Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
In nearly all of the cases heard by the Supreme Court, the Court exercises the appellate jurisdiction granted to it by Article III of the Constitution. This authority permits the Court to affirm, amend or overturn decisions made by lower courts and tribunals. Procedures for bringing cases before the Supreme Court have changed significantly over ...
Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417 (1998), [1] was a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held, 6–3, that the line-item veto, as implemented in the Line Item Veto Act of 1996, violated the Presentment Clause of the United States Constitution because it impermissibly gave the President of the United States the power to unilaterally amend or ...
The Supreme Court typically posts notable orders at one of two pages: Orders of the Court (for unsigned orders of the court or stays by a single justice); and Opinions Relating to Orders (if there are concurring or dissenting opinions). If the court issues a majority opinion, the order is posted at Opinions of the Court. However, this is ...
Thor Power Tool Company v. Commissioner, 439 U.S. 522 (1979), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld IRS regulations limiting how taxpayers could write down inventory. Thor manufactured equipment using multiple parts that it produced. It capitalized the costs of these parts when produced.
In order to ensure compliance with Brady, the United States Supreme Court repeatedly urged the "careful prosecutor" to favor disclosure over concealment. [16] Conformity with Brady is a continuing obligation of prosecutors. Some prosecuting attorney offices have adopted and created specialized procedure and bureaus to meet their burden. [17 ...
In addition to the analysis provided by the two previous courts, the Supreme Court cited the fact that there is a long history of finding that the purpose of changing the corporate structure for the benefit of future operations is not an ordinary and necessary business expense. General Bancshares Corp. v. Commissioner, 326. F.2d, at 715.
In affirming, the Court of Appeals held that the discharge of indebtedness amount first had to be used to reduce certain tax attributes of the S corporation and that only the leftover amount could be used to increase their basis. [3] Gitlitz appealed and the U.S. Supreme Court decided to hear the case.
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 .