowance is all-or-nothing, not proportional to the seller's stake. The option letting Corporation X deduct the loss outright misstates the actual relief Section 267(d) provides: the corporation doesn't get an immediate deduction, but it can reduce any gain it later recognizes when it eventually sells the land by the amount of the loss that was disallowed to the individual.

Source: IRC Section 267(a)(1), 267(b)(2), and 267(d)

Correct answer: .

Section 1245 recaptures, as ordinary income, the gain on qualifying personal property (such as this equipment) up to the full amount of depreciation the taxpayer previously claimed on it. Section 1250 works differently: it recaptures as ordinary income only the depreciation claimed in excess of what straight-line depreciation would have produced. Non-residential real property placed in service after 1986, like this office building, was required to use the straight-line method for its entire depreciable life, so there is no excess-over-straight-line amount to recapture, and the building's gain instead flows through as Section 1231 gain (potentially long-term capital gain) with no Section 1250 ordinary-income component. The option applying Section 1245 to the building is wrong because Section 1245 property is defined to exclude standard depreciable real property of this kind. The option finding no recapture at all for the equipment ignores that Section 1245 recapture applies before any Section 1231 netting occurs. The option applying full recapture to the building confuses the mechanics of Section 1250, which only reaches excess depreciation, with those of Section 1245.

Source: IRC Sections 1245(a) and 1250(a) and (b)

Correct answer: .

A payment to a partner for services, fixed in amount and payable without regard to whether the partnership has any net income, is a guaranteed payment under Section 707(c). For purposes of computing the partnership's own ordinary income or loss, the partnership treats the payment as if it were made to a non-partner, meaning it's factored into the partnership's bottom-line result the same way a payment to an outside contractor would be; the recipient partner then reports the payment as ordinary income for the recipient's tax year that includes the end of the partnership tax year in which the partnership deducted or capitalized it, entirely independent of whether the partnership showed a profit or a loss for that year. The option treating the payment as a distribution is wrong because a distribution's timing and character depend on partnership capital account rules, not Section 707(c)'s fixed-amount, income-independent test. The option recharacterizing the payment as a return of capital because of the loss year misunderstands guaranteed payments entirely — their defining feature is that they don't depend on whether the partnership is profitable. The option treating the payment as a basis reduction with no income consequence ignores that Section 707(c) treats it as includible ordinary income to the recipient.

Source: IRC Section 707(c)

Correct answer: .

A Section 754 election activates Section 743(b), which lets the partnership adjust its inside basis in its assets, but only with respect to the transferee partner — stepping that partner's own share of inside basis up or down to match what the incoming partner actually paid for the interest, so that partner isn't taxed again on appreciation that had already accrued (and would already be taxed to the selling partner) before the purchase. The other partners' shares of inside basis are untouched by this adjustment. The option spreading the step-up across all partners is wrong because Section 743(b) adjustments are specific to the transferee, not partnership-wide. The option treating the election as unnecessary misunderstands exactly the problem 754 solves: without it, a transferee's outside basis (cost) and inside basis (share of the partnership's existing asset basis) diverge, and that gap only gets fixed through a valid election. The option requiring a fresh election for every future transfer is wrong because a Section 754 election, once made, applies to all distributions and transfers in that year and in every subsequent year unless the partnership obtains IRS consent to revoke it.

Source: IRC Sections 754 and 743(b)

Correct answer: .

The Section 382 limitation for any post-change year equals the value of the loss corporation immediately before the ownership change, multiplied by the long-term tax-exempt rate published by the IRS for the month of the change. Here that's $5,000,000 multiplied by 4%, or $200,000 per year — an annual cap on using the $2,000,000 NOL, not a one-time cap and not a complete bar. The option finding no cap at all misreads the 50-percentage-point figure: that's merely the threshold that determines whether an ownership change has occurred, not a scaling factor for how severely the resulting limitation bites once it has. The option multiplying the NOL amount itself by the tax-exempt rate applies the rate to the wrong number; the formula runs off the corporation's value, not the size of its loss carryforward. The option treating the NOL as fully forfeited overstates what Section 382 does: the statute limits the annual rate at which the NOL can be absorbed against future income, and any unused limitation can still carry the NOL forward within its normal carryforward period, rather than erasing it outright.

Source: IRC Section 382(b) and 382(f)

Correct answer: .

