Latest Activity In Study Groups

Join Your Study Groups

VU Past Papers, MCQs and More

We non-commercial site working hard since 2009 to facilitate learning Read More. We can't keep up without your support. Donate.

Business Communication (ENG301) Assignment 2 (Spring 2014) Open Date: May 21, 2014, Due Date: May 27, 2014

Business Communication (ENG301)


Assignment 2 (Spring 2014)

Total Marks: 15                    



  • The assessment of students’ understanding of different concepts of ‘Business Communication’ and how they can apply their conceptual knowledge in daily life examples



  • It is an optional and non-graded activity.
  • Late assignments will not be accepted.
  • If the file is corrupt or problematic, it will be marked zero.
  • Plagiarism will NOT be tolerated. Plagiarism occurs when a student uses work done by someone else as if it was his or her own; however, taking the ideas from different sources and expressing them in your own words will be encouraged.
  • No assignment will be accepted via e-mail.
  • The solution file should be in Word document format; the font color should be preferably black and font size should be 12 Times New Roman.


Q1. Your Multinational Company is organizing a workshop to improve ‘Communication

       Skills’ of the employees. As a General Manager of the company, write an interoffice

      memorandum to inform the staff.                                                                               (10)


Q2. Identify and label the given letter formats and write down three points of differences

       between the two.      


       Note: Students are just supposed to identify the format of the given letters. If the 

       content is not readable, it is not the point to worry about.


Views: 5269

Replies to This Discussion

Please Discuss here about this assignment.Thanks

Our main purpose here discussion not just Solution

We are here with you hands in hands to facilitate your learning and do not appreciate the idea of copying or replicating solutions.

company. A memo conveys a message similar to a business letter but the audience is meant to be company employees only. Since email is so prevalent in today's workplace, memos are usually reserved for matters needing more official or serious communication. Memos are often attached to an email.

Formatting a Memo

Memos have a standard format; many companies have an official company memo template that employees should use. If your company does not have a n existing template, here is the information that is typically included in the heading:

Company Logo

The body of the memo is written underneath the subject. Memos are typically one page in length. Material needing more than a page to explain is better suited for a meeting or report.




TO:                  Professor Jerry Simon Chasen


FROM:            Jason E. Havens


DATE:             September 17, 1999


RE:                   Bakers and Summers & Outtak: Sales of residences and treatment of the gain





            Based on the facts, our clients, two separate couples, face similar issues regarding the sales of their respective residences and the treatment of the resulting gain.  First, John and Alice Baker sold their Florida residence at the end of last year, soon after John’s death.  The married couple owned the house a “relatively short time.”  They apparently bought the house for about $600,000 and sold it for $1.2 million.  They had been spending an increasing amount of time in this Florida home in order to establish Florida residency.  Additionally, for two (2) of the past three (3) years, they paid the Florida intangibles tax, failed to pay their New York income tax, and possessed Florida licenses.


            Second, Diane Summers and Dottie Outtak had lived together in their Everglades home for many years.  They sold it this year and made an $800,000 profit.  They owned the house “equal[ly].”




  1. Is the sale of the Bakers’ residence eligible for the amended “principal” residence exclusion (non-recognition provision) under Internal Revenue Code section 121?


  1. If so, is the house includible in John’s estate, and can Alice file a joint return with his estate?


  1. Since Diane and Dottie possessed equal ownership interests in their residence, will they each qualify for the section 121 exclusion?




In general, the principal residence exclusion, controlled by section 121 (which was significantly expanded due to the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997), provides that $250,000 of gain ($500,000 for certain married couples filing jointly) will not be recognized upon the sale of a “principal” residence.  See generally Gummer v. United States, 40 Fed. Cl. 812 (1998); JACOB MERTENS, JR., 3 LAW OF FEDERAL INCOME TAXATION § 20:15 (Supp. 1999); R. Arnold Handler, Acquisition, Financing, Refinancing and Sale or Exchange of Residence; Moving Expenses, 594-1st Tax Mgmt. Portfolio (BNA), at A-18+ (1999).


First, no age requirement exists under the principal residence exclusion (whereas former section 121 imposed an age requirement).  Second, the exclusion’s residence requirement, which is often separated into “ownership” and “use” tests (or requirements), provides that the taxpayer(s) must own and use the property as a “principal” residence for two (2) of the last five (5) years preceding the sale (instead of the former three (3) year requirement).  I.R.C. § 121(a).  Basically, for spouses filing jointly to obtain the $500,000 principal residence exclusion, only one spouse must satisfy the ownership test, but both spouses must meet the use test, i.e., use of the residence as their “principal” one (defined more broadly under Gummer, supra).  I.R.C. § 121(b)(2).  Third, the taxpayer(s) may use the principal residence exclusion every two (2) years.  I.R.C. § 121(b)(3).  Other and special rules apply, some of which will be discussed below as appropriate.  See I.R.C. §§ 121(c) et seq.


