Case law

Frankel v. Commissioner

82 T.C. 318 · United States Tax Court · Feb 28, 1984

Frankel clearly "meets” four of the six criteria listed by the majority as necessary for qualification under section 280A(c)(l)(B). … Merely incurring substantial expenses (and thus meeting Congress’ first objective) is not sufficient, by itself, , to qualify for a home office deduction.

Shea Homes, Inc. And Subsidiaries v. Commissioner

142 T.C. No. 3 · United States Tax Court · Feb 12, 2014

For example, with respect to Parkside at Reunion they established a Web site, reunionco.com; ran newspaper ads; and used billboards. … Nor may the Commissioner change a taxpayer’s method of accounting “[w]here a taxpayer’s method of accounting is clearly an acceptable method” and clearly reflects income. Id.

Paschen Contractors, Inc. And Peter Kiewit Sons' Co., Joint Venturers v. The United States

418 F.2d 1360 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 12, 1969

Plaintiff submits that the record clearly establishes without dispute that there would have been no condensation or heat gain in the hung ceiling spaces involved in this contract. 6. … Defendant further reasons that the reference to “all supply duets” in the first sentence of paragraph 82 would have been qualified (for example, by the words “in non-conditioned spaces”) had it been intended that the exception

Laney J Bare v. Department of Defense

Merit Systems Protection Board · Feb 21, 2025

He contends that the fact that he functioned as a Financial Management Specialist from 2007 until the agency declared him AWOL on September 26, 2017, established by preponderant evidence that he was a qualified individual … ANALYSIS To establish disability discrimination based on a failure to accommodate claim, an employee must show that: (1) he is an individual with a disability, as defined by 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(g); (2) he is a qualified

Lee v. United States

32 Fed. Cl. 530 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 5, 1995

Paragraph 5-7a(l) states ”[p]unitive action is not to be taken against personnel solely because of their failure to qualify or to remain qualified under this program.” AFR 35-99. . See, note 6, supra. . … As discussed earlier, the military has not clearly defined what constitutes substandard performance of duly.

American National Bank & Trust Co. v. United States

36 Cont. Cas. Fed. 75,966 · United States Court of Claims · Nov 13, 1990

Neither party has come forward with sufficient facts to establish that there is a genuine issue for trial. Celotex Corp. v. … In order to prove the existence of a valid statutory assignment, plaintiff must show compliance with each of three criteria — that (1) it is a qualified financial institution; (2) it loaned money or at least made money available

Cw Government Travel, Inc. v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 21, 2021

Clearly, Plaintiff could re-compete for the contract. … Here Plaintiff has established irreparable harm, as explained above.

Pedro P. Del Rosario v. James B. Peake

22 Vet. App. 399 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Jan 5, 2009

4  receiving contentions, oral arguments, and testimony and may be held before the Director, Compensation and Pension Service [(C&P)], Washington, D.C., or before qualified … The Board's determinations regarding forfeiture are reviewed under the "clearly erroneous" standard of review. Flores, 19 Vet.App. at 523. A.

Nordstrom v. United States

177 Ct. Cl. 818 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 16, 1966

During 1942, jobs with the Government were constantly being upgraded in an effort to attract qualified people. … The evidence establishes that plaintiff’s work was eminently satisfactory to defendant. 9. On June 20, 1942, plaintiff was furloughed to active military duty.

Durand v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 21, 2018

denies that the influenza immunization caused Mr. Durand’s alleged GBS, any other injury, or his death. Id. at ¶ 6. … No payments pursuant to this Stipulation shall be made until petitioner provides the Secretary with documentation establishing her appointment as legal representative of the Estate of Jorge Antonio Durand.

Woodward v. Commissioner

49 T.C. 377 · United States Tax Court · Jan 23, 1968

Thirdly, Atzingen-Whitehouse Dairy, Inc., 36 T.C. 173 , cited by the majority in support of its conclusion is clearly distinguishable on its facts. … Practicality and substance are to be recognized.9 The test which appears to have been established is that of primary purpose.

Trans-Border Customs Services, Inc. v. United States

18 Ct. Int'l Trade 22 · United States Court of International Trade · Jan 20, 1994

Upon National Sample’s request, Customs reconsidered its prior classification decision, ultimately changing its position by ruling that “the sample books do qualify as ‘samples’ within the context of subheading 9813.00.20 … Congress also could have further modified the heading in Column 1, Special, to clearly establish its intent to provide unconditional duty-free entry for articles from Canada.

Veterans Contracting Group, Inc. v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 21, 2017

On July 17, 2013, VA, acting through the CVE, verified Veterans as a qualified SDVOSB on its VIP database. Veterans Contracting, 133 Fed. Cl. at 616. … Further, the government asserts, Subsections 74.22 and 74.2(e) “clearly apply to separate actions.” Id. at 19.

Stephen R. Kelley & Isabelle Kelley

United States Tax Court · Oct 23, 2023

The Supreme Court long ago established that gross income includes all “accessions to wealth, clearly realized, and over which the taxpayers have complete dominion,” absent an explicit exclusion. Commissioner v. … Organizations Immunities Act (22 U.S.C. 288–288f).”

Application of Milton E. Herr

377 F.2d 610 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 11, 1967

The board clearly considered this to be immaterial insofar as the question of res judicata was concerned, and properly so. … clearly do not amount to waiver of the res judicata doctrine, which he continued to repeatedly assert, just as the board’s similar reconsideration and holding of unobviousness in view of the new record established in the

Lumetra v. United States

84 Fed. Cl. 542 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 14, 2008

the offeror’s ability to provide qualified personnel in sufficient numbers to perform the work under the contract.” … offeror’s ability to provide qualified personnel in sufficient numbers to perform the work under the contract.”

Alexander A. Medlin v. Douglas A. Collins

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Apr 6, 2026

"[I]n order for a finding of material fact made by [the Board] to be set aside, this Court must conclude that the finding is 'clearly erroneous.'" Id. at 52. … The 11  Case: 24-3304 Page: 12 of 22 Filed: 04/06/2026 qualifying nature of this language renders the pertinent findings and conclusions

Bestfoods v. United States

110 F. Supp. 2d 965 · United States Court of International Trade · Jun 29, 2000

requiring Bestfoods to mark finished peanut butter containing de minimis Canadian peanut slurry as a product of Canada would not effectively address Customs’ (or its cooperating agency’s) health and food safety concerns, and clearly … Accordingly, plaintiff should be given the opportunity to demonstrate that when its finished peanut butter contains Canadian peanut slurry whether or not the finished product qualifies for de minimis treatment under 19

Thurner v. Comm'r

121 T.C. 43 · United States Tax Court · Jul 11, 2003

The record clearly establishes that petitioner Scott P. Thurner participated meaningfully in the District Court collection action. … Therefore, petitioners would not qualify for relief from joint and several liability under sec. 6015(c). Sec. 313(a)(2)(A) of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2001, Pub.

Ellis A. Archerda v. Department of Defense

2014 MSPB 49 · Merit Systems Protection Board · Jul 11, 2014

Accordingly, the appellant has not established that he is entitled to overtime pay. … Thus, the Board will modify a penalty only when it finds that the agency failed to weigh the relevant factors or that the penalty the agency imposed clearly exceeded the bounds of reasonableness.