Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
7,777 results
0.30s
63 T.C.M. 3157 · United States Tax Court · Jun 18, 1992
The intention clearly was that Angela continue her schooling at Fine Arts in Birmingham, and that she continue to reside there with her stepfather, Mr. Addison. … Respondent's determination that petitioner's underpayment of tax was due to negligence or intentional disregard of rules and regulations is "presumptively correct and must stand unless the taxpayer can establish that he was
Cited 0 timesUnpublished42 T.C.M. 1233 · United States Tax Court · Sep 28, 1981
Regardless of the acts he may have performed for the law firm while he was affiliated therewith, the note that he took from Graham in connection with the sale of his stock clearly was not connected with his trade or business … The facts of this case do not give us any reason to stray from our well-established rule in bad debt cases that the petitioner bears the burden of proving worthlessness. See Boehm v.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedSam F. Ford and Ingrid D. Ford v. Commissioner
2005 T.C. Memo. 18 · United States Tax Court · Feb 1, 2005
which the taxpayer establishes is not attributable to fraud … The existence of an understatement of income was clearly and convincingly established by Mr.
Cited 0 timesUnpublished2011 T.C. Summary Opinion 23 · United States Tax Court · Mar 8, 2011
in accordance with a method that clearly reflects the full amount of income received. … The record clearly reflects that petitioner did not timely file his 2007 income tax return.
Cited 0 timesUnpublished80 T.C.M. 338 · United States Tax Court · Sep 5, 2000
Further, in context, the April 26, 1995, letter from respondent’s Appeals officer clearly did not constitute an offer or acceptance of any settlement agreement. … In light of our denial of petitioners’ motions for entry of decisions, petitioners do not qualify as prevailing parties, and we deny petitioners’ motions for attorney’s fees. See sec. 7430.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedBrown Corp. of Ionia, Inc. v. Commissioner
45 T.C.M. 200 · United States Tax Court · Nov 29, 1982
Brown was the owner of 21,800 shares of Brown Corporation's stock and was qualified to vote the stock at that meeting. At that meeting, it was determined that Mr. Brown, Mr. Charles T. Brown and Mr. … O'Connor would be the directors of Brown Corporation until the next annual meeting of the stockholders or until successors were elected and qualified.
Cited 1 timesUnpublishedLedford Constr. Co. v. Commissioner
36 T.C.M. 858 · United States Tax Court · Jun 30, 1977
Ledford was a qualified construction executive. The testimony of Ledford and other officers of petitioner (Donaldson and Hisler) establishes that Ledford was largely responsible for the success of the business. … Ledford clearly provided valuable services to the corporation for the years in issue.
Cited 2 timesUnpublishedWarren L. Baker, Jr. and Dorris J. Baker v. Commissioner
118 T.C. No. 28 · United States Tax Court · May 29, 2002
Pursuant to section IV of the agreement, petitioner qualified for a termination payment if he met certain requirements. First, he must work for 2 or more continuous years as an agent. … Nature of Ordinary Income Respondent does not clearly explain his position as to the nature of the termination payment other than to argue that it is not taxable as capital gain.
Cited 0 timesUnknown2007 T.C. Summary Opinion 31 · United States Tax Court · Mar 1, 2007
Respondent clearly and convincingly showed, through the use of credible witnesses, that a substantial number of documents attached to petitioner’s 2002 and 2003 returns in an effort to establish the propriety of his deductions … The totality of the evidence clearly and convincingly establishes to the Court’s satisfaction that petitioner deliberately overstated his deductions for 2002 and 2003 and falsified documents supporting the overstated and
Cited 0 timesUnpublished86 T.C.M. 396 · United States Tax Court · Sep 23, 2003
Supreme Court established a two-prong test for determining whether a taxpayer is eligible to exclude income under section 104(a)(2). … “If the payor’s intent cannot be clearly discerned from the settlement agreement, his or her intent must be determined from all the facts and circumstances of the case in issue there.” Robinson v.