A.        Sale of the Bakers’ Residence


            Some other rules apply to the Bakers.  To take advantage of the higher $500,000 principal residence exclusion, spouses must file a joint return for the year that the sale occurs.  I.R.C. § 121(d)(1).  Also, to satisfy the ownership test under the residence requirement, a surviving spouse may include the period that the deceased spouse owned and used the residence.  I.R.C. § 121(d)(2).  Finally, regarding the use test under the residence requirement, a taxpayer apparently does not necessarily need to occupy the home physically as a principal residence for the entire two years.  See Gummer, supra (holding occupancy of eighteen months (18), inter alia, as sufficient for use under the old (and probably the amended) principal residence exclusion); Comment, ‘Use’ of Principal Residence Does Not Require Occupancy, 61 TAX’N FOR ACCT. 60 (1998) (citing two articles from the same journal that generally explain the amended principal residence exclusion).  Rather, courts will determine whether the taxpayer “used” the property as a “principal” residence under a “‘facts and circumstances’ analysis,” including consideration of the taxpayer’s good faith in such usage.  Gummer, supra, at 819.


            In applying the principal residence exclusion to the Bakers, Alice can arguably file a joint return with John’s estate.  See, e.g., Rev. Rul. 87-104 (holding that, under the former law, a surviving spouse need not be joined in the “maximum” principal residence exclusion election to avoid a sale’s gain).  The residence requirement may pose problems for the Bakers, but, under Gummer, they can qualify for the joint exclusion relatively easily.  Only one of them must own the residence for the specified period, which Alice could do despite John’s death.  However, both spouses must meet the use test for the specified period to take advantage of the maximum exclusion of $500,000.  Based on the facts, it appears that Alice and John clearly intended to use the Florida residence as their principal one for at least two (2) years, especially since they paid Florida’s intangibles tax and failed to pay New York’s income tax.  The facts do not specify how long the Bakers had actually owned and used the Florida residence, but the Gummer court eliminated a strict use test in favor of a facts-and-circumstances test, with particular emphasis on the taxpayer’s good faith.  More facts are needed to determine if the Bakers will definitely qualify for the principal residence exclusion; however, given their two-year payment of Florida taxes and maintenance of licenses, the joint exclusion seems inevitable.


However, if they do not qualify for the full joint exclusion, Alice has other options.  Initially, she may want to pursue one of the special rules that allows prorated application of the principal residence exclusion in certain justifiably-motivated circumstances -- even though the requirements of section 121 have not been met; these circumstances include employment changes, health, or “unforeseen circumstances.”  See I.R.C. § 121(c)(2); Handler, supra, at A-19.  Alice might be able to establish an employment change for John since they wanted to change their residency from New York to Florida, or even a health change since he died so suddenly after the sale.  Then they could possibly still use most of the full $500,000 exclusion.  Otherwise, she will want to use her own principal residence exclusion of $250,000 if they cannot jointly satisfy the principal residence exclusion, e.g., if, due to John’s death, they cannot meet the two-year use requirement due to John’s death and the special prorated exclusion rule does not apply.


B.         Inclusion of the Bakers’ Residence in John’s Estate


            Section 2040(b) includes half of a jointly-owned, married spouse’s residence in the decedent’s gross estate.  Since the sale of the Bakers’ residence did not occur until after John’s death (even though the sales contract on the residence occurred beforehand), Alice and John’s estate will technically split the gain produced by the sale: $1.2 million (amount realized) - $600,000 (aggregate basis) = $600,000 aggregate gain, with $300,000 of gain going to each taxpayer, namely Alice and John’s estate.  If the principal residence exclusion applies jointly, as it seemingly will, then $500,000 of the gain will be excluded and each taxpayer will recognize only $50,000 of the gain.  If the exclusion does not apply jointly, at least Alice will exclude her realized gain up to $250,000 and recognize $50,000, and maybe a prorated exclusion will apply to John’s estate.


