Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
10,000+ results
0.60s
33 B.T.A. 276 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Oct 24, 1935
Whether any particular activity of an agency or instrumentality of a state is governmental, and thus immune from Federal taxation, “ is a question which compels consideration of the nature of the activity.” Helvering v. … Such affidavits also clearly establish that the board of local improvements retained and exercised the right to control the manner and means whereby the work * * * was carried on.
Cited 1 timesPublished87 Fed. Cl. 553 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 29, 2009
He is not physically qualified for (NPQ) for service in the Naval Reserve. … Indeed, Navy regulations clearly provide for such a situation. See SECNAVINST 1850.4D, §§ 8001-8016.
Cited 90 timesPublishedJ. M. Turner & Co. v. Commissioner
26 T.C. 795 · United States Tax Court · Jun 29, 1956
We think that the foregoing facts and conclusions are sufficient, in themselves, to establish that petitioner does not qualify, either as an “acquiring corporation” or as a “purchasing corporation,” within the meaning of … The books and records of petitioner, and also the minutes of the first meeting of its board of directors, clearly establish that all of petitioner’s stock was issued solely for cash at par; and there is no showing that any
Reversed by J. M. Turner and Company, Incorporated v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 247 F.2d 370 (1957)Cited 4 timesPublishedEstate of McAllister v. Commissioner
54 T.C. 1407 · United States Tax Court · Jun 25, 1970
That Michigan establish a foundation in Canada; 2. that the foundation qualify for Canadian tax exemption; and 3. that the trustees of the decedent’s estate be satisfied with the foundation as completed. … As to the second we find the decedent’s will clearly drawn.
Cited 2 timesPublishedColony Farms Cooperative Diary, Inc. v. Commissioner
17 T.C. 688 · United States Tax Court · Oct 15, 1951
Leech, Judge: By reason of the large amount of business done by petitioner, a cooperative, for its nonmembers, it is not entitled to and does not claim tax immunity. … The determinative fact in establishing this petitioner’s right to the exclusion is whether, at the time of its receipt of these earnings, it was under a legal obligation to pay them over to its members as patronage dividends
Cited 0 timesPublished54 Fed. Cl. 74 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 12, 2002
DISCUSSION The Court of Federal Claims has jurisdiction to determine claims seeking refund of taxes paid, insofar as Congress has waived sovereign immunity in tax refund matters, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1491 (a). … To qualify for this exception, plaintiff must satisfy all three elements set out in former Rule 3(b)(2)(C). See Carter v. United States, 15 Cl.Ct. 753, 754 (1988).
Cited 5 timesPublished53 Fed. Cl. 2 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 28, 2002
on active duty until he is qualified for retirement and then retired, unless he is sooner retired or discharged under another provision of law. … This mandate, however, is qualified by 10 U.S.C. § 639 , which provides that the Secretary may delay retirement pending completion of a court-martial. .
Cited 9 timesPublishedLehner v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 16, 2015
He clearly disagreed with Dr. … Vincent is clearly qualified to opine regarding C.L.’s VGKC antibodies, she essentially conceded that only VGKC complex antibodies against the specific proteins LGl1, CASPR2, and Contactin-2 are biomarkers or causal of disease
Cited 0 timesPublished31 T.C. 1017 · United States Tax Court · Feb 24, 1959
Melba was the holder of a certificate granted sometime prior to 1942, qualifying her to teach common branch subjects. … The record fails to establish the expenses of the trip were ordinary expenses paid in carrying on Richard’s business of teaching. Melba received no credits for taking the European tour.
Cited 9 timesPublishedL'Enfant Plaza Properties, Inc. v. United States
645 F.2d 886 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 11, 1981
Instead, section 104(a) clearly states that "[e]xcept as otherwise provided in this Agreement” possession will vest in plaintiff a certain period of time after execution of the lease, (emphasis added). … We interpret "[ejxcept as otherwise provided” to mean that where other lease terms qualify plaintiffs possessory rights, those qualifications will be reflected in the terms of the vesting.
Cited 41 timesPublishedArmed Services Board of Contract Appeals · Sep 3, 2015
Cl. 435 (1943), cert. denied, 322 U.S. 733 (1944), is based upon the principles of sovereign immunity and privity of contract. … Under such circumstances the Severin doctrine clearly does not apply.
Cited 0 timesPublished26 Cl. Ct. 1329 · United States Court of Claims · Sep 30, 1992
The statute of limitations is a condition of the waiver of the immunity of the United States. United States v. Kubrick, 444 U.S. 111, 117 , 100 S.Ct. 352, 356 , 62 L.Ed.2d 259 (1979). … Concluding that ”[t]here is nothing in [the specific statute establishing the discharge review board, 10 U.S.C. § 1553 (Supp.
Cited 9 timesPublished32 Cont. Cas. Fed. 73,013 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 4, 1984
“[W]e should not expand the boundaries of section 12 to cover territory not necessarily or clearly included within its terms and perimeters.” 661 F.2d at 165 . … Brookfield is no reason to depart from the government’s established method of paying interest under contractual provi *377 sions like GP 25.
Vacated in part, on other grounds by McCollum v. United States, 32 Cont. Cas. Fed. 73,472 (1985)Cited 6 timesPublishedW. X. Huber Co. v. United States
19 Cust. Ct. 88 · United States Customs Court · Dec 11, 1947
The Government, in the present case, also contends that the plaintiff has failed to establish that these articles were not chiefly used for the amusement of children and that they also failed to establish the component material … The evidence submitted by the plaintiff is not sufficient to clearly establish that at or immediately prior to the date of importation of these figures they were not chiefly used in this country for the amusement of children
Cited 2 timesPublishedBilling v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 13, 2026
He had failed multiple treatments and clearly fit the category of NDPH. … The lab had apparently considered that the TNFα norms for CSF could be established by establishing it from the same serum samples. Dr. Saxon contended that Dr.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedUrs Energy & Construction, Inc. v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 14, 2016
Only the last of those four elements is clearly present in the certification letter provided by MK on October 22, 2010. … The Transamerica holding permits the prime contractor to express qualified support for a pass-through claim.
Cited 0 timesPublished124 Fed. Cl. 536 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 18, 2015
The program manager and instructors are well qualified. … Rather, offerors were only required to “[d]emonstrate accessibility to qualified facilitators.”
Cited 9 timesPublished18 Cl. Ct. 379 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 10, 1989
She was clearly suffering from some serious physical disturbance. 60 Neither indicator is consistent with SIDS’ characteristics. … Such an enigmatic result clearly was not contemplated by the statute.
Cited 737 timesPublished35 Fed. Cl. 442 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 15, 1996
“If the primary motivating purpose behind the creation of the document is not to assist in pending or impending litigation, then a finding that the document enjoys work product immunity is not mandated.” … In its order of July 6, 1994, the court stated: Plaintiffs must identify each and every document they claim is privileged and state fully and clearly the basis for the claim of privilege.
Cited 8 timesPublishedBoard of Immigration Appeals · May 8, 2026
Rather, it must be defined by characteristics that provide a clear benchmark for determining who qualifies as a member of the group. Id. This is where the applicant’s proposed group fails. … In addition, the applicant has not established that she would be unable to request law enforcement protection from him.
Cited 0 timesPublished
Ask Donna