The document summarizes a Tax Court case regarding whether petitioners were liable for deficiencies and penalties related to commissions Howard Slater received. The court held:
1) A closing notice issued by the IRS after a notice of deficiency did not close the tax year or preclude further collection action.
2) The commissions Slater received did not qualify for nonqualified deferred compensation treatment under section 409A because the requirements were not met.
3) While petitioners underreported their tax liability, they were not liable for accuracy-related penalties because Slater had reasonable cause to believe the commissions qualified for deferred treatment.
This summary provides the essential information from the document in 3 sentences:
This document is a summary opinion from the United States Tax Court regarding whether William Pearce is entitled to relief from joint and several tax liability for tax year 2004. The tax return for 2004 claimed a deduction for state and local income taxes that was not allowed, resulting in an underpayment. Pearce is not eligible for relief under section 6015(b), (c), or (f) because the improper deduction was attributable to his income and he signed declarations stating he reviewed the return.
This summary provides the essential information from the tax court document in 3 sentences:
The tax court ruled on several issues related to the petitioner's (Christopher Garrin) taxes for 2004 and 2005. The court found that Garrin failed to report $88,389 in income for 2004 based on an analysis of his bank deposits. The court also determined that Garrin was not entitled to deductions claimed on his Schedule C forms or for net operating losses beyond what the IRS had already allowed.
This document is a memorandum from the United States Tax Court regarding a tax case between Joyce A. Perkins and the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. The Tax Court found that Perkins was liable for a $6,582 income tax deficiency for 2003 but not liable for an accuracy-related penalty. The issues before the court were: 1) whether $26,400 paid to Perkins by her ex-husband in 2003 was alimony income under section 71 of the tax code, and 2) whether Perkins was liable for an accuracy penalty. The court analyzed Tennessee law on alimony and concluded the payments were alimony in futuro, making them taxable income to Perkins. However, the court found Perkins was not liable
This summary provides the high level details from the tax court document in 3 sentences:
The tax court reviewed Bobby and Libby Claborn's tax return for 2003 and determined a deficiency of $3,592. The key issues were whether the Claborns were entitled to deductions for charitable contributions of cash and property, as well as unreimbursed employee expenses. The tax court found that the Claborns were allowed some charitable deductions but not the full amounts claimed, and that they were not entitled to deductions for expenses related to Bobby Claborn's employment that had been reimbursed.
The tax court case involved whether commissions Howard Slater received for transferring his annuity accounts qualified for nonqualified deferred compensation treatment under section 409A. The court found that the commissions did not meet the requirements of section 409A as they were not conditioned on future services and the plans did not meet the election requirements. Therefore, the commissions were required to be included in the Slaters' gross income for the 2005 tax year.
This document is a summary of a United States Tax Court case regarding whether a collection case qualifies for small tax case procedures. The Tax Court held that for a case to qualify under section 7463(f)(2), the total unpaid tax as of the date of the IRS notice of determination cannot exceed $50,000. The amount of the underlying tax liability in dispute is irrelevant. Therefore, because the total unpaid tax in this case exceeded $50,000 as of the date of the IRS notice of determination, the case does not qualify to be conducted under the small tax case procedures.
This document summarizes a Tax Court memorandum opinion regarding the IRS's determination to maintain a tax lien against the petitioner. The petitioner proposed two offers-in-compromise and a partial payment installment agreement to settle his unpaid tax liabilities from 2000-2002, totaling around $65,000. The Tax Court found that the settlement officer did not abuse their discretion in rejecting the petitioner's collection alternatives because the offers-in-compromise were both less than the petitioner's reasonable collection potential as calculated under IRS guidelines, and the installment agreement lacked specified payment details. The court also found the settlement officer properly included the cash surrender value of the petitioner's life insurance policies as an asset in determining reasonable collection potential.