            Unfortunately, John’s share of the undivided interest in the residence does not receive a “stepped-up” basis under Code section 1014 for purposes of the post-death sale, even though it passed through John’s estate, because the property represents income in respect of a decedent (IRD).  See I.R.C. §§ 1014(c) (basis of property acquired from a decedent) & 691 (IRD).  Therefore, John’s estate calculates the gain as John would if he were living (as outlined above).


C.        Sale of Diane’s and Dottie’s Residence


            Additional special rules apply to Diane’s and Dottie’s situation.  Generally, before the 1997 amendment, an unmarried individual who held a residence as a joint tenant or a tenant in common could utilize the principal residence exclusion as any other taxpayer; each joint owner was treated separately, or as an individual co-owner, for purposes of applying the former principal residence exclusion.  See Rev. Ruls. 67-234 and 67-235.  “Presumably, these same principles should govern for purposes of present § 121.”  Robert T. Danforth, Taxation of Jointly Owned Property, 823-1st Tax. Mgmt. Portfolio (BNA), at A-56 (1998).


            Consequently, Diane and Dottie should each be allowed to exclude up to $250,000 of gain from the sale of their jointly-owned principal residence, provided that they satisfy the section 121 requirements -- as they seem to do -- and regardless of exactly how they owned the joint property (as survivors or in common).  After their respective exclusions, each will recognize $150,000 of the aggregate $300,000 of remaining gain from the sales profit.




            The principal residence exclusion, or section 121 as amended, and the Gummer case establish the rules for excluding or not recognizing gain from the sale of a “principal” residence.  These rules probably allow both of our clients to exclude $500,000 of gain from the respective sales of their principal residences, because both apparently satisfy the amended section 121 requirements (jointly for the Bakers and separately as joint owners for Diane and Dottie) listed above.  The Bakers might not have owned and used their residence for the required term; if they have not, they must either pursue an exception (special rule) or Alice must use her own exclusion and allow John’s estate to recognize its full half of the gain.  Diane and Dottie will likely encounter no problems in using their respective exclusions as joint owners or tenants.




            First (and due mainly to Hurricane Floyd), I researched this issue at home using MARVIN A. CHIRELSTEIN, FEDERAL INCOME TAXATION (8th ed.) and the Tax Analysts CD-ROM that we purchased in class.  I found the old principal residence exclusion explained in CHIRELSTEIN’s superb book, but it lacked any analysis of the amended law.  However, the Tax Analysts CD contained the new Code section, an explanation in FEDERAL INCOME TAX BY BAEDEKER, and three key Revenue Rulings on section 121.  Second, I went to the law library to expand my research.  I utilized BNA’s Tax Management Portfolios and obtained excellent explanations in number 594 of the Income Series and a summary in number 823 of the Estates, Gifts, and Trusts Series.  Then I researched the issue by using RIA’s and CCH’s tax reporters and found the Gummer case and other citations in both resources.  Finally, I concluded my research by using the computer, namely two citators, Lexis’ Shepard’s and Westlaw’s Keycite, and by performing searches on Westlaw and Findlaw for any other authority on the issue.  I also used the BNA Tax Management Portfolios on the Internet.  In all of my computer research, I found two small articles that explained Gummer.  As before, the traditional research tools provided everything that I needed.

For the sample of Memo Check the attachment !!


As,salam Alikum 

So easy Assignment just read the question carefully and explain.

Question 01

Ans: As a General Manager write a memo to staff for inform of workshop.


Write down three main points of the Letter that different in these two letter.

Tutor Give you marks your letter format and points  so plz don't waste marks.

Have me in your pray........

A.o.A Azhar ap meri help kar skta ho muja ya samj nahi a raha kasa explain karna hia plz

An interoffice memo, or memorandum, is used for communication within the company. A memo conveys a message similar to a business letter but the audience is meant to be company employees only. Since email is so prevalent in today's workplace, memos are usually reserved for matters needing more official or serious communication. Memos are often attached to an email.

Formatting a Memo

Memos have a standard format; many companies have an official company memo template that employees should use. If your company does not have a n existing template, here is the information that is typically included in the heading:

Company Logo

The body of the memo is written underneath the subject. Memos are typically one page in length. Material needing more than a page to explain is better suited for a meeting or report.

Tariq Bhai 2nd Question ka Answer B Batayien Kaisay Find karnay hain 3 Differences..

non graded hai yeh...... :-p

annoucement main graded activity h aur  assignment main non graded


I have sent an email to tutor lets see what they say. My guess it is Graded activity.

tutor reply its Graded


© 2022   Created by + M.Tariq Malik.   Powered by

Promote Us  |  Report an Issue  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Service