Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt (short: Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Hyatt or Hyatt III), [1] 587 U.S. 230 (2019), was a United States Supreme Court case that determined that unless they consent, states have sovereign immunity from private suits filed against them in the courts of another state.
While the Tax Court is headquartered in Washington, D.C., its 19 judges hear cases in about 80 cities throughout the U.S. (See also Article I and Article III tribunals). Appeals from the Tax Court are taken to whichever of the United States courts of appeals has geographical jurisdiction over the claimant. The United States District Courts.
The Supreme Court of the United States has heard numerous cases in the area of tax law. This is an incomplete list of those cases. This is an incomplete list of those cases. Article One
The Tax court had to decide whether the taxpayer had the ability receive the check or whether she faced "substantial limitations" on this ability as a result of the circumstances. The Tax Court noted prior decisions that held a taxpayer to have constructively received funds as of the time of attempted delivery when the taxpayer made a decision ...
President Calvin Coolidge signing the income tax bill which established the U.S. Board of Tax Appeals; Andrew Mellon is the third figure from the right.. The first incarnation of the Tax Court was the "U.S. Board of Tax Appeals", established by Congress in the Revenue Act of 1924 [4] [5] (also known as the Mellon tax bill) in order to address the increasing complexity of tax-related litigation.
Initiated in 1968 in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Serrano v. Priest (John Serrano was a parent of one of several Los Angeles public school students; Ivy Baker Priest was the California State Treasurer at the time) set forth three causes of action (quotes from the decision).
The 2017 California Supreme Court decision disapproved two previous Court of Appeal published decisions [146] [147] holding that a fee on the extraction of groundwater was a property-related fee under Proposition 218. This was the first time the California Supreme Court disapproved a prior published Court of Appeal decision with the resulting ...
Court and jury decisions concerning mixed questions of law and fact are usually subjected to de novo review, unless factual issues predominate, in which event the decision will be subject to clearly erroneous review. When made by administrative agencies, decisions concerning mixed questions of law and fact are subjected to arbitrary and ...