This document summarizes a Tax Court case regarding Walter and Carol Selph's challenge to tax liabilities and penalties for tax years 1999, 2000, and 2001. The Tax Court found that the Selphs were entitled to challenge their underlying tax liabilities for those years. Additionally, the court found that the Selphs were liable for failure-to-pay penalties for 1999 but not 2000 and 2001 due to Mrs. Selph's health issues those years which constituted reasonable cause for failure to timely file.
This summary provides the essential information from the document in 3 sentences:
This document is a summary opinion from the United States Tax Court regarding whether William Pearce is entitled to relief from joint and several tax liability for tax year 2004. The tax return for 2004 claimed a deduction for state and local income taxes that was not allowed, resulting in an underpayment. Pearce is not eligible for relief under section 6015(b), (c), or (f) because the improper deduction was attributable to his income and he signed declarations stating he reviewed the return.
This summary provides the essential information from the tax court document in 3 sentences:
The tax court ruled on several issues related to the petitioner's (Christopher Garrin) taxes for 2004 and 2005. The court found that Garrin failed to report $88,389 in income for 2004 based on an analysis of his bank deposits. The court also determined that Garrin was not entitled to deductions claimed on his Schedule C forms or for net operating losses beyond what the IRS had already allowed.
This document is a memorandum from the United States Tax Court regarding a tax case between Joyce A. Perkins and the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. The Tax Court found that Perkins was liable for a $6,582 income tax deficiency for 2003 but not liable for an accuracy-related penalty. The issues before the court were: 1) whether $26,400 paid to Perkins by her ex-husband in 2003 was alimony income under section 71 of the tax code, and 2) whether Perkins was liable for an accuracy penalty. The court analyzed Tennessee law on alimony and concluded the payments were alimony in futuro, making them taxable income to Perkins. However, the court found Perkins was not liable
This summary provides the high level details from the tax court document in 3 sentences:
The tax court reviewed Bobby and Libby Claborn's tax return for 2003 and determined a deficiency of $3,592. The key issues were whether the Claborns were entitled to deductions for charitable contributions of cash and property, as well as unreimbursed employee expenses. The tax court found that the Claborns were allowed some charitable deductions but not the full amounts claimed, and that they were not entitled to deductions for expenses related to Bobby Claborn's employment that had been reimbursed.
The tax court case involved whether commissions Howard Slater received for transferring his annuity accounts qualified for nonqualified deferred compensation treatment under section 409A. The court found that the commissions did not meet the requirements of section 409A as they were not conditioned on future services and the plans did not meet the election requirements. Therefore, the commissions were required to be included in the Slaters' gross income for the 2005 tax year.
This document is a summary of a United States Tax Court case regarding whether a collection case qualifies for small tax case procedures. The Tax Court held that for a case to qualify under section 7463(f)(2), the total unpaid tax as of the date of the IRS notice of determination cannot exceed $50,000. The amount of the underlying tax liability in dispute is irrelevant. Therefore, because the total unpaid tax in this case exceeded $50,000 as of the date of the IRS notice of determination, the case does not qualify to be conducted under the small tax case procedures.
This document summarizes a Tax Court memorandum opinion regarding the IRS's determination to maintain a tax lien against the petitioner. The petitioner proposed two offers-in-compromise and a partial payment installment agreement to settle his unpaid tax liabilities from 2000-2002, totaling around $65,000. The Tax Court found that the settlement officer did not abuse their discretion in rejecting the petitioner's collection alternatives because the offers-in-compromise were both less than the petitioner's reasonable collection potential as calculated under IRS guidelines, and the installment agreement lacked specified payment details. The court also found the settlement officer properly included the cash surrender value of the petitioner's life insurance policies as an asset in determining reasonable collection potential.
This document summarizes a Tax Court case regarding Walter and Carol Selph's challenge to tax liabilities and penalties for tax years 1999, 2000, and 2001. The Tax Court found that the Selphs were entitled to challenge their underlying tax liabilities for those years. Additionally, the court found that the Selphs were liable for failure-to-pay penalties for 1999 but not 2000 and 2001 due to Mrs. Selph's health issues those years which constituted reasonable cause for failure to timely file.
