Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The Court also rejected the premise that there is a bright line as to what constitutes a gift for taxation purposes. Id at 287. Instead, when determining whether something is a gift for taxation purposes, the critical consideration is the transferor's intention. Duberstein at 285-286 (citing Bogardus v. Commissioner, 302 U.S. 34 (1937)). This ...
Case history; Prior: Bogardus v. Helvering, 88 F.2d 646 (2d Cir. 1937); cert. granted, 301 U.S. 674 (1937).: Holding; That a distribution of money by a corporation, by a resolution passed by the board of directors and stockholders, to the company's past and present employees who had no ties with the corporation, in recognition of their past service was a non-taxable gift which the company ...
Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920), was a tax case before the United States Supreme Court that is notable for the following holdings: . A pro rata stock dividend where a shareholder received no actual cash or other property and retained the same proportionate share of ownership of the corporation as was held prior to the dividend by the shareholder was not income to the shareholder under ...
Pay Income Tax Then Litigate, Internal Revenue Act Dusky v. United States: 362 U.S. 402 (1960) standard for adjudicative competence: Commissioner v. Duberstein: 363 U.S. 278 (1960) definition of a 'gift' for taxation purposes Flemming v. Nestor: 363 U.S. 603 (1960) no property right in Social Security benefits Boynton v. Virginia: 364 U.S. 454 ...
Astrue v. Capato, 566 U.S. 541 (2012), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that children conceived after a parent's death are not entitled to Social Security Survivors benefits if the laws in the state that the parent's will was signed in forbid it. [1]
A former family law commissioner refused gifts from litigants while U.S. Supreme Court justices have accepted thousands of dollars in gifts. Where’s the ethics?: From our readers
The disturbing news of a death in a home can give some potential buyers the jitters, and eight states have laws that compel sellers to disclose a death on the property, per the analysis.
The U.S. Supreme Court held that the taxpayer was allowed to deduct the legal fees from his gross income because they meet the requirements of §162(a), [9] which allows the taxpayer to deduct all the "ordinary and necessary expenses paid or incurred during the taxable year in carrying on a trade or business."