Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
7,777 results
0.60s
31 T.C.M. 234 · United States Tax Court · Feb 28, 1972
However, the regulations require a more specific purpose in order to 238 qualify an outlay of funds as an allowable expense deduction. … Quite clearly, petitioner's evidence is not the kind contemplated by section 274 and the regulations issued thereunder, and, consequently, his claimed deductions may not be allowed. John L. Ashby, supra ; William F.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedRonnie J. Smith & Sheila C. Smith v. Commissioner
2018 T.C. Memo. 170 · United States Tax Court · Oct 15, 2018
The respective amounts stated in those stipulations are clearly contrary to the facts that we have found are established by the record, and we shall disregard them. See Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. v. … Although the parties stipulated that the Hillcrest Forms 1099-MISC were “issued to Smith Solutions”, that stipulation is clearly contrary to the facts that we have found are established by the record, and we shall disregard
Cited 0 timesUnpublished15 T.C.M. 379 · United States Tax Court · Mar 27, 1956
Petitioner's books and records were not adequate to clearly reflect his income for any of the taxable years. … It is clearly established by the evidence that petitioner did not at any time important maintain adequate books or other records to reflect his taxable net income within a reasonable degree of accuracy.
Cited 0 timesUnpublished47 T.C.M. 523 · United States Tax Court · Dec 5, 1983
Petitioners next ask our permission to elect a new depreciation schedule as part of a Rule 155 computation in order to qualify for the investment credit. … Section 1.167(e)-1(a), Income Tax Regs.There is nothing in *77 the record which tends to establish that such approval was sought or given. Thus, no change, would be allowable absent the required consent. Wildman v.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedPleasant Hills, Inc. v. Commissioner
34 T.C.M. 1085 · United States Tax Court · Jul 30, 1975
However, it is clearly apparent in this case that petitioner had passive investment income in excess of 20 percent of its gross receipts in each of its fiscal years 1963 and 1966. … The burden will be on the corporation to establish that under the relevant facts the Commissioner should consent to a new election.
Cited 0 timesUnpublished32 T.C.M. 1247 · United States Tax Court · Dec 4, 1973
Taken as a whole, we think these documents are conflicting and fail to support petitioner's attempt to establish a purchase price in excess of $15,000. … The existing buildings were clearly unsuitable for the planned use of the property and the rental under the lease was four times greater than that paid by the prior tenants.
Cited 0 timesUnpublished75 T.C.M. 2299 · United States Tax Court · May 14, 1998
On her individual 1989 Federal income tax return, petitioner claimed a proportionate share of the $89,285 depreciation expense 2 The distribution appears to have been made to a revocable trust that petitioner established … The tax adjustments reflected therein clearly cannot be said to encompass a determination by the Tax Court of petitioner’s tax bases in the properties.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedElectronic Arts, Inc. and Subsidiaries v. Commissioner
118 T.C. No. 13 · United States Tax Court · Mar 22, 2002
Baker, a consultant in the early 1990s, describes his role in the establishment of EAPR, the establishment of the operations in the facility that EAPR leased from PPI, and the activities of Zamora. J. … The Commissioner determined that D did not qualify as a WHTC.
Cited 0 timesUnknownKanawha Inv. Co. v. Commissioner
7 T.C.M. 891 · United States Tax Court · Nov 26, 1948
Its capital stock consisted of 50 shares of common, of which 45 shares were issued to petitioner and 5 shares were issued to qualifying stockholders. The common stock was the only voting stock of Securities. … There is no evidence to establish that the common stock had a basis of $4,500.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedSynanon Church v. Commissioner
57 T.C.M. 602 · United States Tax Court · Jun 7, 1989
Clearly, therefore, petitioner had changed its purposes and methods of operation from those stated in its exemption request without informing the Internal Revenue Service. … Our legal counsel has determined that contributions to Synanon, a Section 501(c)(3) organization, qualify for this increased deduction.
Cited 8 timesUnpublishedContract Reproduction Co. v. Commissioner
54 T.C.M. 600 · United States Tax Court · Sep 21, 1987
The corporation had a qualified defined benefit pension plan in addition to a profit sharing plan during the taxable years herein. … Under the first prong of the inquiry it is unlikely that Clark and Bell could establish that they had an arm's-length bargain with the corporation. *501 Clearly, there is little point for a controlling shareholder to attempt
Cited 1 timesUnpublished37 T.C.M. 898 · United States Tax Court · Jun 7, 1978
This applies, however, only if "the taxpayer clearly establishes that any recipient of the entertainment would have reasonably known that the taxpayer had no significant motive, in incurring the expenditure, other than directly … The former amounts are clearly personal and, therefore, are nondeductible; see also LaForge v.
Cited 2 timesUnpublishedEstates of Van Lede v. Commissioner
28 T.C.M. 1422 · United States Tax Court · Dec 16, 1969
Respondent argues that the activity of William relating to the conduct of the business of Ledel, clearly establishes that he was capable of and in fact did engage in substantial gainful activity during the three years in … In order to qualify, petitioner must show that the money was received for the sale or exchange of a capital asset.
Cited 0 timesUnpublished67 T.C. 426 · United States Tax Court · Dec 15, 1976
The per diem payments received by the petitioners from their respective employers clearly constituted a gain to each of the petitioners. … In our judgment the petitioners have failed to establish any discrimination. Therefore, the relief they seek is denied.
Cited 56 timesPublished47 T.C.M. 71 · United States Tax Court · Oct 12, 1983
Such expenditures are clearly not common or recurring in the accounting business. … Clearly, under these circumstances, the parties' use of a standard multiple to establish the cost of the purchased accounts does not constitute individual valuation because it is arbitrary and merely averages out the peculiarities
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedEstate of O'Keeffe v. Commissioner
63 T.C.M. 2699 · United States Tax Court · Apr 8, 1992
He was well qualified to appraise the works of O'Keeffe. Thaw had testified as a witness on the blockage discount appropriate in the Tax Court case of , affd. . … Rose identified traditional *242 factors establishing value in the art market as rarity, quality, size, subject matter, medium, and condition.
Cited 3 timesUnpublished58 T.C.M. 850 · United States Tax Court · Dec 7, 1989
McAlvain exists does not, in and of itself, establish that the $ 12,000 was a true "loan." … Furthermore, although petitioner never formally demanded repayment of the loan, the evidence clearly indicates that his reason for not making such demand was that he knew that Mr.
Cited 1 timesUnpublished104 T.C.M. 713 · United States Tax Court · Dec 4, 2012
I have tried to explain my position as clearly as possible. … I want a face-to-face hearing on the issues I qualify for. * * * Please schedule the hearing and notify me of the date, time, and place as I have met the requirements set by Congress for the hearing. *
Cited 2 timesUnpublishedSparks Nugget, Inc. v. Commissioner
29 T.C.M. 318 · United States Tax Court · Mar 31, 1970
He testified that he was qualified to make an expert appraisal of the Parking Lots, and we believe him to be so qualified. … Graves is a highly qualified businessman, and his services are very valuable.
Cited 1 timesUnpublishedJames W. and Laura L. Keith v. Commissioner
115 T.C. No. 42 · United States Tax Court · Dec 28, 2000
is “‘clearly unlawful’” or “‘plainly arbitrary’”. … Additionally, although a further exception can permit use of the installment method for sales of residential lots, see sec. 453(l)(2)(B), the record before us fails to establish that petitioners could qualify under this
Cited 0 timesUnknown
Ask Donna