This document summarizes a Tax Court case regarding the IRS's rejection of a taxpayer's proposed installment agreement to pay back taxes. The taxpayer owed taxes from 2002-2005 and proposed paying $200 per month. The IRS settlement officer determined the taxpayer could pay $819 per month based on her income and expenses. The settlement officer requested additional financial information from the taxpayer but ultimately closed the case without receiving all the information. The Tax Court had to determine if rejecting the proposed installment agreement was an abuse of discretion by the IRS.
This document is a memorandum opinion from the United States Tax Court regarding respondent's motion for summary judgment in a case involving petitioner Stuart J. Hoffenberg. The memorandum discusses the background of assessments made against petitioner for unpaid income taxes for 2000 and 2001. It also analyzes whether respondent may proceed with a levy to collect the unpaid taxes. The tax court concludes that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that respondent is entitled to judgment as a matter of law allowing the levy to proceed.
This document summarizes a Tax Court case regarding whether the court has jurisdiction to redetermine penalties assessed under Section 6707A of the Internal Revenue Code. The Tax Court ruled that it does not have jurisdiction over Section 6707A penalties in a deficiency proceeding. Section 6707A penalties are assessed for failing to disclose involvement in certain tax avoidance transactions known as reportable transactions.
This document summarizes a Tax Court case regarding a deficiency determination by the IRS for Patricia and Jerry Frazier's 2002 tax return. The Tax Court had to decide: (1) whether the Fraziers were entitled to itemized deductions in excess of $41,213 claimed on Schedule A; (2) whether deductions claimed on Schedule C for Jerry Frazier's lawn business were allowed; and (3) whether a notice from the IRS regarding a $24.98 error estopped them from assessing additional tax. The Fraziers did not provide substantiation for expenses including medical expenses, charitable contributions, employee business expenses, tax preparation fees, uniforms, or Schedule C expenses. The Tax Court found for the IRS, as
This document is a stipulation and order modifying a previous judgment in a divorce case between Gary W. XXXXXX and Barbara K. XXXXXX. It stipulates that (1) Barbara will receive $84,659 from Gary's 401(k) plan, ownership of their Florida condo, funds from rental and personal bank accounts, and levies against Gary's accounts; (2) these transfers settle all child and spousal support claims; (3) the 401(k) transfer is non-taxable; (4) Gary's additional child and spousal support obligations are deemed satisfied; and (5) enforcement actions against Gary will be terminated upon execution of this order.
This document summarizes Colorado statutes regarding the dissolution of marriage and parental responsibilities. It focuses on section 14-10-114, which establishes guidelines for determining temporary maintenance (alimony) during divorce proceedings. There is a rebuttable presumption that the higher earning spouse will pay the lower earning spouse a specific amount of temporary maintenance based on a formula, for combined annual incomes up to $75,000. For incomes over $75,000, the court has discretion to determine temporary maintenance amounts based on factors like financial need and future earning potential. The temporary maintenance guidelines do not determine permanent maintenance orders.
This document summarizes a Tax Court case regarding a petitioner seeking relief from joint tax liability. The petitioner and intervenor filed a joint tax return for 2004 that omitted certain income items, resulting in tax deficiencies. While the petitioner was aware of the omitted items, she sought relief under Internal Revenue Code sections 6015(b), (c), and (f). The court denied relief under subsections (b) and (c) due to petitioner's knowledge of the omitted items. The court also denied relief under subsection (f) because petitioner's knowledge of the omitted items weighed heavily against relief, and she failed to establish that she did not benefit from the omitted income or would suffer economic hardship from paying the tax liability.
Request for Entry of Default Judgment in favor for Angela KaaihueAngela Kaaihue
This document is a request for entry of default from Angela Sue Kaaihue and Yong Nam Fryer, who are pro se defendants and counter-claim plaintiffs, against Newtown Estates Community Association. It includes affidavits from Kaaihue and Fryer stating that the association failed to respond to their counter-claim within the required time period. It requests a default judgment of $43,450,000 including principal of $40 million, interest, costs and attorney's fees. Exhibits of the filed counter-claim and proofs of service are attached in support of the request.
