Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The U.S. Supreme Court rules state and local officials may take gifts and payments for steering contracts to grateful patrons. Supreme Court wipes out anti-corruption law that bars officials from ...
A gift tax, known originally as inheritance tax, is a tax imposed on the transfer of ownership of property during the giver's life. The United States Internal Revenue Service says that a gift is "Any transfer to an individual, either directly or indirectly, where full compensation (measured in money or money's worth) is not received in return."
A Qualified Employee Discount is defined in Section 132(c) as any employee discount with respect to qualified property or services to the extent the discount does not exceed (a) the gross profit percentage of the price at which the property is being offered by the employer to customers, in the case of property, or (b) 20% of the price offered for services by the employer to customers, in the ...
For example, Revenue Ruling 79-24 was the twenty-fourth revenue ruling issued in 1979. Public administrative rulings are part of second-tier authorities and are subordinate to the Internal Revenue Code and other statutes, Treasury regulations, treaties, and court decisions. They hold higher weight than third-tier authorities, such as ...
For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to reach us
Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677 (2005), is a United States Supreme Court case involving whether a display of the Ten Commandments on a monument given to the government at the Texas State Capitol in Austin violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
Marrita Murphy and Daniel J. Leveille, Appellants v. Internal Revenue Service and United States of America, Appellees (commonly known as Murphy v.IRS), [1] is a tax case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit originally held that the taxation of emotional distress awards by the federal government is unconstitutional.
It ruled that the 2011 redistricting map violated either the VRA or the Constitution or a combination of both, and because the state used the maps proposed by Texas federal district court based on the original state maps following the U.S. Supreme Court ruling as the basis for the 2013 redistricting, that these were also similarly flawed.