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act added an 'once a covered employee, always a covered employee' rule to Section 162(m): anyone who was a covered employee for any tax year beginning after December 31, 2016 remains a covered employee for every subsequent year that person is employed by the corporation, regardless of whether their compensation later falls out of the top-five ranking that would otherwise define covered-employee status for a given year. Since all five individuals were covered employees in the 2020 tax year, all five remain covered employees in 2025, and the corporation's deduction for compensation paid to any of them in 2025 above $1 million remains disallowed. The option limiting the carryover rule to only the CEO and CFO is wrong because the rule locks in covered-employee status for whichever individuals held it in the triggering year, without regard to their specific title. The option requiring annual re-testing with no carryover describes the law as it stood before the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act changed it, not current law. The option confining the $1 million limit to the CEO and CFO ignores that Section 162(m) has long covered the CEO plus the next several most highly compensated officers, not just those two positions.

Source: IRC Section 162(m)(3) as amended by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017

Correct answer: .

Section 274(n)(1) generally limits the deduction for an otherwise-allowable business meal expense to 50% of its cost, so the consultant may deduct only $100 of the $200 spent, even though the meal is ordinary and necessary, the consultant was present, the cost wasn't lavish or extravagant, and the meal was with a genuine current or potential business contact. The option allowing a full deduction is wrong because there is no exception removing client-solicitation meals from the 50% limitation; the direct-business-connection requirement determines whether the expense is deductible at all, not whether the 50% cap applies once it is. The option disallowing the deduction entirely confuses the separate, harsher rule that eliminated deductions for entertainment expenses (like tickets or outings) with the business meal rule, which Congress left intact at the 50% level even while eliminating entertainment deductions. The option allowing an 80% deduction borrows the special rate that applies only to meals subject to the Department of Transportation's hours-of-service limits, such as those of certain long-haul transportation workers, which has no application to this consultant's client dinner.

Source: IRC Section 274(n)(1) and (n)(3)

Correct answer: .

The corporate alternative minimum tax enacted by the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 applies a 15% minimum tax to the adjusted financial statement income of an 'applicable corporation' — generally one whose average AFSI over the applicable three-year testing period exceeds $1 billion, or, for a corporation that is a member of a foreign-parented multinational group, one whose U.S. members' average AFSI exceeds a separate $100 million threshold. Corporation Q's $1.4 billion average AFSI exceeds the $1 billion threshold that applies to it as a corporation outside any foreign-parented group, so it is an applicable corporation subject to the 15% CAMT rate on its AFSI (with the regular corporate tax and certain other amounts credited against, not stacked on top of, that liability). The option measuring the threshold against regular taxable income is wrong because CAMT's entire purpose is to reach large corporations' book income even when their regular taxable income is much lower; the threshold itself is defined in terms of AFSI. The option applying a 21% rate confuses CAMT's 15% minimum-tax rate with the unrelated 21% flat corporate income tax rate under Section 11. The option swapping the two thresholds has them backwards: the $100 million figure applies to foreign-parented group members, and $1 billion is the threshold for a corporation like Corporation Q that isn't part of one.

Source: IRC Sections 55, 56A, and 59(k), as added by the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022

Correct answer: .

Treasury Regulation Section 301.7701-3 provides that an eligible entity that doesn't file an election is classified under a default rule: a domestic eligible entity with two or more members defaults to partnership classification, while a domestic eligible entity with a single owner defaults to being disregarded as an entity separate from its owner, meaning that owner reports the LLC's income and deductions directly on the owner's own return rather than on a separate partnership return. The option defaulting every LLC to corporate status has the rule backwards: corporate classification is available only by affirmative election under these regulations, never as the default for an eligible entity like a typical LLC. The option defaulting to S corporation or C corporation status based on member count is wrong because S corporation status is never a default; it requires its own affirmative election under Section 1362 after the entity is already classified as a corporation. The option making the default classification depend on the state of formation is wrong because Section 301.7701-3's default classification rule is a uniform matter of federal tax law, applied the same way nationwide regardless of state-law variations in how LLCs themselves are organized.

Source: Treasury Regulation Section 301.7701-3(b)(1)

Correct answer: .

