tax court’s holding that taxpayer investment losses were not deductible because transactions were “factual shams” reviewed for clear error as to finding the transactions were shams and de novo as to the application of the proper legal standards for making the sham determination
How later courts described this case
- tax court’s holding that taxpayer investment losses were not deductible because transactions were “factual shams” reviewed for clear error as to finding the transactions were shams and de novo as to the application of the proper legal standards for making the sham determination
- reversing district court’s granting of a preliminary injunction against the revocation of a security clearance
- evidence of prior sexual abuse of different child should not have been admitted but the error was harmless
- “voir dire ... need only provide ‘some basis for a reasonably knowledgeable exercise of the right of challenge whether for cause or peremptory’ ”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
This record has no opinion text. It is a disposition such as a denial of certiorari, kept so the case can be found by name and citation.