Newtown Loses By Default Judgment- NECA -vs- KaaihueAngela Kaaihue
Newtown Loses By Default Judgment- NECA -vs- Kaaihue, a five year litigation and court battle. When NECA board of directors, and community are jealous for driving right by a property that could have been purchased, but was inherited by Angela Kaaihue, who has turned the property she inherited into a Hawaiian Gold Mine.
Hawaii Appellant Court Supreme Court judge castegnetti, judge jeffrey crabtree, judge karen t. nakasone, judge katherine g. leonard, judge keith hiraoka, judge lisa m. ginoza, judge sonja mccullen, judge clyde j. wadsworth, judge karen holma, judge gary W.B. chang
King county-superior-court-order-on-rha-v-city-of-seattle-22421Roger Valdez
This order denies the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and grants the defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment. It finds that the three Seattle ordinances establishing defenses to eviction due to financial hardship during COVID-19 do not conflict with state law and are therefore not preempted. While the ordinance provision staying late fees is preempted, the rest can be harmonized with state eviction statutes as establishing substantive defenses rather than conflicting with the statutes' procedural framework. Controlling Washington precedent has established that the state eviction laws provide only procedures, not substantive rights, so local governments can permissibly provide additional defenses.
This document summarizes a Pennsylvania Superior Court case regarding whether statutory post-judgment interest applies to cash payments awarded as part of equitable distribution in a divorce proceeding. The court affirmed the lower court's ruling that statutory interest does not automatically apply in this situation. Equitable distribution awards property percentages and cash payments to achieve an equitable division of marital assets, but these awards are not formal judgments unless a court enters them as such. Since the lower court did not enter the husband's cash payment as a judgment in this case, statutory post-judgment interest was not automatically applicable under the relevant statutes.
Bp settlement final_order_and_judgment_on_economic_class_settlementMichael J. Evans
This order grants final approval of the Economic and Property Damages Settlement Agreement relating to the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. It confirms certification of the Economic Class for settlement purposes and confirms the appointments of class counsel, claims administrators, and trustees. The order finds that class notice was adequate, dismisses class members' related claims with prejudice, and retains jurisdiction to implement and enforce the settlement.
BIA Remands of Immigration Judge James Nugent from 01/01/2014 to 05/26/2016Bryan Johnson
EOIR FOIA ID # 2016-23184. Also, see acknowledgment letter at following link: http://www.slideshare.net/abogadobryan/eoir-acknowledgment-letter-for-201623284
BIA Remands of Immigration Judge Theresa Holmes-Simmons from 01/01/2014 to 05...Bryan Johnson
EOIR FOIA ID # 2016-23184. Also, see acknowledgment letter at following link: http://www.slideshare.net/abogadobryan/eoir-acknowledgment-letter-for-201623284
This document is a Supreme Court decision regarding a petition filed by Ramon Yap to annul COA decisions disallowing various allowances and reimbursements paid to him in his capacity as Vice-President of Manila Gas Corporation. The COA affirmed the disallowances on the basis that the payments did not satisfy the "public purpose requirement" for the use of government funds. The Court denied Yap's petition, ruling that COA has broad authority to examine expenditures and is not limited to the auditor's original findings. Additionally, payments to government employees and officials must be authorized by law and serve a valid public purpose beyond merely compensating the recipient.
A fictitious legal brief to remit the final judgment of bail forfeiture. Capt. Bryant issued a bond for the release of Rutger Batty who later failed to appear in court. Mr. Batty was in a Texas jail because of a prior illegal gun possession charge. Though Mr. Batty was not incarcerated in a North Carolina jail or a federal prison within the United States, Captain Bryant wants Weft and Wright, P.L.L.C. to try and get the forfeited bail money remitted.
This document summarizes a Tax Court case regarding Walter and Carol Selph's challenge to tax liabilities and penalties for tax years 1999, 2000, and 2001. The Tax Court found that the Selphs were entitled to challenge their underlying tax liabilities for those years. Additionally, the court found that the Selphs were liable for failure-to-pay penalties for 1999 but not 2000 and 2001 due to Mrs. Selph's health issues those years which constituted reasonable cause for failure to timely file.
