Search for: "Does 1-71" Results 241 - 260 of 2,526
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
15 Aug 2014, 5:01 am by James Edward Maule
The Court concluded that the payment failed the requirement of section 71(b)(1)(B), which provides that, among other things, a payment is not deductible alimony unless “the divorce or separation instrument does not designate such payment as a payment which is not includible in gross income under this section and not allowable as a deduction under section 215. [read post]
18 Mar 2016, 3:48 am
That said, it does occur to ask: what if the book had been used in a movie that this Kat finds unacceptable and to which he does not want to be associated? [read post]
27 Mar 2012, 5:01 pm by Oliver G. Randl
While the first and last of these conditions are satisfied in the present case, the fact that the appellant now does not request more than was in fact offered in the R 71(3) communication and so could have been achieved even without the (refused) OPs, means that reimbursement would not be equitable. [read post]
20 Aug 2013, 5:01 pm by oliver randl
G 3/92 [1]).[3.1.10] As the Board has decided in its decision J 33/03 [2.1], contrary to the decision to stay the proceedings according to Rule 14(1), it is in the discretion of the Office to decide whether the proceedings are to be continued under R 14(3). [read post]
28 Nov 2011, 3:02 pm by Zachary Spilman
 Under Article 71(c)(1), UCMJ, a punitive discharge cannot be ordered executed until, after the completion of direct appellate review, there is a final judgment as to the legality of the proceedings. [read post]
6 Feb 2008, 9:04 am
Reed does not want to talk about this. [read post]
17 May 2021, 5:01 am by Unknown
Bluescape and BRC moved for partial summary judgment, arguing that the economic performance requirement in section 461(h)(1) does not apply to the amounts claimed as costs of goods sold for the tax years in issue. [read post]
22 Jul 2019, 7:00 am
A certification mark does not indicate origin in a single commercial or proprietary source the way a trademark or service mark does”). [read post]
13 Feb 2009, 2:50 am
Rep. 109-14, 109th Cong., 1st Sess.2005, reprinted in 2005 U.S.C.CA.N. 3, *70-71, *66-67. [read post]
24 Jun 2016, 12:29 pm by echu
• Increase fees for filing an affidavit of use under section 8 and 71 by $50 for filing electronically or $150 for filing on paper. [read post]
24 Jun 2016, 12:29 pm by echu
• Increase fees for filing an affidavit of use under section 8 and 71 by $50 for filing electronically or $150 for filing on paper. [read post]