§28 — Renumbered § 45C]

Loss From Business,-is not limited by section 280F(a) . See supra note 4 . But the "catch all" provision-of sectio n 280F(d) (4) (A) (ii) (relating to any. other- property used as a means of transportation) nevertheless applies ; and because-the ti exception in section 280F(d)(4)(C)6 does not apply, the Ford F- 250 is listed property .

28:3- 409(1) (1981) is distinguishable from the aforementioned Maryland statute.

Alternatively, a taxpayer may avoid these requirements by electing to reduce the amount of its research credit pursuant to section 280C(c)(3).

Specifically, we pass for the first time on the - 8 - question of whether the calculation of AMTI includes the .wage-expense-limitation of section 280C(a). Respondent asserts it does. Respondent focuses primarily on section 280C(a) and argues that a literal reading of that section always precludes a taxpayer from deducting wages to the extent of a TJC. Respondent acknowledges that a taxpayer cannot apply a TJC to reduce the taxpayer's AMT liability but argues that the wage-expense- limitation s

Petitioners conclude that, notwithstanding the fact that section 280C(a) is not referenced in part VI, section 28ÒC(a) is inapplicable in the AMT regime because the TJC is also inapplicable there.

28:3-409(1) (1981). In Estate of Metzger v. Commissioner, supra, we interpreted an identical provision adopted in the State of Maryland. Because the donor could revoke the gift by stopping payment on the check or withdrawing the funds prior to the drawee’s acceptance of the check, we stated that in the State of Maryland, if a check is intended

497, 508 (1954). In 1986 Congress repealed the “inhabitant rule” and enacted section 932 to coordinate the U.S. and USVI tax systems.3 See Tax Reform Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-514, § 1274(a), 100 Stat. 2085, 2596. Under section 932, the filing requirement for a taxpayer with USVI-source income depends on the taxpayer’s residency. S

§ 28-2701 (West 2022) (District of Columbia Emancipation Day fell on Saturday, April 16, 2022; the holiday was observed on the next preceding date); Treas. Reg. § 301.7503-1(b) (citing D.C. Code Ann. § 28-2701). In calendar year 2022, District of Columbia Emancipation Day fell on Saturday, April 16, 2022. Accordingly, the holiday was observed on Fr

Court ofAppeals directs that a formal mandate issue, the mandate consists ofa copy ofthejudgment and a copy ofthe opinion). The mandate is functionally the direction that the lower court must follow. 3 Moore's Manual--Federal Practice & Procedure, sec. 28.94[1] (2004) ("A mandate is the appellate court's order to the lower court following the determination ofthe appeal."). The date the mandate issues is the date the lower court may resume taking actions in the case. Zaklama v. Mount Sinai Med.

hich is compelled or encouraged by business or regulatory realities, is imbued with tax-independent considerations, and is not shaped solely by tax-avoidance features that have meaningless labels attached, the Government should honor the allocation ofrights and duties effectuated by the parties."); see also Casebeer v.

at 508 (1954). ROA sec. 28(a) provided that corporations and individuals whose permanent residence was in the USVI satisfied their U.S. income tax obligations by "paying their tax on income derived from all sources both within and outside the Virgin Islands in the treasury ofthe Virgin Islands". Pursuant to the ROA any taxes levie

Therefore, we conclude that the omission oflump-sum payments from section 28 ofthe Act--providing for termination ofpayments on the death or remarriage--was intended.

28-2701 (2013). On Febru- ary 17, all D.C. and Federal Government offices, including the Tax Court, were officially closed because ofa "snow emergency" attributable to Winter Storm Octavia. Petitioner contends that his petition was timely filed because February 17 was, in practical effect, a legal holiday in the District ofColumbia. The regula

at 508 (1954). The ROA also provided that any tax levied by Congress on the inhabitants ofthe Virgin Islands would be "covered into" (i.e., paid to) the Virgin Islands. Id.; see also sec. 7654 (providing that income tax collections with respect to bona fide possessions residents shall be covered into the Treasury ofthe possessi

