Sentences with phrase «ruled against the taxpayer»

U.S. Tax Court Alimony Decisions: Five Cases You Should Know (10/14/16) This article summarizes five U.S. Tax Court cases in which the Court ruled against the taxpayer on issues involving deductible alimony.

Not exact matches

From a tax perspective, readers may want to know that there is something that federal tax code calls the passive loss limitation rules that prevent taxpayers from offsetting passive losses against other forms of income.

The task force he appointed could have called for rolling back contract - negotiating rules that stack the deck against taxpayers.

A Las Vegas judge on Wednesday ruled Nevada's controversial new school choice bill does not violate a constitutional ban against the use of taxpayer money for religious purposes.

From where I sit, there is very little down side, and a lot of upside — the charity benefits, the taxpayer benefits, the tax shelter company benefits, and if the program ends up being ruled against as non-compliant, then the Ministry of Finance benefits from being paid back.

As we previously noted, the rules give the Department authority to better protect students and taxpayers against school fraud and to provide relief to defrauded student loan borrowers.

14) March 2, 2012 The Virginia Supreme Court rules in the University of Virginia's favor in the Mann case, with the majority finding that the university is not a «person» as defined in the Fraud Against Taxpayers Act (FATA), and therefore the Attorney General has no authority under the Act to make civil investigative demands (CIDs) of the university.

Scott monitors state rulings, legislation and court decisions that impact taxpayers and guides his clients in a broad range of substantive issues, from business restructuring and transactional tax planning to constitutional questions such as nexus, discrimination against interstate commerce and unitary combination.

In your first few years as a Judge Advocate, you might be fully lititgating a criminal trial (a.k.a court martial), defending the U.S. Government against a taxpayer whose house got damaged by falling aircraft parts, or briefing troops on «shoot / don't shoot rules of engagement» and laws of armed conflict.

In the course of proceedings before the tribunal between the commissioners and the taxpayer company, X, in relation to X's liability under a county court judgment for unpaid PAYE income tax and national insurance contributions, the tribunal awarded costs in the sum of # 30,500, against the commissioners because of their «serial failures to comply with the time limits in the tribunal, rules and directions».

Strathy, J. ruled that a trial would be necessary to determine whether the claim was in fact statute barred, noting that even a «sophisticated taxpayer» could be found at trial to not know that damage had occurred and that a legal proceeding against the solicitors would be an appropriate remedy, especially while the solicitors continued to advise that the CRA was wrong.