Search for: "DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE v ESTATE OF" Results 61 - 80 of 443
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
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]
8 Jun 2020, 2:02 am by Matrix Legal Support Service
R (on the application of Pathan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, heard 12 December 2019. [read post]
16 Mar 2020, 3:05 am by Matrix Legal Support Service
MacDonald & Anor v Cambroe Estates Ltd (Scotland), heard 4 December 2019. [read post]
22 Jun 2020, 1:42 am by UKSC Blog
R (on the application of Pathan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, heard 12 December 2019. [read post]
25 Mar 2015, 7:26 am by Daniel Shaviro
 Too much water under the bridge at this point (even before we get to see what they do in King v. [read post]
20 Jul 2020, 2:26 am by UKSC Blog
The following Supreme Court judgments remain outstanding: Keefe (by his litigation friend Eyton) v Hoteles Pinero Canarias SL, heard 7 Mar 2017 Arcadia Petroleum Ltd & Ors v Bosworth & Anor, heard 10-11 Apr 2017 Vedanta Resources Plc & Anor v Lungowe & Ors, heard 15-16 Jan 2019 Test Claimants in the Franked Investment Income Group Litigation & Ors v Commissioners of Inland Revenue, heard 27 June 2019 Unwired Planet International Ltd… [read post]
19 Jul 2018, 4:40 am by Embajador Microjuris al Día
Department of Revenue of III, 386 US 753, bajo las cuales se impedía que los estados pudiesen exigir a compañías sin presencia física en su territorio el cobrar el impuesto de ventas de esos estados. [read post]
6 Jun 2022, 3:00 am by Matrix Legal Support Service
The following Supreme Court judgments remain outstanding: (As of 08/06/22) 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 BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA and Ors, heard 4 May 2021 East of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust v Flowers and Ors, heard 22 June 2021 Basfar v Wong, heard 13th-14th October … [read post]
9 Mar 2020, 2:49 am by Matrix Legal Support Service
MacDonald & Anor v Cambroe Estates Ltd (Scotland), heard 4 December 2019. [read post]
4 Mar 2011, 10:41 am by Rich Vetstein
Forms are available from the Department of Revenue (DOR) to allow homeowners to claim up to $6,000 in tax credits for septic upgrades. [read post]
19 Apr 2021, 1:00 am by Matrix Legal Support Service
On Wednesday 21 April, the Supreme Court will hear R (on the application of Haworth) v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs. [read post]
24 Jul 2011, 9:44 am by Blog Editorial
R (on the application of Quila and another) (FC) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and R (on the application of Bibi and another) (FC) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, heard 8 – 9 June 2011. [read post]
23 May 2022, 1:00 am by Matrix Legal Support Service
The following Supreme Court judgments remain outstanding: (As of 25/5/22) 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 BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA and Ors, heard 4 May 2021 East of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust v Flowers and Ors, heard 22 June 2021 Basfar v Wong, heard 13th-14th October … [read post]
8 Mar 2021, 1:00 am by Matrix Legal Support Service
On Tuesday 9 March, the Supreme Court will hear the case of  R (on the application of Fylde Coast Farms Ltd (formerly Oyston Estates Ltd)) v Fylde Borough Council. [read post]
1 Mar 2018, 6:00 am by Jeff Watters
The chair of the Estate and Trust Legislative Affairs Committee of the State Bar of Texas Real Estate, Probate, and Trust Law Section said the new subsection “appears to be an attempt to statutorily overrule the decision in Kappus v. [read post]