Search for: "May v. IRS"
Results 161 - 180
of 2,792
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
25 Aug 2011, 11:42 pm
Circuit, applying the “because of” test, ruled that the IRS may not be entitled to a memorandum prepared... [read post]
29 Jul 2021, 10:50 am
V. [read post]
16 Apr 2012, 12:33 pm
Also, abandoning the house for personal use and then trying to sell it shortly thereafter (and claiming it is now held primarily for investment) is likely not sufficient under 1031 (although holding the property for a while after abandoning it for personal use may work...see Moore v CIR (2007)). [read post]
28 Mar 2018, 10:00 am
In Avrahami v. [read post]
22 Aug 2010, 5:13 pm
Baker v. [read post]
22 Aug 2010, 5:13 pm
Baker v. [read post]
23 Nov 2015, 12:51 pm
” A CCA is prepared by the IRS Office of Chief Counsel for field or service center employees and may not be cited as precedent by any taxpayer. [read post]
1 Mar 2020, 7:47 pm
The Tax Court clearly agrees that the IRS has the burden of production, but there is some support that the IRS may also have the ultimate burden of proof. [read post]
15 Jan 2014, 6:56 am
An example of this situation came in Wingrove v. [read post]
4 Mar 2015, 12:38 pm
Schwinn, John Marshall Law School The Supreme Court heard oral arguments today in King v. [read post]
14 Jul 2014, 1:32 pm
Taxpayers under examination may consult with their agent. [read post]
12 Jun 2020, 8:52 am
Whether, under SEC v. [read post]
15 Apr 2018, 3:45 am
Supreme Court in Pollock v. [read post]
6 Aug 2008, 12:00 pm
The case, Holman v. [read post]
24 Jul 2018, 9:53 am
Tax Court in Altera v. [read post]
13 Jun 2024, 6:16 pm
However, on May 3, 2024, the D.C. [read post]
27 Oct 2013, 8:35 am
., Miami and may be reached at (305) 891-4055. [read post]
15 Feb 2009, 5:41 pm
The results are based on a survey the IRS sent to 500 tax-exempt hospitals in May 2006, and builds on analysis of results first released by the IRS in an interim report in July 2007. [read post]
22 Sep 2010, 5:09 am
Rule 47 says “may. [read post]
11 Feb 2012, 1:25 pm
This means that the IRS may pursue the whole amount due from both spouses or any one of the spouses individually. [read post]
