Documents
Briefs, oral arguments, agency decisions and the Federal Register.
1,645 results
0.38s
Agency decision · Agency decision
Given the fact that the Thompsons did not retain DeCastro until November 1986, respondent's failure to act on the Thompsons' 1982.return before the expiration of the 3-year period of limitations could … Accordingly, the period of limitations for that year expired in May 1986.
United States Tax CourtAgency decision · Agency decision
Given the fact that the Thompsons did not retain DeCastro until November 1986, respondent’s failure to act on the Thompsons’ 1982 return before the expiration of the 3-year period of limitations could … Accordingly, the period of limitations for that year expired in May 1986.
United States Tax CourtAgency decision · Agency decision
Given the fact that the Thompsons did not retain DeCastro until November 1986, respondent’s failure to act on the Thompsons’ 1982 return before the expiration of the 3-year period of limitations could … Accordingly, the period of limitations for that year expired in May 1986.
United States Tax CourtAgency decision · Agency decision
Given the fact that the Thompsons did not retain DeCastro until November 1986, respondent’s failure to act on the Thompsons’ 1982 return before the expiration of the 3-year period of limitations could … Accordingly, the period of limitations for that year expired in May 1986.
United States Tax CourtAgency decision · Agency decision
Given the fact that the Thompsons did not retain DeCastro until November 1986, respondent’s failure to act on the Thompsons’ 1982 return before the expiration of the 3-year period of limitations could … Accordingly, the period of limitations for that year expired in May 1986.
United States Tax CourtAgency decision · Agency decision
Given the fact that the Thompsons did not retain DeCastro until November 1986, respondent’s failure to act on the Thompsons’ 1982 return before the expiration of the 3-year period of limitations could … Accordingly, the period of limitations for that year expired in May 1986.
United States Tax CourtAgency decision · Agency decision
Given the fact that the Thompsons did not retain DeCastro until November 1986, respondent’s failure to act on the Thompsons’ 1982 return before the expiration of the 3-year period of limitations could … Accordingly, the period of limitations for that year expired in May 1986.
United States Tax CourtAgency decision · Agency decision
Given the fact that the Thompsons did not retain DeCastro until November 1986, respondent’s failure to act on the Thompsons’ 1982 return before the expiration of the 3-year period of limitations could … Accordingly, the period of limitations for that year expired in May 1986.
United States Tax CourtAgency decision · Agency decision
Given the fact that the Thompsons did not retain DeCastro until November 1986, respondent’s failure to act on the Thompsons’ 1982 return before the expiration of the 3-year period of limitations could … Accordingly, the period of limitations for that year expired in May 1986.
United States Tax CourtAgency decision · Agency decision
Given the fact that the Thompsons did not retain DeCastro until November 1986, respondent’s failure to act on the Thompsons’ 1982 return before the expiration of the 3-year period of limitations could … Accordingly, the period of limitations for that year expired in May 1986.
United States Tax CourtAgency decision · Agency decision
Given the fact that the Thompsons did not retain DeCastro until November 1986, respondent’s failure to act on the Thompsons’ 1982 return before the expiration of the 3-year period of limitations could … Accordingly, the period of limitations for that year expired in May 1986.
United States Tax CourtAgency decision · Agency decision
Given the fact that the Thompsons did not retain DeCastro until November 1986, respondent’s failure to act on the Thompsons’ 1982 return before the expiration of the 3-year period of limitations could … Accordingly, the period of limitations for that year expired in May 1986.
United States Tax CourtAgency decision · Agency decision
Given the fact that the Thompsons did not retain DeCastro until November 1986, respondent’s failure to act on the Thompsons’ 1982 return before the expiration of the 3-year period of limitations could … Accordingly, the period of limitations for that year expired in May 1986.
United States Tax CourtAgency decision · Agency decision
Given the fact that the Thompsons did not retain DeCastro until November 1986, respondent’s failure to act on the Thompsons’ 1982 return before the expiration of the 3-year period of limitations could … Accordingly, the period of limitations for that year expired in May 1986.
United States Tax CourtAgency decision · Agency decision
The management companies w re responsible for the day-to-day work such a s booking res rvations, checking in guests, cleaning the units, and -12responding to emergencies . … She was diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease in March -221999 and died at age 88 after a period of declining health and physical problems .
United States Tax CourtAgency decision · Agency decision
We therefore find that Schneide r controlled everything to do with the Angles' deal and used Provence only to lend an air of legitimacy to AmeriNational's . involvement--which was ultimately just to act … for them was to charge fees--and the record shows tha t 8 To compute the required minimum annual distribution of an annuity, one divides the annuitant's account balance by the .applicable distribution period
United States Tax CourtAgency decision · Agency decision
Myers cannot be present to supervise the work at a site, he assigns an experienced and responsible construction worker of petitioner to act as foreman of the work crew.3 On workdays during peak periods … Memo. 1997-495 (taxpayer specialized in constructing complex projects such as hospital operating rooms, robotics facilities, high-quality glass-making plants, and industrial “clean rooms”).
United States Tax CourtAgency decision · Agency decision
Water Main Cleaning Co. v. Commissioner, 16 B.T.A. 223 (1929); accord Estate of Bright v. … Water Main Cleaning Co. v. Commissioner, supra at 239; accord Estate of Watts v.
United States Tax CourtAgency decision · Agency decision
Water Main Cleaning Co. v. Commissioner, 16 B.T.A. 223 (1929); accord Estate of Bright v. … Water Main Cleaning Co. v. Commissioner, supra at 239; accord Estate of Watts v.
United States Tax CourtAgency decision · Agency decision
He served in the Air Force for approximately 21 years, after which time he taught at a community college and worked for an electronics corporation. … He also attended monthly Hoyt partner meetings over a period of several years starting in the early 1990s. Petitioners first learned of the Hoyt partnership investments from Mr.
United States Tax Court
Ask Donna what matters in the record.
She can read the source against your case and show you exactly where the answer came from.