Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
7,777 results
0.39s
42 T.C.M. 116 · United States Tax Court · Jun 18, 1981
OPINION The issues for decision are whether petitioner's claimed deductions for living expenses during 1976 qualify as ordinary and necessary employee business expenses incurred while away from home and, if so, whether the … Thus, expenditures for food, lodging, and transportation are clearly nondeductible unless expressly allowed by another Code provision.
Cited 0 timesUnpublished34 T.C.M. 426 · United States Tax Court · Mar 31, 1975
Davis, 397 U.S. 301 (1970) , established as the test of nondividend equivalency whether the taxpayer incurred "a meaningful reduction of [his] proportionate interest in the corporation." … Clearly under the facts here present, even though the distribution to petitioner was disproportionate to his ownership of common stock, as would be the situation with respect to many "redemptions" under section 304 of the
Cited 0 timesUnpublished37 T.C.M. 1222 · United States Tax Court · Jul 27, 1978
In the statutory notice of deficiency, respondent disallowed the expenses claimed in excess of the gross rent received, on the ground that the expenses failed *230 to qualify as deductible expenses. … Yet expenses incurred in connection with one's personal residence are clearly not deductible. 6 Sections 1.212-1(h) , 1.262-1(b), Income Tax Regs.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedUnited States Tax Court · Aug 22, 2024
Thus, we find deductible advertising expenses only for payments made to entities whose names seem to be clearly related to the one form of advertisement discussed through testimony: signs. Thus, we find that Mr. … To substantiate by adequate records, the taxpayer must maintain an account book, a log, a diary, or a similar record and documentary evidence to establish each element of an expenditure. Treas.
Cited 0 timesUnpublished44 T.C.M. 1177 · United States Tax Court · Sep 21, 1982
Held, petitioners have established that the diminution in the value of their property in 1975 was at least equal to the amount of the casualty loss claimed and therefore they are entitled to the claimed deduction. … Held further, petitioners are not entitled to the deduction claimed on their 1976 return since preemptive repairs do not qualify for a casualty deduction. In 1975 petitioner Mr.
Cited 0 timesUnpublished63 T.C.M. 3201 · United States Tax Court · Jun 29, 1992
JETS Wascherei, as a West German company, could not qualify. Barnette initially put the U.S. managers on the payroll of J.E.T.S. … Old Dominion, Hamilton Insurance, and Markham Corp., S.A., had not established formal books of account.
Cited 0 timesUnpublished68 T.C.M. 1310 · United States Tax Court · Dec 5, 1994
Clearly, petitioner's gift of 285 shares of Penn-Daniels common stock was disclosed on petitioners' Federal gift tax returns as those returns were filed for 1982. … That fact, however, would only establish *628 that a larger gift was made, not that an additional gift was made.
Cited 1 timesUnpublished104 T.C.M. 784 · United States Tax Court · Dec 18, 2012
Payments that qualify as deductible are those defined as alimony in section 71(b) and thus includible in the income of the payee. Sec. 215(b). … Memo. 1986-8. 12 Petitioner did not claim his children as dependents on his 2001 return, nor has he shown that they would qualify as such under sec. 152.
Cited 0 timesUnpublished52 T.C.M. 972 · United States Tax Court · Nov 5, 1986
Brenda has failed to establish a long and continued course of mental intimidation such as that found in Brown. … At the time that they embezzled the funds, petitioners clearly had not intent to repay.
Cited 0 timesUnpublished87 T.C.M. 956 · United States Tax Court · Feb 10, 2004
The Supreme Court has held that gross income includes “undeniable accessions to wealth, clearly realized, and over which the 1 $129,541 (wage deduction claimed on Champion’s original 1998 corporate Federal … The evidence herein does not establish petitioner’s entitlement to any exception to these additions to tax. See Mendes v. Commissioner, 121 T.C. 308, 324-325 (2003).
