§241 Allowance of special deductions

James M. Robinette, Petitioner 123 T.C. No. 5 · 2004

account o.f all the circumstances including any reasonable assurances; (e) the extent to which the behavior of the party failing to perfo.rm or to offer to perform comports with standards of good faith and fair dealing. [1 Restatement, Contracts 2d, sec. 241 (1981).] - 40 - Arkansas law adopts this analysis. See TXO Prod. Corp. v. Page Farms, Inc., supra; see also DHC Resort, LLC v. Razorback Entertainment Corp., 329 F.3d 974, 976 (8th Cir. 2003) (citing TXO Prod. Corp. v. Page Farms, Inc., supr

Ronald L. & Mattie L. Alverson, Petitioner T.C. Memo. 1999-101 · 1999

-344, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit stated that the test of whether a breach of a Federal contract is material is an "all-the-circumstances-test" and that the Court of Appeals considers the five factors listed under 1 Restatement, supra sec. 241, as significant in applying the test.118 118 1 Restatement, Contracts 2d, sec. 241 (1981), states as follows: In determining whether a failure to render or to offer performance is material, the following circumstances are significant: (a) th

Terry D. & Gloria K. Owens, Petitioner T.C. Memo. 1999-101 · 1999

-344, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit stated that the test of whether a breach of a Federal contract is material is an "all-the-circumstances-test" and that the Court of Appeals considers the five factors listed under 1 Restatement, supra sec. 241, as significant in applying the test.118 118 1 Restatement, Contracts 2d, sec. 241 (1981), states as follows: In determining whether a failure to render or to offer performance is material, the following circumstances are significant: (a) th

Richard B. & Donna G. Rogers, Petitioner T.C. Memo. 1999-101 · 1999

-344, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit stated that the test of whether a breach of a Federal contract is material is an "all-the-circumstances-test" and that the Court of Appeals considers the five factors listed under 1 Restatement, supra sec. 241, as significant in applying the test.118 118 1 Restatement, Contracts 2d, sec. 241 (1981), states as follows: In determining whether a failure to render or to offer performance is material, the following circumstances are significant: (a) th

John L. & Terry E. Huber, Petitioner T.C. Memo. 1999-101 · 1999

-344, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit stated that the test of whether a breach of a Federal contract is material is an "all-the-circumstances-test" and that the Court of Appeals considers the five factors listed under 1 Restatement, supra sec. 241, as significant in applying the test.118 118 1 Restatement, Contracts 2d, sec. 241 (1981), states as follows: In determining whether a failure to render or to offer performance is material, the following circumstances are significant: (a) th

Hoyt W. & Barbara D. Young, Petitioner T.C. Memo. 1999-101 · 1999

-344, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit stated that the test of whether a breach of a Federal contract is material is an "all-the-circumstances-test" and that the Court of Appeals considers the five factors listed under 1 Restatement, supra sec. 241, as significant in applying the test.118 118 1 Restatement, Contracts 2d, sec. 241 (1981), states as follows: In determining whether a failure to render or to offer performance is material, the following circumstances are significant: (a) th

Lara v. Trominski 216 F.3d 487 · Cir.

Lara-Resendez v. INS · Cir.

Jose Martinez v. Merrick Garland 86 F.4th 561 · Cir.

Hudson v. Commissioner 8 T.C. 950 · 1947

Aybar-Alejo v. INS · Cir.

United States v. Scott 979 F.3d 986 · Cir.

United States v. Burns 19 F. App'x 472 · Cir.

Klein v. New York City Transit Authority 38 F. App'x 679 · Cir.

Antonia Trinidad Aybar-Alejo v. Immigration and Naturalization Service 230 F.3d 487 · Cir.

Alkon v. United States 43 V.I. 325 · Cir.

Trout v. Commissioner 131 T.C. 239 · 2008

Robinette v. Commissioner 123 T.C. 85 · 2004

Long v. Commissioner 93 T.C. 5 · 1989

Espinoza v. Commissioner 78 T.C. 412 · 1982

Woodson v. Commissioner 73 T.C. 779 · 1980

Allstate Fire Insurance v. Commissioner 47 T.C. 237 · 1966

Custodia Bank v. Federal Reserve Board of Governors · Cir.

United States v. Perez 575 F.3d 164 · Cir.

Family Winemakers of California v. Jenkins 592 F.3d 1 · Cir.

United States v. Under Seal 737 F.3d 330 · Cir.

United States v. Luciano Pascacio-Rodriguez 749 F.3d 353 · Cir.

United States v. Perez · Cir.

Leclerc v. Webb 444 F.3d 428 · Cir.

United States v. Patrick Mire 838 F.3d 621 · Cir.

United States v. Moyer 674 F.3d 192 · Cir.

United States v. Weintraub 273 F.3d 139 · Cir.

Lucina Rojas-Reyes, A/K/A Lucina Mendoza v. Immigration and Naturalization Service 235 F.3d 115 · Cir.

United States v. Weintraub 273 F.3d 139 · Cir.

Karen Leclerc Guillaume Jarry Beatrice Boulord Maureen D. Affleck, Plaintiffs-Appellants-Cross v. Daniel E. Webb, Daniel E. Webb Harry J. Phillips, in Their Respective Official Capacities as Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Louisiana Committee on Bar Admissions Jeffery P. Victory Jeannette Theriot Knoll Chet D. Traylor Catherine D. Kimball, A/K/A Kitty Kimball John L. Weimer Bernette Joshua Johnson, in Their Official Capacities as Justices of the Louisiana Supreme Court, Defendants-Appellees-Cross Caroline Wallace Emily Maw v. Pascal F. Calogero Jr., in His Official Capacity as Chief Justice of the Louisiana Supreme Court Jeffrey P. Victory Jeannette Theriot Knoll Chet D. Traylor Catherine D. Kimball John L. Weimer Bernett J. Johnson, in Their Official Capacities as Justices of the Louisiana Supreme Court Daniel E. Webb Harry J. Phillips, Jr., in Their Respective Official Capacities as Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Louisiana Committee on Bar Admissions 419 F.3d 405 · Cir.

United States v. Santiago-Mendez 691 F.3d 1 · Cir.

In re Rodriguez 304 F. App'x 947 · Cir.

Carlos Inestroza-Tosta v. Attorney General United States of America 105 F.4th 499 · Cir.

§241 — Allowance of special deductions

39 Citing Cases

New cases, delivered.