Search for: "Prior v. Department of Revenue"
Results 581 - 600
of 843
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
31 Jul 2012, 5:30 am
Prior to 2008, and the Massachusetts Appellate Court’s decision in Chace v. [read post]
31 Jul 2012, 4:52 am
Therefore, it is common that related parties make gifts to their “flesh and blood” rather than have this money go to the Georgia Department of Revenue or the United States Treasury (the IRS). [read post]
24 Jul 2012, 3:35 pm
In the case of Acordia of Ohio LLC v. [read post]
9 Jul 2012, 5:02 am
., Inc. v. [read post]
13 Jun 2012, 4:32 am
HM Revenue and Customs has confirmed as recently as this month (May 2012) that lawyers have no exemption from the VAT rules. [read post]
10 Jun 2012, 10:17 pm
Mortgage Bankers Association v. [read post]
5 Jun 2012, 5:33 pm
A recent case, Dickerson v. [read post]
5 Jun 2012, 2:24 pm
Congress hasn’t capped the revenue copyright owners can derive from their monopolies. [read post]
30 May 2012, 1:37 pm
"It's obviously great for drug companies, its great for the lawyers, it's great for the Justice Department to bring in a token scalp every now and then, so everybody involved wins, and that is why it continues. [read post]
1 May 2012, 8:33 am
Last week the Court issued its decision in United States v. [read post]
27 Apr 2012, 6:05 am
Malkin v. [read post]
25 Apr 2012, 8:52 am
Inc. v. [read post]
23 Apr 2012, 6:04 am
[James C.], 17 NY3d at 9; Nicholson v. [read post]
19 Apr 2012, 6:07 am
With the Kappos v. [read post]
12 Apr 2012, 5:21 pm
United States v. [read post]
11 Apr 2012, 11:12 am
The most recently filed case – Anderson v. [read post]
9 Apr 2012, 11:58 am
Wille After a four-week bench trial, the court in Tussey et al. v. [read post]
9 Apr 2012, 9:54 am
On March 26, 27 and 28, 2012, the Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States (“SCOTUS”) heard oral arguments in a series of cases, including Department of Health and Human Services, et al. v. [read post]
4 Apr 2012, 6:58 am
The Court pointed out that in True v. [read post]
2 Apr 2012, 7:04 am
Family Court dismissed the Petitioners prior petition seeking to establish paternity of the child. [read post]