Cited 8 timesUnpublished80 T.C.M. 810 · United States Tax Court · Dec 7, 2000
- 15 - and the absence of any established market. … That case, however, is clearly distinguishable from the present ones. In Dyckman v.
Cited 1 timesUnpublished49 T.C.M. 612 · United States Tax Court · Jan 30, 1985
A Subchapter S corporation was liquidated, distributing property which qualified for investment tax credit to the taxpayers. As here, the first three of the necessary conditions were clearly met. … Further, we do not believe that the instant case is an example of the use of a family trust to evade taxes, a well-established basis for the imposition of the addition to tax under section 6653(a). *27 Hanson v.
Cited 1 timesUnpublished81 T.C.M. 1087 · United States Tax Court · Jan 31, 2001
We have held that the distributee of a distribution from an employees’ trust ordinarily is the participant or beneficiary (in or of the plan under which the employees’ trust was established) who is entitled to receive … Clearly, petitioner is aware of the importance of a QDRO in establishing Ms.
Cited 0 timesUnpublished73 T.C.M. 2266 · United States Tax Court · Mar 10, 1997
Moreover, the claimed deductions and losses are disallowed because they do not clearly reflect income. The parties have stipulated that Messrs. … Hemmings satisfies the requirements of section 6013(e) and qualifies as an innocent spouse. ERTA Sections 508 and 509 Section 1256 was enacted by ERTA sections 508 and 509, 95 Stat. 333.
Cited 1 timesUnpublishedPerry Funeral Home, Inc. v. Comm'r
86 T.C.M. 713 · United States Tax Court · Dec 16, 2003
reflect income, the computation of taxable income shall be made under such method as, in the opinion of the Secretary, does clearly reflect income.” … respondent emphasizes that petitioner’s control over the funds and the absence of any contractual or legal restrictions preclude treating the moneys as in trust.5 Finally, respondent alleges that petitioner cannot qualify
Cited 0 timesUnpublished54 T.C.M. 1422 · United States Tax Court · Dec 30, 1987
Cornwell was qualified to testify as an expert on behalf of petitioner. Dee Morgan ("Morgan") has worked for IBM as a systems service representative. … This record clearly indicates that industry conditions were not stable during 1980.
Cited 1 timesUnpublishedMerwin K. Sigale v. Commissioner
2014 T.C. Summary Opinion 19 · United States Tax Court · Mar 4, 2014
“The total necessary expenses establish the minimum a taxpayer and family needs to live.” IRM pt. 5.15.1.7(1) (Oct. 2, 2009). … Assuming for the sake of argument that they qualify as one or the other, we nevertheless conclude that the Appeals Office did not abuse its discretion in this case.
Cited 0 timesUnpublished70 T.C.M. 31 · United States Tax Court · Jul 12, 1995
In fact, on brief, petitioner argues that he consulted a qualified adviser and relied upon him in claiming the disallowed losses and tax credits. … Respondent introduced evidence, including expert reports, to establish the lack of economic substance of the Clearwater transaction.
Cited 11 timesUnpublished53 T.C.M. 1166 · United States Tax Court · Jun 22, 1987
As is more fully discussed above, the record clearly establishes that petitioners failed to report the gain from the sale of the Oak Ridge Building 23 and erroneously took an interest deduction that was never paid. 24 Our … Fraud can seldom be established by direct proof of the taxpayer's intent; therefore, the entire course of the taxpayer's conduct must be considered, and fraudulent intent can be established by circumstantial evidence.
Cited 0 timesUnpublished59 T.C.M. 653 · United States Tax Court · May 22, 1990
Section 48(e) provides that the qualified investment credit of an electing small business corporation shall be apportioned pro rata among its stockholders on the last day of its taxable year. … It is well established that in determining whether an activity is engaged in for profit, a reasonable expectation of profit is not required.
Cited 0 timesUnpublished
Ask Donna