This document summarizes a Tax Court case regarding Walter and Carol Selph's challenge to tax liabilities and penalties for tax years 1999, 2000, and 2001. The Tax Court found that the Selphs were entitled to challenge their underlying tax liabilities for those years. Additionally, the court found that the Selphs were liable for failure-to-pay penalties for 1999 but not 2000 and 2001 due to Mrs. Selph's health issues those years which constituted reasonable cause for failure to timely file.
A PowerPoint overview of New York No-Fault Law, including the background of the law and regulation, an explanation of the scope of coverage, exclusions and benefits, and exploration of several issues, including notice and claims handling.
This case involves whether taxpayers can offset realized long-term capital gains with negative taxable income before applying long-term capital loss carryovers. The Tax Court held that the taxpayers could not do this and must apply the capital loss carryover first based on the statutory language governing capital losses. The taxpayers had a $23,000 net long-term capital loss in 2002 that was carried over to 2003 and 2004. The Court determined the capital loss carryover to 2004 was $5,807, resulting in a $698 tax deficiency for 2004.
This document summarizes a judgment from the High Court of Fiji regarding an application for review of tax assessments made against SRP (Hong Kong) Limited. The court ruled that the tax authority could not introduce a new section of the tax law, Section 11(j), as grounds to assess the applicant, as the original assessments specified different sections. The court found that allowing the new section would be prejudicial to the applicant since their arguments had been based on the original sections cited.
This document provides a summary of a judgment from the Tax Court of Fiji regarding an application for review of tax assessments made against SRP (Hong Kong) Limited and related companies. The court considered whether proceeds received from assigning management rights were taxable. Key points include:
1) The court referred to the history of the Patel family business and companies in Fiji and New Zealand, and a 1999 management agreement giving a New Zealand partnership control over business operations.
2) The court determined it would not allow the tax authority to rely on a new section of the tax code, as the assessments were made on different grounds.
3) The court had to consider whether the proceeds were taxable as income or a
This document summarizes a Tax Court case regarding the IRS's rejection of a taxpayer's proposed installment agreement to pay back taxes. The taxpayer owed taxes from 2002-2005 and proposed paying $200 per month. The IRS settlement officer determined the taxpayer could pay $819 per month based on her income and expenses. The settlement officer requested additional financial information from the taxpayer but ultimately closed the case without receiving all the information. The Tax Court had to determine if rejecting the proposed installment agreement was an abuse of discretion by the IRS.
This document is a memorandum opinion from the United States Tax Court regarding respondent's motion for summary judgment in a case involving petitioner Stuart J. Hoffenberg. The memorandum discusses the background of assessments made against petitioner for unpaid income taxes for 2000 and 2001. It also analyzes whether respondent may proceed with a levy to collect the unpaid taxes. The tax court concludes that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that respondent is entitled to judgment as a matter of law allowing the levy to proceed.
This document summarizes a Tax Court case regarding whether the court has jurisdiction to redetermine penalties assessed under Section 6707A of the Internal Revenue Code. The Tax Court ruled that it does not have jurisdiction over Section 6707A penalties in a deficiency proceeding. Section 6707A penalties are assessed for failing to disclose involvement in certain tax avoidance transactions known as reportable transactions.
