§376

9 cases·3 overruled·6 cited

Statute text not available for this section.

9 Citing Cases

§ 376.309(3) (West 2023). The predictable, commonplace voting rights which Mr. Pascucci possessed are starkly different from the level of control over voting that the taxpayer exercised in Webber, 144 T.C. at 364–65. The insurance investment managers in Webber “took no action without a sign-off from [the taxpayer].” Id. Mr. Pascucci has provided no

The proscription against private benefit corresponds to a similar proscription in the law of charitable trusts. “A trust is not a charitable trust if the property or the income therefrom is to be devoted to a private use.” 2 Restatement, Trusts 2d, sec. 376 (1959). An organization’s property may be impermissibly devoted to a private use where private interests have control, directly or indirectly, over its assets, and thereby secure nonincidental private benefits. For instance, in est of Hawaii

Owner Operator Independent Drivers Ass'n v. Comerica Bank (In Re Arctic Express Inc.) 636 F.3d 781 · Cir.
Wieland v. United States Department of Health & Human Services 793 F.3d 949 · Cir.
Owner Operator Independent Drivers Ass'n v. Comerica Bank 636 F.3d 781 · Cir.
Grand River Enterprises v. Boughton 988 F.3d 114 · Cir.

New cases, delivered.

Get notified when new Tax Court opinions drop.