Search for: "Prior v. Department of Revenue"
Results 421 - 440
of 838
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
15 Aug 2016, 2:33 pm
First, to the extent the target has classified contracts and operates under a Facility Security Clearance (“FCL”), the parties must understand the limitations imposed by the Department of Defense National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual (“NISPOM”), DoD 5220.22-M. [read post]
15 Aug 2016, 2:11 pm
First, to the extent the target has classified contracts and operates under a Facility Security Clearance (“FCL”), the parties must understand the limitations imposed by the Department of Defense National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual (“NISPOM”), DoD 5220.22-M. [read post]
14 Aug 2016, 1:00 pm
Yet, this is exactly what the DOJ says that ASCAP must now do: “[F]or a song co-written by one ASCAP member and one BMI member, the co-writers might designate the ASCAP member to collect all revenues from the licensing of public performance rights to the song and require that the ASCAP member distribute a share of the revenues to the BMI member. [read post]
25 Jul 2016, 3:13 am
ZM v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Northern Ireland); HA (Iraq) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, heard 12–14 January 2016. [read post]
4 Jul 2016, 1:45 am
ZM v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Northern Ireland); HA (Iraq) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, heard 12–14 January 2016. [read post]
23 Jun 2016, 9:10 am
Steele v. [read post]
13 Jun 2016, 5:34 am
The statute defines `damage’ as any `impairment to the integrity or availability of data, a program, a system, or information’ and `loss’ as`any reasonable cost to any victim, including the cost of responding to an offense, conducting a damage assessment, and restoring the data, program, system, or information to its condition prior to the offense, and any revenue lost, cost incurred, or other consequential damages incurred because of interruption of service. . .… [read post]
2 May 2016, 9:01 pm
That problem just got much bigger with the Fourth Circuit’s decision in G.G. v. [read post]
29 Apr 2016, 9:49 pm
Manahattan Probate Lawyers said the petitioners named and cited as interested parties, in addition to the charitable and non-charitable residuary legatees, the Attorney General of the State of New York (AG), the United States Treasury Department--Internal Revenue Service (IRS), and the New York State Tax Commission (Commission). [read post]
18 Apr 2016, 1:03 am
Airtours Holidays Transport Ltd v Revenue and Customs, heard 25 February 2016. [read post]
14 Apr 2016, 12:49 pm
UTELCOM, Inc. v. [read post]
25 Mar 2016, 8:11 am
This is evident in the court’s rulings in the cases of Gair v. [read post]
21 Mar 2016, 1:35 pm
Once again, we see a Department of Revenue stretching the means and bounds of a taxing statute to benefit its own means. [read post]
21 Mar 2016, 1:35 pm
Once again, we see a Department of Revenue stretching the means and bounds of a taxing statute to benefit its own means. [read post]
19 Mar 2016, 3:01 pm
Supreme Court created in its divided Rapanos v. [read post]
22 Feb 2016, 4:36 pm
In 1968, a court decision, Escott v. [read post]
21 Feb 2016, 2:42 pm
Bunn v. [read post]
3 Feb 2016, 4:08 pm
John Taylor v. [read post]
4 Jan 2016, 4:08 pm
New Department of Justice Policy Means Corporate Officials Could be Targeted When the U.S. [read post]
1 Jan 2016, 7:00 am
The Department of Justice (the parent agency of the FBI) and DHS both announced new policies that require the agencies to get a warrant prior to deploying the snooping device. [read post]
