Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The ruling ended a long tax dispute between Gilbert Hyatt and California regarding alleged tax fraud by Hyatt. Hyatt had been challenging the tax fraud penalties that the California Franchise Tax Board (FTB) had ordered him to pay since 1993, both in court and through administrative proceedings. Because of the Supreme Court ruling, Hyatt was ...
Professor Shores, for instance, argues that, short of a national court of tax appeals that would provide consistent decisions about what the tax law means, substantial improvement in the level of consistency would be provided by the appellate courts adopting the Dobson approach of great deference to Tax Court decisions. [29]
Governor Brown said he'd learned from his failure in the mid-1970s to build a war chest that he could have used to push an alternative to Proposition 13. Governor Brown was definitive that he would not seek to change the law, a third rail in California politics. "Prop. 13 is a sacred doctrine that should never be questioned," he said. [5]
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 ...
California’s Proposition 35 is a battle over how state lawmakers can spend billions in health care dollars. It would make permanent a tax on health insurance plans, a charge that also allows the ...
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 ...
The Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit Court's decision, noting that "On federal habeas review, AEDPA 'imposes a highly deferential standard for evaluating state-court rulings' and 'demands that state-court decisions be given the benefit of the doubt.'" Moreover, "The state appellate court’s decision was plainly not unreasonable.
It is regarding the statutory interpretation of 26 U.S.C. § 6330(c) and whether the tax court would have jurisdiction over petitions to the tax court if the petition exceeded the 30 days time frame. In a unanimous decision by the court, they ruled that 30 day timeline is non-jurisdictional and is protected by equitable tolling .