§188 — Repealed. Pub. L. 101–508, title XI, § 11801(a)(13), Nov. 5, 1990, 104 Stat. 1388–520]
27 cases·5 followed·1 distinguished·21 cited—19% support
Statute Text — 26 U.S.C. §188
[§ 188. Repealed. Pub. L. 101–508, title XI, § 11801(a)(13), Nov. 5, 1990, 104 Stat. 1388–520] Section, added Pub. L. 92–178, title III, § 303(a), Dec. 10, 1971, 85 Stat. 521; amended Pub. L. 94–455, title XIX, § 1906(b)(13)(A), Oct. 4, 1976, 90 Stat. 1834; Pub. L. 95–30, title IV, § 402(a)(1)–(3), May 23, 1977, 91 Stat. 155, related to amortization of certain expenditures for child care facilities. Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries Savings ProvisionFor provisions that nothing in repeal by Pub. L. 101–508 be construed to affect treatment of certain transactions occurring, property acquired, or items of income, loss, deduction, or credit taken into account prior to Nov. 5, 1990, for purposes of determining liability for tax for periods ending after Nov. 5, 1990, see section 11821(b) of Pub. L. 101–508, set out as a note under section 45K of this title.
Treasury Regulations
- Treas. Reg. §Treas. Reg. §1.188-1 Amortization of certain expenditures for qualified on-the-job training and child care facilities
- Treas. Reg. §Treas. Reg. §1.188-1(a) Allowance of deduction—(1) In general.
- Treas. Reg. §Treas. Reg. §1.188-1(b) Time and manner of making election—(1) In general.
- Treas. Reg. §Treas. Reg. §1.188-1(c) Termination of election.
- Treas. Reg. §Treas. Reg. §1.188-1(d) Definitions and special requirements—(1) Eligible expenditure.
- Treas. Reg. §Treas. Reg. §1.188-1(e) Effective date.
- Treas. Reg. §Treas. Reg. §1.188-1(i) §1.188-1(i)
- Treas. Reg. §Treas. Reg. §1.188-1(v) The annual amortization deduction claimed with respect to such item of property.
27 Citing Cases
Applying these factors, we hold that Missouri law governs the interpretation ofthe plea agreement because it resulted from a criminal prosecution in Missouri, was negotiated and executed in Missouri, and was accepted by a court in Missouri.
1987), and Section 188 of the Restatement states the applicable rule for contracts: “The rights and duties of the parties with respect to an issue in contract are determined by the local law of the state which, with respect to that issue, has the most significant relationship to the transaction and the parties .
, where the facts are not in dispute or are beyond dispute, the existence of estoppel is a question of law.” J.C. Wyckoff & Associates v. Standard Fire Ins. Co., 936 F.2d 1474, 1493 (6th Cir. 1991). See generally 28 Am. Jur. 2d, Estoppel and Waiver, sec. 188 (2000). Since there is no dispute here as to the relevant facts, we treat petitioner’s claim of estoppel as raising only a question of law, which we may dispose of with only brief discussion. Respondent made no false statement to petitioner,