Under IRC Section 704(b) and the substantial economic effect regulations, a special allocation is respected only if it has economic effect, which the regulations test through three linked requirements: capital accounts maintained under the regulations' rules, liquidating distributions made in accordance with positive capital account balances, and an obligation for any partner with a capital account deficit at liquidation to restore that deficit (or an equivalent qualified income offset). Because this partnership's agreement satisfies none of the three, the depreciation allocation lacks economic effect and must be disregarded; the deduction is instead reallocated according to each partner's overall interest in the partnership, determined by weighing the partners' relative contributions, economic risk of loss, and rights to distributions and capital, rather than by whatever label the agreement uses. The option suggesting mere written agreement is automatically enough ignores that Section 704(b) exists precisely to test allocations against economic substance, not just paper consent. The option conditioning validity on the partnership's aggregate tax liability confuses this allocation rule with wholly separate anti-abuse rules and applies no standard the statute or regulations actually use. The option recharacterizing the allocation as a guaranteed payment misapplies Section 707(c), which covers payments determined without regard to partnership income, not a percentage allocation of an actual partnership tax item like depreciation.

Source: IRC Section 704(b); Treas. Reg. Section 1.704-1(b)(2) (substantial economic effect test)

Correct answer: .

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act amended IRC Section 1031(a)(1) for exchanges completed after December 31, 2017, replacing its former reference to 'property' with 'real property,' so nonrecognition treatment under Section 1031 is now available only for real property held for productive use in a trade or business or for investment that is exchanged for real property of a like kind held for the same purposes; this warehouse-for-warehouse swap fits squarely within that narrowed scope. The truck-for-truck exchange no longer qualifies, because tangible personal property, including vehicles, was carved out of Section 1031 entirely by the same amendment and instead triggers recognized gain or loss on the exchange. The option treating both exchanges as qualifying describes the pre-2018 rule that covered a much broader range of business and investment property, not current law. The option claiming Section 1031 nonrecognition was repealed entirely overstates the amendment, which narrowed the provision's scope rather than eliminating it. The option qualifying only the truck exchange has the current rule exactly backwards, since personal property is what the amendment excluded, not what it now uniquely covers.

Source: IRC Section 1031(a), as amended by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (Pub. L. 115-97)

Correct answer: .

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act added new IRC Section 174A, which restores immediate deductibility (or, at the taxpayer's election, amortization over not less than 60 months) for domestic research or experimental expenditures paid or incurred in tax years beginning after December 31, 2024, reversing the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act's mandatory 5-year capitalization for that category. Foreign research expenditures, however, were not restored to current deductibility; Section 174, as amended, continues to require them to be capitalized and amortized ratably over 15 years. So this corporation currently deducts its $1,500,000 of domestic research costs under Section 174A while still amortizing its $500,000 of foreign research costs over 15 years. The option capitalizing both categories over 5 years describes the prior Tax Cuts and Jobs Act regime the One Big Beautiful Bill Act partially reversed, and even that regime never used a 5-year period for foreign costs. The option allowing full current deduction of both categories ignores that the restored immediate expensing applies only to domestic research. The option conditioning immediate expensing on a matching research credit claim invents a requirement; Section 174A's expensing and Section 41's credit are separate provisions, coordinated only through the Section 280C reduction, not a mandatory joint election.

Source: IRC Sections 174 and 174A, as amended by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (Pub. L. 119-21, enacted July 4, 2025)

Correct answer: .

Under IRC Section 752 and its regulations, a partnership liability is recourse to the extent a partner (or related person) bears the economic risk of loss for it, most commonly by guaranteeing payment, and a recourse liability is allocated to the partner or partners who bear that risk; a partner's increased share of partnership liabilities is treated as a deemed cash contribution that increases outside basis under Section 752(a). Because Partner A alone guarantees the loan while it is recourse, the full $200,000 increases only Partner A's basis. Once refinanced as nonrecourse, no partner bears the economic risk of loss, so the regulations under Section 1.752-3 instead allocate the liability among the partners generally in accordance with their shares of partnership profits; a decrease in a partner's share of liabilities is treated as a deemed cash distribution that decreases outside basis under Section 752(b), which is exactly what happens to Partner A's basis on the refinancing, while Partner B's basis increases correspondingly. The option denying any basis effect ignores that both the original financing and the refinancing are covered by Section 752. The option allocating both types of debt to whichever partner has the closest connection to the loan invents a standard the regulations do not use for nonrecourse debt. The option splitting recourse debt evenly regardless of the guarantee, and shifting nonrecourse debt entirely to the guarantor based on state law liability, both misstate the regulations, which allocate recourse debt by economic risk of loss, not an even split, and nonrecourse debt by profit shares, not personal guarantor status.

Source: IRC Section 752(a)-(b); Treas. Reg. Sections 1.752-2 (recourse liabilities) and 1.752-3 (nonrecourse liabilities)

Correct answer: .

