Search for: "Herring v. Commissioner"
Results 561 - 580
of 3,498
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
2 Aug 2021, 1:14 pm
Plan activation: Employers are only required to activate their plans once the New York State Commissioner of Health designates a highly contagious communicable disease as a serious risk of harm to public health. [read post]
30 Jul 2021, 4:24 am
The five principles governing estoppel by convention were outlined in the decision of Briggs J in Revenue and Customs Commissioners v Benchdollar [2009] EWHC 1310 (Ch). [read post]
28 Jul 2021, 8:49 am
In this post, Tim Sales, a partner in the Dispute Resolution team at CMS, and Hannah Jones, who works in the Tax team at CMS, comment on the decision handed down by the UK Supreme Court in the matter of R (on the application of Haworth) v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs [2021] UKSC 25. [read post]
25 Jul 2021, 9:05 pm
In AMG Capital Management, LLC v. [read post]
25 Jul 2021, 8:24 am
, Ranck v. [read post]
23 Jul 2021, 2:29 am
These issues are being determined in phases, with the courts’ decisions affecting not just the other claims within the FII Group Litigation, but potentially also a number of other sets of proceedings brought by corporate taxpayers against the Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (“HMRC”) The Test Claimants’ case is that the differences between their tax treatment and that of wholly UK-resident groups of companies breached the EU Treaty… [read post]
22 Jul 2021, 9:05 pm
In Lucia v. [read post]
19 Jul 2021, 1:00 am
First, Test Claimants in the Franked Investment Income Group Litigation & Others v Commissioners of Inland Revenue (1) and (2). [read post]
18 Jul 2021, 7:37 am
In this case, the Commissioner of the Department of Labor reasoned that the old language applied. [read post]
16 Jul 2021, 4:00 am
Smith v Kunkel[16]is a case involving an effort to have a court consider an employee's attempt to withdraw his written resignation prior to its effective date. [read post]
16 Jul 2021, 4:00 am
Smith v Kunkel[16]is a case involving an effort to have a court consider an employee's attempt to withdraw his written resignation prior to its effective date. [read post]
16 Jul 2021, 4:00 am
Smith v Kunkel[16]is a case involving an effort to have a court consider an employee's attempt to withdraw his written resignation prior to its effective date. [read post]
16 Jul 2021, 4:00 am
Smith v Kunkel[16]is a case involving an effort to have a court consider an employee's attempt to withdraw his written resignation prior to its effective date. [read post]
13 Jul 2021, 9:17 am
” (R. v. [read post]
13 Jul 2021, 5:30 am
“Sherron, even if it’s the last $10,000 you have, you have to use it to hire an attorney. [read post]
12 Jul 2021, 4:46 am
He is, for example, a recognized leader in the response to Alice Corp v. [read post]
12 Jul 2021, 1:00 am
The following Supreme Court judgments remain outstanding: The Law Debenture Trust Corporation plc v Ukraine (Represented by the Minister of Finance of Ukraine acting upon the instructions of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine) Nos. 2 and 3, heard 9-12 December 2019 Pakistan International Airline Corporation v Times Travel (UK) Ltd, heard 2-3 November 2020 R (on the application of TN (Vietnam) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Anor, heard 30 November… [read post]
7 Jul 2021, 9:01 pm
B.L., addressing whether a teen could be punished for speech on Snapchat, off school grounds and addressed to her own audience; and NCAA v. [read post]
5 Jul 2021, 1:00 am
The following Supreme Court judgments remain outstanding: The Law Debenture Trust Corporation plc v Ukraine (Represented by the Minister of Finance of Ukraine acting upon the instructions of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine) Nos. 2 and 3, heard 9-12 December 2019 Pakistan International Airline Corporation v Times Travel (UK) Ltd, heard 2-3 November 2020 Triple Point Technology Inc v PTT Public Company Ltd, heard 12 November 2020 R (on the application of TN… [read post]
2 Jul 2021, 2:00 am
HMRC’s appeal to the Supreme Court raises two principal issues: first, whether HMRC formed the opinion required by section 205(3)(b) FA 2014, i.e., that “the principles laid down or reasoning given in Smallwood v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2010] EWCA Civ 778 (“Smallwood”) would, if applied to [Mr Haworth’s] arrangements, deny the asserted advantage” (“Issue 1”); and second, whether HMRC misdirected… [read post]
