Search for: "Does, 1-20" Results 5301 - 5320 of 27,661
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
1 Oct 2022, 6:30 am
A de minimis rule exempts covered corporations that repurchase less than $1 million of their stock during a given taxable year, and the U.S. [read post]
29 Sep 2013, 5:01 pm by oliver randl
In fact A 113(1) does no such thing. [read post]
19 Feb 2021, 12:39 am by Roel van Woudenberg
The appellant was summoned to attend oral proceedings scheduled for 6 March 2020.In a communication dated 20 February 2020, the Appeal Board informed the appellant of its preliminary opinion and gave reasons why it considered that the appellant's main request would have to be refused while her auxiliary request was allowable (requests as set out in point II above). [read post]
20 Oct 2009, 5:41 am by Amy Bray
Their verdict included over $70,000 in lost wages and medical expenses, $1 million in past pain and suffering, $1 million for future pain and suffering, and $1.4 million in attorney’s fees. [read post]
17 May 2010, 3:16 pm by Oliver G. Randl
Detergent and cleaner additive comprising a) 55 to 85% by weight of carrier material with an oil absorption capacity of at least 20 g/100 g and a particle size of less than 200 ? [read post]
11 Apr 2023, 5:01 am by Saraphin Dhanani
On April 7, in a 2-1 decision, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed the ruling of U.S. [read post]
14 Sep 2010, 7:43 pm by Kevin Funnell
While Judge Alsup does find that the use of the term "may" is misleading, he also gives much weight to the manner in which the disclosure of the posting process and its potential impact on consumers was "hidden" within an alleged mass of documentation saturated with mind-numbing legalese. [read post]
15 Aug 2010, 11:10 am
CU does not suggest what level of surplus may be the right amount. [read post]
19 Sep 2017, 7:00 am by Dan Carvajal
But, on a dollar-for-dollar basis, expensing delivers twice the economic growth as a corporate rate cut.[1] The reason it does so is because expensing of new investment is focused on cutting the cost of growing the capital stock, while the rate reduction’s benefits are spread over returns to existing capital and to other activities such as research, management, advertising, and other inputs that are already immediately deductible. [read post]
21 Mar 2008, 3:48 pm
  Sources: [1] Dudley Althaus, Nafta is Probably Election-proof, HOUSTON CHRONICLE, March 2, 2008, available at [www.chron.com] (last visited March 20, 2008). [read post]