Treasury Regulation Section 1.1367-1(f) fixes the order in which an S corporation shareholder's stock basis is adjusted each year: basis is increased first for the year's income items, then decreased (but not below zero) for distributions, and only then decreased for the year's loss and deduction items, with any loss that would take basis below zero instead suspended and carried forward under Section 1366(d). Applying that order here, the $30,000 of income raises the shareholder's basis from $10,000 to $40,000; the $25,000 non-dividend distribution then reduces basis to $15,000, and because basis was sufficient to absorb the full distribution, none of it is taxed as gain; the $22,000 loss is applied last against the remaining $15,000 of basis, using up all of it and suspending the excess $7,000 of loss for use in a future year when the shareholder generates additional basis. The option applying the loss before the distribution and income gets the mandatory order backwards, which is exactly the sequencing error the regulation exists to prevent. The option netting all three items in one step ignores that the regulation requires a strict sequence, not a simultaneous net computation, and wrongly treats negative basis as a valid intermediate result. The option applying the distribution before the income correctly identifies that distributions come before losses but incorrectly puts the distribution ahead of the income increase, which the regulation does not permit.

Source: IRC Sections 1366(d) and 1367(a); Treas. Reg. Section 1.1367-1(f)

Correct answer: .

IRC Section 751(a) requires that when a partner sells or exchanges an interest in a partnership, the portion of the amount realized attributable to the partnership's unrealized receivables and inventory items that have appreciated substantially in value (inventory whose fair market value exceeds 120% of the partnership's adjusted basis in it, together known as 'hot assets') is treated as an amount realized from the sale of property other than a capital asset, i.e., ordinary income, rather than capital gain. Here, $120,000 of the seller's total $200,000 gain is attributable to hot assets and must be reported as ordinary income, while the remaining $80,000, attributable to the partnership's other, non-hot assets, is capital gain. The option treating the entire gain as capital gain wrongly assumes Section 751 is limited to partnership distributions; the statute applies equally to sales and exchanges of partnership interests. The option treating the entire gain as ordinary income overstates the rule, which recharacterizes only the portion of gain attributable to hot assets, not the entire transaction merely because hot assets exist somewhere in the partnership. The option reversing which portion is ordinary versus capital has the mechanism backwards: the hot-asset-attributable gain is ordinary precisely because it represents income the partnership itself would have recognized as ordinary (receivables, appreciated inventory), not because it is unrealized appreciation.

Source: IRC Section 751(a) and (d) (unrealized receivables and substantially appreciated inventory)

Correct answer: .

Under IRC Sections 541 through 544, a corporation is a personal holding company, and subject to the 20% personal holding company tax on its undistributed personal holding company income, only if it meets both a stock ownership test (more than 50% in value of its outstanding stock owned, directly or indirectly, by five or fewer individuals at any time during the last half of the tax year) and an income test (at least 60% of its adjusted ordinary gross income for the year consists of personal holding company income, such as dividends and interest). This corporation's three-individual, 70% ownership satisfies the ownership test, and its 65% dividend-and-interest concentration clears the 60% income threshold, so both tests are met and the tax applies to whatever personal holding company income remains undistributed. The option requiring no active business at all is wrong because the personal holding company rules apply based on a corporation's passive income concentration, not on whether it has any active operations elsewhere. The option requiring 100% passive income overstates the income test, which is set at 60%, not 100%. The option suggesting the tax applies only because of the failure to distribute correctly identifies that distributions reduce undistributed income subject to the tax, but incorrectly claims the stock ownership test alone would make the corporation a personal holding company; both tests must independently be satisfied regardless of distributions.

Source: IRC Sections 541-544 (personal holding company tax, definition, and income test)

Correct answer: .

IRC Section 197 requires that the cost of most intangible assets acquired in connection with the acquisition of a trade or business, including goodwill, going concern value, and covenants not to compete entered into in connection with such an acquisition, be capitalized and amortized ratably over a fixed 15-year (180-month) period starting with the month of acquisition, regardless of the intangible's actual expected useful life. Both the goodwill and the covenant not to compete here are Section 197 intangibles, so the full $1,500,000 is amortized together over 15 years. The option allowing immediate expensing misstates Section 197, which mandates amortization rather than offering an expensing option for these acquired intangibles. The option disallowing any recovery until sale or liquidation reflects how goodwill was sometimes treated before Section 197 was enacted, when it lacked a determinable useful life for tax purposes, but Section 197 assigns it a fixed statutory 15-year period regardless. The option treating the covenant not to compete as outside Section 197 is incorrect; a covenant not to compete entered into in connection with an acquisition of a trade or business is expressly listed among Section 197 intangibles and shares the same 15-year amortization period as goodwill.