Cited 0 timesUnpublished94 T.C.M. 416 · United States Tax Court · Oct 29, 2007
Petitioner also does not qualify for the deduction under the special support test for children of divorced parents. Sec. 152(e)(1). … Respondent appears to have misread the Explanation of Benefits statements that petitioner provided regarding three of the physician visits, which clearly indicate that petitioner made copayments totaling $65 during those
Cited 1 timesUnpublished38 T.C.M. 1087 · United States Tax Court · Jul 24, 1979
Petitioners clearly have failed to fulfill the substantiation requirements of section 274 for these trips. There are no records of the trips, their dates, or business purposes. … He was qualified to repair his own cars. ↩
Cited 0 timesUnpublished75 T.C.M. 1618 · United States Tax Court · Jan 22, 1998
To qualify as a prevailing party petitioners must establish: (1) That the position of the United States in the proceeding was not substantially justified; (2) that they substantially prevailed with respect to the amount … This is in order to prevent evasion of taxes or to clearly reflect income. Sec. 482. In the instant case, Marco Oil made loans to RAM Drilling and TMC Farms.
Cited 0 timesUnpublished41 T.C.M. 339 · United States Tax Court · Nov 6, 1980
The regulations also provide that if a citizen travels to a foreign country to accomplish a specific purpose requiring an extended stay, he may qualify as a resident even though he intends to return to his domicile when his … Although petitioner clearly had other reasons for living in Paris, we think, notwithstanding his testimony to the contrary, that his decision to relocate was influenced to some degree by the prospect of avoiding both United
Cited 1 timesUnpublished42 T.C.M. 1330 · United States Tax Court · Sep 30, 1981
Petitioner's evaluation included a report filed by his supervisor, Ralph Delgado, which placed petitioner *183 on a list of best qualified. Grade 12 is the highest grade attainable by a nonsupervisory revenue officer. … Clearly petitioner knew that the duplication of deductions was not allowable under law, and he claimed them to correct a perceived "marriage penalty."
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedEstate of McTighe v. Commissioner
36 T.C.M. 1655 · United States Tax Court · Nov 29, 1977
In 1951, decedent established a trust for each of his children, Beverly, Judith, Edward and Martin. He established a trust for his fifth child, Frederick, in 1963. … Respondent asserts that the article clearly authorizes distribution of funds to or for the benefit of the beneficiaries.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedScenic Trust, Dennis Simpson, Special Trustee, Petitioner(s)
United States Tax Court · Sep 5, 2024
The evidence in the record does not clearly show that Mr. Simpson failed to maintain adequate records. … Dividends The Commissioner determined and established qualified dividend income of $984 and ordinary dividend income of $31 for Mr. Simpson.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedDeFOREST & ROSE M. DORROH v. COMMISSIONER
2003 T.C. Summary Opinion 93 · United States Tax Court · Jul 18, 2003
She was unable to work for intermittent periods and qualified for worker's compensation benefits under the Federal Worker's Compensation Act. … Petitioners understated their tax by $15,822, which clearly exceeds the greater of $5,000 or 10 percent of the tax required to be shown on the return (i.e., $2,076.10).
Cited 0 timesUnpublished80 T.C.M. 783 · United States Tax Court · Dec 4, 2000
The 3" by 3" paper does not establish that petitioner made a charitable contribution of $6,074. … We have allowed charitable deductions for contributions made after 1982 (when section 1.170A-13(a) and (b), Income Tax Regs., applies) where certain facts were present such as contributions to churches which clearly qualify
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedUnited States Tax Court · Jun 24, 2024
We are not obliged to accept a stipulation between the parties when it is clearly contrary to facts disclosed by the record. Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. v. … These five requirements are stated in the conjunctive, and thus a failure to meet even one of them prevents a requesting spouse from qualifying for relief. Alt, 119 T.C. at 313.
Cited 0 timesUnpublished
Ask Donna