This document summarizes a Tax Court case regarding a deficiency determination by the IRS for Patricia and Jerry Frazier's 2002 tax return. The Tax Court had to decide: (1) whether the Fraziers were entitled to itemized deductions in excess of $41,213 claimed on Schedule A; (2) whether deductions claimed on Schedule C for Jerry Frazier's lawn business were allowed; and (3) whether a notice from the IRS regarding a $24.98 error estopped them from assessing additional tax. The Fraziers did not provide substantiation for expenses including medical expenses, charitable contributions, employee business expenses, tax preparation fees, uniforms, or Schedule C expenses. The Tax Court found for the IRS, as
This document is a stipulation and order modifying a previous judgment in a divorce case between Gary W. XXXXXX and Barbara K. XXXXXX. It stipulates that (1) Barbara will receive $84,659 from Gary's 401(k) plan, ownership of their Florida condo, funds from rental and personal bank accounts, and levies against Gary's accounts; (2) these transfers settle all child and spousal support claims; (3) the 401(k) transfer is non-taxable; (4) Gary's additional child and spousal support obligations are deemed satisfied; and (5) enforcement actions against Gary will be terminated upon execution of this order.
This document summarizes Colorado statutes regarding the dissolution of marriage and parental responsibilities. It focuses on section 14-10-114, which establishes guidelines for determining temporary maintenance (alimony) during divorce proceedings. There is a rebuttable presumption that the higher earning spouse will pay the lower earning spouse a specific amount of temporary maintenance based on a formula, for combined annual incomes up to $75,000. For incomes over $75,000, the court has discretion to determine temporary maintenance amounts based on factors like financial need and future earning potential. The temporary maintenance guidelines do not determine permanent maintenance orders.
This document summarizes a Tax Court case regarding a petitioner seeking relief from joint tax liability. The petitioner and intervenor filed a joint tax return for 2004 that omitted certain income items, resulting in tax deficiencies. While the petitioner was aware of the omitted items, she sought relief under Internal Revenue Code sections 6015(b), (c), and (f). The court denied relief under subsections (b) and (c) due to petitioner's knowledge of the omitted items. The court also denied relief under subsection (f) because petitioner's knowledge of the omitted items weighed heavily against relief, and she failed to establish that she did not benefit from the omitted income or would suffer economic hardship from paying the tax liability.
Request for Entry of Default Judgment in favor for Angela KaaihueAngela Kaaihue
This document is a request for entry of default from Angela Sue Kaaihue and Yong Nam Fryer, who are pro se defendants and counter-claim plaintiffs, against Newtown Estates Community Association. It includes affidavits from Kaaihue and Fryer stating that the association failed to respond to their counter-claim within the required time period. It requests a default judgment of $43,450,000 including principal of $40 million, interest, costs and attorney's fees. Exhibits of the filed counter-claim and proofs of service are attached in support of the request.
Newtown Loses By Default Judgment- NECA -vs- KaaihueAngela Kaaihue
Newtown Loses By Default Judgment- NECA -vs- Kaaihue, a five year litigation and court battle. When NECA board of directors, and community are jealous for driving right by a property that could have been purchased, but was inherited by Angela Kaaihue, who has turned the property she inherited into a Hawaiian Gold Mine.
Hawaii Appellant Court Supreme Court judge castegnetti, judge jeffrey crabtree, judge karen t. nakasone, judge katherine g. leonard, judge keith hiraoka, judge lisa m. ginoza, judge sonja mccullen, judge clyde j. wadsworth, judge karen holma, judge gary W.B. chang
King county-superior-court-order-on-rha-v-city-of-seattle-22421Roger Valdez
This order denies the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and grants the defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment. It finds that the three Seattle ordinances establishing defenses to eviction due to financial hardship during COVID-19 do not conflict with state law and are therefore not preempted. While the ordinance provision staying late fees is preempted, the rest can be harmonized with state eviction statutes as establishing substantive defenses rather than conflicting with the statutes' procedural framework. Controlling Washington precedent has established that the state eviction laws provide only procedures, not substantive rights, so local governments can permissibly provide additional defenses.
This document summarizes a Pennsylvania Superior Court case regarding whether statutory post-judgment interest applies to cash payments awarded as part of equitable distribution in a divorce proceeding. The court affirmed the lower court's ruling that statutory interest does not automatically apply in this situation. Equitable distribution awards property percentages and cash payments to achieve an equitable division of marital assets, but these awards are not formal judgments unless a court enters them as such. Since the lower court did not enter the husband's cash payment as a judgment in this case, statutory post-judgment interest was not automatically applicable under the relevant statutes.