Source: IRC Section 197(a), (c), (d) (amortization of goodwill and other acquired intangibles)

Correct answer: .

Because the parent owns at least 80% of the voting power and at least 80% of the total value of the subsidiary's stock, and that ownership is maintained through the completion of the liquidation, IRC Section 332(a) allows the parent to recognize no gain or loss on receiving the liquidating distribution in cancellation of its subsidiary stock, and Section 337(a) separately allows the subsidiary to recognize no gain or loss on distributing its property to this 80%-or-more distributee parent. Under Section 334(b)(1), the parent then takes the same basis in the assets received, and the same holding period, that the subsidiary had in those assets immediately before the liquidation, rather than a fresh fair-market-value basis. The option treating this like a stock sale by the parent misapplies the general taxable-liquidation rule of Section 331, which does not apply once the 80%-ownership requirements of Section 332 are satisfied. The option requiring gain recognition at both levels describes what would happen in an unrelated third-party asset sale followed by a taxable liquidating distribution, the opposite of the tax-free treatment Sections 332 and 337 provide for an 80%-or-more-owned subsidiary. The option denying gain but granting a fair-market-value basis step-up is wrong because nonrecognition under Sections 332 and 337 is paired with carryover basis under Section 334(b)(1), not a stepped-up basis, which would inconsistently let appreciation permanently escape taxation.

Source: IRC Sections 332(a), 337(a), and 334(b)(1) (liquidation of an 80%-or-more-owned subsidiary)

Correct answer: .

IRC Section 170(b)(2) generally limits a C corporation's charitable contribution deduction for a tax year to 10% of its taxable income, computed without regard to the charitable contribution deduction itself and certain other specified items; here, 10% of the corporation's $4,000,000 taxable income base is $400,000, so only $400,000 of the $500,000 contributed may be deducted in 2025. Under Section 170(d)(2), the disallowed $100,000 excess is not lost; it may be carried forward and deducted in any of the five succeeding tax years, subject to that year's own 10% limit, with no carryback permitted and any amount still unused after the five-year carryforward period expiring unused. The option allowing an unlimited deduction ignores that Section 170(b)(2) imposes exactly this kind of percentage ceiling on corporations, distinct from the different percentage limits that apply to individual taxpayers. The option applying a 5% limit with no carryforward uses the wrong percentage and wrongly denies the carryforward the statute expressly provides. The option describing a $1,000,000 safe harbor below which no percentage limit applies invents a threshold that does not exist in Section 170(b)(2), which applies its percentage limitation to corporate charitable contributions regardless of the dollar amount involved.

Source: IRC Section 170(b)(2) and (d)(2) (corporate charitable contribution limit and carryforward)

Correct answer: .

Because the individual's child continues to directly own all 40 remaining shares, the family-attribution rules of Section 318(a)(1) attribute the child's shares to the individual, so the individual is not treated as having terminated their entire interest merely by having the corporation redeem the shares held directly — without more, the redemption would be taxed as a dividend to the extent of earnings and profits. Section 302(c)(2)'s waiver lets the individual disregard the family-attributed shares for purposes of the complete-termination test in Section 302(b)(3), but only if the individual retains no interest in the corporation other than as a creditor, does not acquire any further interest within 10 years except by bequest or inheritance, and files an agreement with the return for the redemption year to notify the IRS of any prohibited acquisition during that period. The response claiming the redemption automatically qualifies ignores that the child's attributed shares block complete termination without the waiver being properly invoked. The response describing a mandatory 10-year wait before filing any return confuses the forward-looking 10-year monitoring period, during which a prohibited acquisition must be disclosed if it happens, with a condition precedent to filing at all. The response requiring the child to also sell shares misstates the waiver, which operates by having the redeemed shareholder disclaim attribution, not by requiring every family member to reduce their own holdings.

Source: IRC Section 302(b)(3) and Section 302(c)(2)(A) (26 U.S.C. § 302)

Correct answer: .