or report that petitioner was not in 2007 engaged in the equine activity for profit is binding here. Indeed, even if respondent had raised the defense, it is not clear that our prior conclusion would be binding here. See 2 Restatement, Judgments 2d, sec. 28 (1982) (listing as an exception to collateral estoppel situations where the burden has shifted between the parties in the former and current actions). The issue then is what weight, ifany, we give to our findings in the prior report. We have

at 508 (1954). ROA sec. 28(a) provided that corporations and individuals whose permanent residence was in the USVI satisfied their U.S. income tax obligations by “paying their tax on income derived from all sources both within and outside the Virgin Islands in the treasury of the Virgin Islands”. Pursuant to the ROA any taxes levi

at 508 (1954).7 ROA sec. 28(a) provided that corporations and individuals whose permanent residence is in the Virgin Islands satisfied their U.S. income tax obligations by "paying their tax on 7Sec. 7651(5)(B) ofthe Internal Revenue Code of 1954 implemented the inhabitant rule by providing that "For purposes ofthis title * * * sec

at 508 (1954). ROA sec. 28(a) provided that corporations and individuals whose permanent residence is in the Virgin Islands satisfied their U.S. income tax obligations by “paying their tax on income derived from all sources both within and outside the Virgin Islands into the treasury of the Virgin Islands”. The ROA also provided t

qualify ås her section 280A principal place ofbusiness and thus her tax home, petitioners hád to show that that area was used "exclusively * * * on a regular basis * * * as the principal place ofbusiness for any trade or business ofthe taxpayer See sec. 28dA(a), (c)(1)(A); see also supra note 6. The reminder that respondent's revenue agent gave to petitioners and Mr. Reagan in the revenue agent's Au¼,ust 12,, 2008 workpaper apparently fell on deaf ears. Petitioners and Mr. Reagaù igñored ît comp

Section 28,0A(c)(1), however, permit s a deduction for the allocable portion of a residence that i s regularly . and exclusively used as a taxpayer's principal place of business or as`a place of business which is used by customers i n the normal course of the taxpayer's trade or business . deciding whether'a residence is-the--principal place of .bu

The term "listed property" is defined in section 28OF(d)(4) and includes mobile phones .

For the year 2000, respondent determined that petitioner received but did not report a taxable distribution from the -7- Section 28 Limited Partnership in the amount of $214 .

* * * [United States v. Great Plains Gasification Associates, supra at 195.] The Court of Appeals did not question ANR’s standing to pursue the litigation as a partner of the partnership. Petition for Writ of Certiorari On July 15, 1987, ANR, as a general partner of Great Plains Gasification Associates, filed a timely petition fo

Home 0 fice Expense Section 28 A(c)(1) permits the deduction of expenses allocable to a ~ortion of a dwelling unit that is used exclusively and on a regular basis as either (1) the principal place of business for the taxpayer's trade or business, or (2) a place of busine s that is used by clients or customers in meeting or dealing with the taxpayer in the normal cours

is one of agent and principal); Morrow Crane Co. v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., 885 F.2d 612 (9th Cir. 1989) (principal is deemed to know what agent knows concerning those matters in which agent has power to bind principal); 1 Restatement, Lawyers 3d, sec. 28 (1998) (information imparted to a lawyer during and relating to the representation of a client is attributed to the client for the purpose of determining the client’s rights and liabilities in matters in which the lawyer represents the client)

is one of agent and principal); Morrow Crane Co. v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., 885 F.2d 612 (9th Cir. 1989) (principal is deemed to know what agent knows concerning those matters in which agent has power to bind principal); 1 Restatement, Lawyers 3d, sec. 28 (1998) (information imparted to a lawyer during and relating to the representation of a client is attributed to the client for the purpose of determining the client’s rights and liabilities in matters in which the lawyer represents the client)

r the loss but his cost or other basis in the item on which loss is sustained. This phase of the problem requires essentially a factual demonstration. Estimates and crude approximations are not sufficient. [7 Mertens, Law of Federal Income Taxation, sec. 28.04, at 25 (2001 rev.); fn. ref. omitted.]10 10 The concept that different valuation contexts may call for different valuation approaches is not a novel or new proposition. As stated in a leading valuation treatise: “an asset’s value for one f

