Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The court further held that the proper approach to the case was to view it as disputed debt or "contested liability." [11] Under the contested liability doctrine, if a taxpayer, in good faith, disputed the amount of debt, a subsequent settlement would be treated as the amount of debt cognizable for tax purposes. [1] "The excess of the original ...
The Federal Debt Collection Procedures Act of 1990 (FDCPA), Title XXXVI of the Crime Control Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-647, 104 Stat. 4789, 4933 (Nov. 29, 1990), is a United States federal law passed in 1990, affecting collection of money owed to the United States government. The FDCPA preempts state remedy laws in most circumstances.
Orders of the Debt Recovery Tribunal are appealable before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal. Government of India selects the presiding officer in the Tribunal. The Tribunal is based on Debt Recovery Tribunals Act for a debt which is more than Rs 20,00,000. The Jurisdiction extends to whole of India except to the state of Jammu and Kashmir.
The Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 (FIRREA), is a United States federal law enacted in the wake of the savings and loan crisis of the 1980s. It established the Resolution Trust Corporation to close hundreds of insolvent thrifts and provided funds to pay out insurance to their depositors.
New § 362(c)(3) provides that if the debtor files a chapter 7, 11 or 13 case within one year of the dismissal of an earlier case, the automatic stay in the present case terminates 30 days after the filing, unless the debtor or some other party in interest files a motion and demonstrates that the present case was filed in good faith with ...
The lawsuits – including a defamation case from the Central Park Five, eight lawsuits over Trump’s role in the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol and two cases related to the clearing ...
Maitland suggests that in the earliest time the writ of debt seems almost to have been designed to recover identical coins. [3]: 303 The early writ of detinue was specifically designed for recovery of a chattel wrongfully detained, but not an action to recover loss due to a chattel being harmed while the defendant had it. [3]: 303
The legal order itself is in the form of an injunction, which in Commonwealth jurisdictions is also known as a freezing order, Mareva injunction, Mareva order or Mareva regime, after the 1975 case Mareva Compania Naviera SA v International Bulkcarriers SA, [2] although the first recorded instance of such an order in English jurisprudence was Nippon Yusen Kaisha v Karageorgis, [3] decided one ...