Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
In contract law, a severable contract (or "divisible contract") is a contract that is composed of several separate contracts concluded between the same parties, such that failing one part of such a 'severable' contract does not breach the whole contract. Therefore, the other party must still honor the other subparts and cannot cancel the whole ...
Tax rates were 3% on income exceeding $600 and less than $10,000, and 5% on income exceeding $10,000. [8] This tax was repealed and replaced by another income tax in the Revenue Act of 1862. [9] After the war when the need for federal revenues decreased, Congress (in the Revenue Act of 1870) let the tax law expire in 1873. [10]
Hylton v. United States, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 171 (1796), [1] is an early United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a yearly tax on carriages [2] did not violate the Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 and Article I, Section 9, Clause 4 requirements for the apportioning of direct taxes.
Gregory v. Helvering, 293 U.S. 465 (1935), was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court concerned with U.S. income tax law. [1] The case is cited as part of the basis for two legal doctrines: the business purpose doctrine and the doctrine of substance over form.
The test of whether a clause is severable is an objective test—whether a reasonable person would see the contract standing even without the clauses. Typically, non-severable contracts only require the substantial performance of a promise rather than the whole or complete performance of a promise to warrant payment.
The Internal Revenue Service has clarified this difference by saying: “Tax evasion is illegal … tax avoidance is perfectly legal.” With that in mind, here are the top three legal ways to ...
Case history; Prior: Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit: Holding (1) A genuine, good faith belief that one is not violating the Federal tax law based on a misunderstanding caused by the complexity of the tax law is a defense to a charge of "willfulness", even though that belief is irrational or unreasonable; (2) a belief that the Federal income tax is ...
[11] He then further reasoned that the individual mandate is an essential part of the entire law, and thus was not severable, making the entire law unconstitutional. [ 12 ] [ 13 ] O'Connor's decision rendered the ACA unconstitutional but did not immediately overturn the law, granting a stay pending the resolution of the case on appeal. [ 14 ]