Case law

Dixon v. United States

122 Ct. Cl. 332 · United States Court of Claims · May 6, 1952

, plaintiif appealed her efficiency rating of “Unsatisfactory” to the Statutory Board of Review for the Veterans Administration, and on July 15,1948, that Board determined that her rating was made in accordance with the established … The letter advising plaintiff of her unofficial rating, the prior conference concerning it, and the lapse of time between the two ratings, all indicate that her removal was clearly on the basis of the official and final rating

Cumberland Glass Mfg. Co. v. United States

44 F.2d 455 · United States Court of Claims · Nov 3, 1930

Bulletin No. 4, p. 147, provides: ‘Section 13(d) of the Revenue Act of 1916 is a qualifying section and when accounts of a corporation are kept on a basis other than that of receipts and disbursements, it qualifies the manner … Whatever method, of accounting is used by a taxpayer, true income is clearly reflected only when all items of gross income and all deductions are treated with reasonable consistency.

Hodge v. United States

209 Ct. Cl. 87 · United States Court of Claims · Feb 18, 1976

Consequently, the administrative hearing process was clearly not fatally flawed by any actions on the part of the Hearing Officer. Grover v. United States, supra; Haynes v. United States, supra. … Finally, no irregularities respecting interviews have been established. 55.

Rye v. United States

25 Cl. Ct. 592 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 30, 1992

For the reasons which follow, the court holds that the 1980 Revision Act amendments to § 453 do not alter that established rule. … should qualify as an installment sale for income tax purposes.

Publix Supermarkets, Inc. v. United States

26 Cl. Ct. 161 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 28, 1992

The defendant argues, that based on the facts presented at trial, the plaintiff has failed to establish entitlement to the investment tax credit. … The Hill literature clearly states that the supermarket conditions should not be above 75 degrees F.

Robert Thomas Quick v. The United States

428 F.2d 1294 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 15, 1970

Quick does not claim to qualify regardless of the characterization of his demotion. … He reasons that “to withhold all knowledge of a major reduction in compensation of $1,645 per annum until [he] had been officially transferred to the new position, and had reported for duty, clearly constituted deception

Gregory Lumber Co. v. United States

9 Cl. Ct. 503 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 31, 1986

In such case, judicial review is strictly limited to the record established before the administrative board. See, e.g., United States v. … In interpreting this latter provision, the Federal Circuit has held that: “After the moving party has clearly established its case, the duty to go forward shifts to the party opposing the motion to produce evidence that places

Shader Contractors, Inc. And Citizens National Bank of Orlando, Assignee v. United States

276 F.2d 1 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 6, 1960

Moreover, we must assume that any such risk of loss was considered by the parties, and that the accepted contract price bid reflected a satisfactory resolution of the risk. 7 The instant case is clearly distinguishable from … But since the measure of the quantities in the contract is the needs of the defendant, we fail to see how further qualifying a qualified estimate can alter the clear meaning of the contract language.

Gimbel Brothers, Inc. v. The United States

404 F.2d 939 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 13, 1968

Finally, plaintiffs are in any event ineligible to qualify for LIFO for any of the tax years here involved because their annual reports for such years valued their inventories on the basis of FIFO. … What plaintiffs themselves contemporaneously said in their annual reports about their inventories clearly refutes their present contentions.

Skaradowski v. United States

471 F.2d 627 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 18, 1973

There are no other issues in this case. *495 Plaintiff was clearly on active duty during the connective period 1-5 July 1966. … two periods of acknowledged active duty which establishes the “more than 30 days” requirement of 10 U.S.C. § 1201 .

Montilla v. United States

457 F.2d 978 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 14, 1972

(b) At the time of the transfer to the Inactive Eeserve, the plaintiff was credited with 15 years, 3 months, and 5 days of qualifying service in the armed forces prior to July 1, 1949, toward establishing his eligibility … The plaintiff failed to complete, before reaching the age of 60, the minimum 20 years of qualifying service essential to establish his eligibility for retired pay benefits from the Army.

Change-All Souls Housing Corp. v. United States

1 Cl. Ct. 302 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 9, 1982

Such cases clearly raise the possibility that the Government was unreasonable in pursuing the litigation. … Nor, in fact, does the standard require the Government to establish that its decision to litigate was based on a substantial probability of prevailing. (Emphasis added.) H.R.Rep.

Investors Diversified Services, Inc. v. United States

575 F.2d 843 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 19, 1978

Something more directly establishing the required nexus must exist, cf. Phipps v. United States, 188 Ct. … Other revenue rulings clearly apply section 265(2) irrespective of the long or short-term nature of the borrowing. See, e.g., Rev. Rul. 67-260, 1967-2 Cum. Bull. 132.

Boeing Co. v. United States

480 F.2d 854 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 20, 1973

There was, in addition, some confusion and lack of uniformity in the handling of such tax item even within the Government establishment. … This savings to the Government for this sample year alone, says plaintiff, fully qualifies plaintiff for the “comparable results” exemption.

Absher v. United States

9 Cl. Ct. 223 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 3, 1985

Then, in 1944, Congress established the present system which applies to all members of the uniformed services. … Few purposes are so clearly a legitimate congressional objective.

Law v. United States

26 Cl. Ct. 382 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 30, 1992

But this argument must fail because long-established precedent provides, in effect, that in situations such as this, the actions of the Secretary of Transportation, as head of the pertinent executive agency, qualify as the … Rather, to establish a waiver of sovereign immunity for a suit for monetary damages, the individual must be able to point to a constitutional provision, statute, or regulation that "in itself ... can fairly be interpreted

Nickell v. United States

123 Ct. Cl. 859 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 2, 1952

The retirement at that time was “not by reason of physical disability,” as is clearly set out in paragraph two of the stipulation of facts. … That, recognizing the legal validity of the determination by which the applicant was found qualified for and was granted retirement pay benefits under the authority of Section 302 of the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act of 1944

Raley v. Secretary of the Department of Health & Human Services

25 Cl. Ct. 247 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 30, 1992

Petitioners’ expert witness John Gaebler, M.D., stated that: I think it’s quite possible that he had an encephalopathy after the July 23 immunization. (Transcript at 104). Dr. … Petitioners must establish that the special master’s decision was unsupported by the record.

L.G. Lefler, Inc. v. United States

32 Cont. Cas. Fed. 73,039 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 30, 1984

Here, the original contract price, as established by plaintiff’s bid, clearly contemplates the use of foreign steel. To lower the contract price further would result in an unjustified windfall to the government. … Similarly, the remedy fashioned by the Comptroller General should be used only where it will clearly serve the purposes which precipitated it.

Stephens v. United States

358 F.2d 951 · United States Court of Claims · Feb 18, 1966

has held on many occasions that it has no power to review the decisions of the Secretary of one of the military departments or his authorized representatives in such *372 a case unless the petitioner shows by .cogent and clearly … We are unable to agree with plaintiff’s contention that the recited facts establish that the Army acted arbitrarily in his case.