Section 368(a)(1)(A)'s own text defines a reorganization as simply 'a statutory merger or consolidation,' without stating any continuity-of-interest percentage or other substantive requirement — satisfying state merger law is necessary but not sufficient. Treasury Regulation Section 1.368-1(e) imposes the separate continuity-of-interest doctrine, requiring that a substantial part of the value of the proprietary interests in the target corporation be preserved through stock or other equity participation in the acquiring or a related corporation; this exists precisely to stop transactions that are economically indistinguishable from a cash sale from obtaining nonrecognition treatment merely because they are labeled a merger under state corporate law. Because Corporation X's shareholders receive only cash and retain no equity stake in Corporation Y, continuity of interest is not preserved, and the transaction fails to qualify despite satisfying the state-law merger label. The response treating the state-law label as sufficient on its own ignores that the continuity requirement comes from the regulations, not the statute's bare text, but applies regardless. The response requiring an IRS ruling confuses optional taxpayer comfort with a legal precondition; no ruling is required for a transaction to qualify as a reorganization. The response citing a fixed 50% stock-consideration threshold in the statute itself misattributes a continuity-of-interest proportion, which arises from regulatory and judicial practice rather than from any percentage written into Section 368(a)(1)(A).

Source: IRC Section 368(a)(1)(A) and Treasury Regulation Section 1.368-1(b), (e)(1)(i)

Correct answer: .

Section 179(d)(6) treats all component members of a controlled group as a single taxpayer for purposes of the dollar limitation on Section 179 expensing, and directs the Secretary to apportion that one limitation among the component members by regulation; the corporations may not each independently claim the full limitation on separate returns. Section 179(d)(7) defines 'controlled group' by cross-reference to Section 1563(a), but substitutes a more-than-50% ownership threshold for the statute's usual at-least-80% test, which is why common ownership exceeding 50% between Corporation M and Corporation N is enough to trigger this aggregation even though it would not create an 80%-test affiliated group. The response limiting the aggregation rule to partnerships and S corporations is wrong because Section 179(d)(6) applies to C corporations under common control exactly as described here. The response requiring a single consolidated return confuses the Section 179 aggregation rule, which only requires sharing one apportioned dollar limitation, with the separate and unrelated requirements for filing a consolidated corporate income tax return. The response giving the entire limitation to whichever corporation has more property, conditioned on Section 1504 affiliated-group status, misstates the law twice over: apportionment is a matter the group itself controls within the regulations, not an automatic all-or-nothing rule, and it does not depend on the unrelated 80%-vote-and-value affiliated-group test under Section 1504.

Source: IRC Section 179(d)(6) and Section 179(d)(7) (26 U.S.C. § 179)

Correct answer: .

Section 199A(c)(3)(B)(i) expressly excludes any item of short-term capital gain, short-term capital loss, long-term capital gain, or long-term capital loss from the qualified items of income, gain, deduction, and loss that make up QBI, regardless of whether the underlying asset was used in the taxpayer's trade or business; this keeps the Section 199A deduction focused on ordinary business profit rather than investment-like gains. The response including the gain at its full amount misreads 'effectively connected' income as covering every category of income the business generates, when the statute specifically strips out capital gains and losses by name. The response applying a 50% inclusion rate confuses this exclusion with the unrelated partial exclusion available for certain qualified small business stock gain, which has nothing to do with how QBI itself is computed. The response conditioning the exclusion on whether the taxpayer itemizes deductions invents a connection between Section 199A, which is available to taxpayers whether or not they itemize, and the itemized-deduction election, which governs an entirely separate part of the return.

Source: IRC Section 199A(c)(3)(B) (26 U.S.C. § 199A), as amended by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act of 2025

Correct answer: .

Treasury Regulation Section 1.707-3(c)(1) provides that if a partner transfers property to a partnership and the partnership transfers money or other consideration to that partner within a two-year period, measured without regard to the order of the transfers, the transfers are presumed to be a sale, rebuttable only if the facts and circumstances clearly establish otherwise; the reverse presumption, that transfers are not a sale, applies only when they occur more than two years apart. Because the contribution and the cash distribution described here are fourteen months apart, the two-year presumption of a sale applies. The response requiring the individual to disprove an independent business purpose inverts the actual test, which asks whether the facts and circumstances show the transfers are not a disguised sale, not whether a business purpose can be separately proven. The response describing a five-year testing period invents a timeframe that does not appear in the regulation, which draws its line at two years, not five. The response limiting Section 707(a)(2)(B) to money or marketable securities is wrong because the disguised-sale rules apply to contributions of any property, including real property, paired with a later distribution of money or other consideration.

Source: IRC Section 707(a)(2)(B) and Treasury Regulation Section 1.707-3(c)(1), (d) (26 CFR § 1.707-3)