§555

DIST. Curtis B. Keene, Petitioner 121 T.C. No. 2 · 2003

7521, unlike APA sec. 555(c), does not differentiate between voluntary and compelled taxpayer interviews.

Anthony J. Adams, Petitioner T.C. Memo. 2010-72 · 2010

236, 252 (1953), and the trust agreement provides that it is governed by Michigan law .

Earl R. & Mary A. Palmer, Petitioner · 2003

ase Division. Decision will be entered for respondent. 5 For divorces effective on or after Feb. 3, 1991, Federal, State, and local income taxes are not excluded from the total monthly retired pay when determining the disposable retired pay. 10 U.S.C. sec. 1408(a)(4) (1994); National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991, Pub. L. 101-510, sec. 555(b)(3) and (e)(2), 104 Stat. 1569, 1570. The divorce in this case became effective in 1977.

Phyllis Herrmann Witcher, Petitioner T.C. Memo. 2002-292 · 2002

d Eatinger v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1990-310 for support for the argument that the military pension distribution is net of income taxes. Congress amended the statute in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991, Pub. L. 101-510, sec. 555(a)-(d), 104 Stat. 1569, 1570, and income tax withholding is no longer taken into account in determining disposable military retired pay under 10 U.S.C. sec. 1408(a)(4)(C). - 8 - income from the retiree’s employer. Eatinger v. Commissioner, s

Marsha K. Huggins, Petitioner · 2001

pouse under this subsection may not be treated as 3The definition of "disposable retired pay" under 10 U.S.C. sec. 1408(a)(4) (1982), changed after the date of the decree. See National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991, Pub. L. 101-510, sec. 555(b), (e)(2), 101 Stat. 1569-1570. - 8 - amounts received as retired pay for service in the uniformed services." The above referenced language of the Act leads to the conclusion that although a State court "may treat disposable retired pay pay

Joseph D. & Wanda S. Lunsford, Petitioner 117 T.C. No. 16 · 2001

be made “on the record after opportunity for an agency hearing”). - 22 - If an adjudication is not within the relatively narrow scope of APA sec. 554(a), the only provision of the APA that prescribes procedures applicable to the adjudication is APA sec. 555. That section requires only that an agency (1) permit a party to be represented by counsel or other authorized representative, (2) permit a person to obtain a copy of any data or evidence she provides, and (3) provide a brief statement of the

Kobach v. United States Election Assistance Commission 772 F.3d 1183 · Cir.

Keene v. Commissioner 121 T.C. 8 · 2003

Riland v. Commissioner 79 T.C. 185 · 1982

Al Otro Lado v. Alejandro Mayorkas 138 F.4th 1102 · Cir.

Al Otro Lado v. Kristi Noem · Cir.

Norman Hinerfeld, Petitioner · 2019

Larry G. & Maria A. Walton Mitchell, Petitioner 131 T.C. No. 15 · 2008

Mitchell v. Commissioner 131 T.C. 215 · 2008

Maria Antoinette Walton Mitchell & Larry G. Mitchell, Petitioners · 2004

Josephine A. Fulgham, Petitioner · 2001

Lunsford v. Commissioner 117 T.C. 159 · 2001

Graham v. Commissioner 82 T.C. 299 · 1984

Mariani Frozen Foods, Inc. v. Commissioner 81 T.C. 448 · 1983

Estate of Whitlock v. Commissioner 59 T.C. 490 · 1972

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

21 Citing Cases