28-65-101(3) (Michie 1987) (“‘Guardian’ is one appointed by a court to have the care and custody of the person or of the estate, or of both, of an incapacitated person”). In this case, pursuant to the disability section, decedent and Mrs. Whiting each designated who would be their guardians. Decedent designated Mrs. Whiting as his guardian; an

This Trust Organization shall enjoy the benefits of the Uniform Commercial Code adopted by the City of Washington, District of Columbia in the following citations: section 28:1-105, TERRITORIAL APPLICATION OF THIS SUBTITLE; PARTIES’ POWER TO CHOOSE APPLICABLE LAW, and section 28:1-207, PERFORMANCE OR ACCEPTANCE UNDER RESERVATION OF RIGHTS.

ust result is when the party sought to be precluded did not have an adequate incentive to obtain a full and fair adjudication in the initial action. See Ferrell v. Pierce, 785 F.2d 1372, 1384-1385 (7th Cir. 1985); see also Restatement, Judgments 2d, sec. 28(5) (subsection (c)) (1980). In Ferrell v. Pierce, supra, a District Court in a class action interpreted a decree controlling HUD mortgage default relief practices to require the use of a particular rule when calculating the date of default in

In that event, none of the Federal estate tax is apportioned by the North Carolina statute to the charitable bequest or other deductible interest, and the entire amount of the bequest can be deducted from the gross estate in computing the taxable estate. See, e.g., Estate of Brunetti v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1988-517. The North

§28-2- 102, MCA; Klawitter v. Dettmann, (1994), 268 Mont. 275, 280, 886 P.2d 416, 419. 4. As reflected in the Livestock Agreement, the intent of the parties was to make it binding upon their respective heirs, personal representatives and assigns. Theodore's Last Will and Testament also instructs his personal representative to pay all debts. (Pl. Ex

tes. This trust shall be domiciled in the City of Washington, District of Columbia. This Trust Organization shall enjoy the benefits of the Uniform Commercial Code adopted by the City of Washington, District of Columbia in the following citations: Sec. 28:1-105, TERRITORIAL APPLICATION OF THIS SUBTITLE; PARTIES’ POWER TO CHOOSE APPLICABLE LAW, and section 28:1-207, PERFORMANCE OR ACCEPTANCE UNDER RESERVATION OF RIGHTS. * * * * * * * SIXTH No bond for the faithful performance of duties shall be r

28A-27-2 provides in part: (a) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (b) of this section, or * * * [computational statutes] the tax shall be apportioned among all persons interested in the estate in the proportion that the value of the interest of each person interested in the estate bears to the total value of the interests of all person

28-13-6-9 (Michie 1996). - 7 - b. Stock Transactions There was no regular market for Peoples common stock, and transfers were infrequent. On the valuation date, Peoples did not have an employee stock ownership plan nor any history of repurchasing shares. Within the 24 months before and after the valuation date, there was only one arm's-length

(iii) Special Rule.--The adjusted net minimum tax for the taxable year shall be increased by the amount of the credit not allowed under section 29 (relating to credit for producing fuel from a nonconventional source) solely by reason of the application of section 29(b)(6)(B) or not allowed under section 28 solely by reason of the application of section 28(d)(2)(B), or not allowed under section 30 solely by reason of the application of section30(b)(3)(B).

28-29- 2(4); Vector Health Sys. v. Revens, 643 A.2d 795 (R.I. 1994). - 5 - v. United States, 450 U.S. 1, 5 (1981). An exclusion from gross income can be found at section 104(a)(1) for "amounts received under workmen's compensation acts as compensation for personal injuries or sickness". Section 1.104-1(b), Income Tax Regs. interprets section

— The adjusted net minimum tax for the taxable year shall be increased by the amount of the credit not allowed under section 29 (relating to credit for producing fuel from a non-conventional source) solely by reason of the application of section 29(b)(6)(B) or not allowed under section 28 solely by reason of the application of section 28(d)(2)(B), or not allowed under section 30 solely by reason of the application of section 30(b)(3)(B).

In relevant part, the California Probate Code, section 28(b) and (c) (West 1981), states that the term "community property" means: (b) All property wherever situated, and all real property situated in this state, heretofore * * * acquired during the marriage by a married person while domiciled elsewhere, that is community property * * * under the laws of the place where the acquiring spouse was