Search for: "Force v. Department of Revenue" Results 1 - 20 of 698
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
18 Sep 2019, 12:21 pm by Frank Ravitch
Montana Department of Revenue may be the case that answers this question. [read post]
19 Sep 2019, 11:30 am by Daniel Mach
Montana Department of Revenue, the Supreme Court will address a question that would have been unthinkable even to ask until quite recently: Can a state be forced to underwrite religious education with taxpayer dollars? [read post]
9 Apr 2021, 3:50 pm by Unknown
Department of the Interior (Trust Relationship; Fiduciary Duty)Becker v. [read post]
23 Sep 2019, 8:12 am by DONALD SCARINCI
Montana Department of Revenue, which involves whether states can be forced to use taxpayer funds to support religious schools. [read post]
19 Aug 2020, 3:10 pm by Unknown
Commissioner of Internal Revenue (Treaty Rights; Indian Taxation)Mendoza v. [read post]
17 Oct 2007, 2:22 pm
Brad Joondeph (Santa Clara Law School) has posted “Practical Consequences, Institutional Competence, and Department of Revenue of Kentucky v. [read post]
3 Aug 2017, 7:24 am by Colby Pastre
January’s revenue projection of $2.3 million was a conservative lower-bound estimate, and actual revenues of $5.9 million more than doubled that number. [read post]
27 May 2008, 11:43 am
Kentucky Department of Revenue dealt with the issue of explict tax discrimination against out-of-staters. [read post]
14 May 2012, 2:25 am by Laura Sandwell, Matrix.
R (Alvi) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, heard 24 – 27 April 2012. [read post]
18 May 2020, 6:33 pm by scottgaille
COVID-19 as foreseeable or unforeseeable Some force majeure clauses expressly require that force majeure be unforeseeable. [read post]
It has become a somewhat unpleasant autumn ritual for many taxpayers:  should we agree to a request from the Louisiana Department of Revenue (the “Department”) for more time to audit. [read post]
18 Apr 2020, 2:37 pm by Charles (Chuck) Rubin
The 2nd DCA concluded that the legislature could not substantively alter or materially limit the class of individuals eligible for the exemption under the plain language of the constitution.Department of Revenue v. [read post]