Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
10,000+ results
0.78s
33 T.C. 963 · United States Tax Court · Feb 29, 1960
Petitioner has clearly established that he desired to remain in an extremely liquid financial position in order to take advantage of an expected downturn in business and both of the above alternatives would thwart this desire … establish the contrary.
Cited 21 timesPublished37 Cust. Ct. 466 · United States Customs Court · Jun 27, 1956
In the instant case, plaintiff is clearly under the burden of proving the absence of a foreign value for the involved merchandise. … There is nothing before the court to indicate that he was qualified to testify as to any matters outside the scope of his firm’s business.
Cited 4 timesPublished10 Vet. App. 67 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Jan 27, 1997
The letter stated that “radar emissions], microwave type radiation does not qualify for service connection under current provisions of the law, as it emits no ionizing radiation.” Ibid. … Young has treated the appellant at least since January 1989 (R. at 41, 61), the opinion is clearly based on more than conversations, and finally, “highly likely” is not “may or may not” terminology. See Tirpak v.
Cited 200 timesPublishedJacobs Engineering Group Inc v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 26, 2025
These aspects are clearly quantitative in nature but ultimately inform a qualitative assessment. … It is well established that an agency cannot evaluate proposals on unstated criteria. See Banknote, 56 Fed.
Cited 0 timesPublishedBath Iron Works Corp. v. United States
38 Cont. Cas. Fed. 76,432 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 12, 1992
Accordingly, congressional consent to suit in this court, “thereby waiving the government’s traditional immunity, must be explicit and strictly construed.” Puget Sound Power & Light Co. v. … As a general rule, the United States, as a sovereign entity, is “immune from suits save as it consents to be sued.” United States v.
Cited 8 timesPublishedConstitution Publishing Co. v. Commissioner
23 T.C. 19 · United States Tax Court · Oct 8, 1954
be proved to qualify for relief under section 722 (b) (2). … inconsistent if these same factors were now sufficient to qualify for relief under subsection (b) (5).
Cited 12 timesPublished20 I. & N. Dec. 149 · Board of Immigration Appeals · Jul 1, 1990
The applicant established that he has at least one relative in a lawful immigration status here. … The nature of his "crime" is obviously political and his motivation was clearly political.
Cited 11 timesPublished131 F. Supp. 925 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 7, 1955
C., to Region 1, continuing employment in a temporary status pending the establishment of a register. … Lacking classified civil-service status plaintiff was not qualified to be retained in preference to a nonveteran in groups I and II.
Cited 17 timesPublishedChevron U.S.A., Inc. v. United States
80 Fed. Cl. 340 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 31, 2008
B.2 UUA.1-8 (establishing Independent Petroleum Engineer Process for the Shallow Oil Zone) with Compl. Ex. B.2 UU B.l-11 (establishing Equity Redetermination Process). … Accordingly, the Government has the burden of proof to establish both of these elements.
Cited 11 timesPublishedNorthern California Central Services, Inc. v. United States
591 F.2d 620 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 24, 1979
At present, all seven member hospitals qualify for income tax exemption under § 501(c)(3), although at the time of filing for an exemption with the IRS, one hospital qualified only under § 501(c)(4). … operated exclusively for charitable purposes) but by hospitals qualifying for tax exemptions under § 501(c)(4) (nonprofit organizations established for "the promotion of social welfare.”)
Cited 15 timesPublished5 Ct. Cust. 423 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 18, 1914
S., 131 ). ' It is likewise unnecessary to establish a similarity in more than one particular. … There is not a word of testimony controverting the qualifying statement of the witness that these caps are to “evolve a purpose, ” later explained to be of “air-tight sealing.”
Cited 14 timesPublished78 Cust. Ct. 35 · United States Customs Court · Feb 15, 1977
Since the court held that the burden “clearly” had not been met, it reversed the judgment of the trial court. … The testimony of plaintiff’s witnesses reveals clearly the numerous steps or processes to which the Z-beams were subjected in Mexico.
Cited 3 timesPublishedDerek & Dana Contracting, Inc. v. United States
32 Cont. Cas. Fed. 73,356 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 25, 1985
Although the record is deficient with respect to precise details, it does establish that some kind of an agreement was worked out (no document was offered in evidence establishing this fact, however) between ROFEC, D & D … Mclntire states that "... the abstract of bids clearly identifies ... Mr. Jerome D. Weller, Contracting Officer____”) Further, Mr.
Cited 1 timesPublishedAll Channel Products v. United States
787 F. Supp. 1457 · United States Court of International Trade · Mar 23, 1992
Defendant correctly posits that the plain language of the statute mandates that a TV appraisement be based on the “total payment” exclusive only of the specified costs, charges and expenses qualifying as “incident to the … Only in those situations where it would clearly be impossible to ship merchandise on a through bill of lading (e.g., shipments via the seller’s own conveyance) will other documentation satisfactory to the district director
Cited 2 timesPublished78 T.C. 423 · United States Tax Court · Mar 17, 1982
News 5989, 5990 (1974). 4 Major Stanley does not qualify for the coveted exemption under Pub. L. 93-483 for several reasons. … Because amounts received as compensation for past, present, or future employment may not qualify as a scholarship or fellowship (sec. 1.117-4(cXl), Income Tax Regs.), petitioners clearly would not be (and in fact do not argue
Cited 0 timesPublished473 F.2d 896 · United States Court of Claims · Feb 16, 1973
The question remains, however, as to whether plaintiff qualified for the protection of the Act. … Defendant says plaintiff here clearly falls outside of this prescription, his former *548 work being of a different type and in a different Government agency.
Cited 6 timesPublished171 Ct. Cl. 719 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 11, 1965
In the absence of a qualifying statement on the Standard Form 50 or of any antedated documentary evidence showing the intent of the appointing officer to pay a higher rate than that established on the effective dates of the … Under the regulations then in effect failure, as here, to include a qualifying statement or other satisfactory evidence explaining the absence of a qualifying statement on Form 50 precludes a retroactive adjustment of the
Cited 3 timesPublished37 T.C. 1124 · United States Tax Court · Mar 22, 1962
Where, however, the property in question consists of livestock held by the taxpayer “for draft, breeding, or dairy purposes,” section 1231(b) (3) 2 specifies a holding period of 12 months if such livestock is to qualify as … If we understand petitioner’s position clearly, it is that to become an established sire of good or fine racehorses, it is essential that a stallion first be a success as a racehorse; that such success as a racehorse means
Cited 4 timesPublishedHuttig Sash & Door Co. v. Commissioner
25 T.C. 550 · United States Tax Court · Dec 19, 1955
Louis, the record clearly establishes that petitioner operated an integrated business of non-custom millwork and various types of building supplies through its St. … (a)i General Rule. — In any case In which the taxpayer establishes that the tax computed under this subchapter (without the benefit of this section) results In an excessive and discriminatory tax and establishes what would
Cited 2 timesPublished21 Ct. Cl. 262 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 12, 1886
Do the facts bring the case within the reason and spirit of the administrative law established and recognized by the decisions ? … While we have no disposition to qualify or restrict the doctrine of what we have heretofore decided in cases like the one at bar, we have no disposition to extend it so as to include transactions.not falling clearly within
Cited 1 timesPublished
Ask Donna