Bp settlement final_order_and_judgment_on_economic_class_settlementMichael J. Evans
This order grants final approval of the Economic and Property Damages Settlement Agreement relating to the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. It confirms certification of the Economic Class for settlement purposes and confirms the appointments of class counsel, claims administrators, and trustees. The order finds that class notice was adequate, dismisses class members' related claims with prejudice, and retains jurisdiction to implement and enforce the settlement.
BIA Remands of Immigration Judge James Nugent from 01/01/2014 to 05/26/2016Bryan Johnson
EOIR FOIA ID # 2016-23184. Also, see acknowledgment letter at following link: http://www.slideshare.net/abogadobryan/eoir-acknowledgment-letter-for-201623284
BIA Remands of Immigration Judge Theresa Holmes-Simmons from 01/01/2014 to 05...Bryan Johnson
EOIR FOIA ID # 2016-23184. Also, see acknowledgment letter at following link: http://www.slideshare.net/abogadobryan/eoir-acknowledgment-letter-for-201623284
This document is a Supreme Court decision regarding a petition filed by Ramon Yap to annul COA decisions disallowing various allowances and reimbursements paid to him in his capacity as Vice-President of Manila Gas Corporation. The COA affirmed the disallowances on the basis that the payments did not satisfy the "public purpose requirement" for the use of government funds. The Court denied Yap's petition, ruling that COA has broad authority to examine expenditures and is not limited to the auditor's original findings. Additionally, payments to government employees and officials must be authorized by law and serve a valid public purpose beyond merely compensating the recipient.
A fictitious legal brief to remit the final judgment of bail forfeiture. Capt. Bryant issued a bond for the release of Rutger Batty who later failed to appear in court. Mr. Batty was in a Texas jail because of a prior illegal gun possession charge. Though Mr. Batty was not incarcerated in a North Carolina jail or a federal prison within the United States, Captain Bryant wants Weft and Wright, P.L.L.C. to try and get the forfeited bail money remitted.
This document summarizes a Tax Court case regarding Walter and Carol Selph's challenge to tax liabilities and penalties for tax years 1999, 2000, and 2001. The Tax Court found that the Selphs were entitled to challenge their underlying tax liabilities for those years. Additionally, the court found that the Selphs were liable for failure-to-pay penalties for 1999 but not 2000 and 2001 due to Mrs. Selph's health issues those years which constituted reasonable cause for failure to timely file.
This document summarizes a Tax Court case regarding Walter and Carol Selph's challenge to tax liabilities and penalties for tax years 1999, 2000, and 2001. The Tax Court found that the Selphs were entitled to challenge their underlying tax liabilities for those years. Additionally, the court found that the Selphs were liable for failure-to-pay penalties for 1999 but not 2000 and 2001 due to Mrs. Selph's health issues those years which constituted reasonable cause for failure to timely file.
A PowerPoint overview of New York No-Fault Law, including the background of the law and regulation, an explanation of the scope of coverage, exclusions and benefits, and exploration of several issues, including notice and claims handling.
This case involves whether taxpayers can offset realized long-term capital gains with negative taxable income before applying long-term capital loss carryovers. The Tax Court held that the taxpayers could not do this and must apply the capital loss carryover first based on the statutory language governing capital losses. The taxpayers had a $23,000 net long-term capital loss in 2002 that was carried over to 2003 and 2004. The Court determined the capital loss carryover to 2004 was $5,807, resulting in a $698 tax deficiency for 2004.
This document summarizes a judgment from the High Court of Fiji regarding an application for review of tax assessments made against SRP (Hong Kong) Limited. The court ruled that the tax authority could not introduce a new section of the tax law, Section 11(j), as grounds to assess the applicant, as the original assessments specified different sections. The court found that allowing the new section would be prejudicial to the applicant since their arguments had been based on the original sections cited.
This document provides a summary of a judgment from the Tax Court of Fiji regarding an application for review of tax assessments made against SRP (Hong Kong) Limited and related companies. The court considered whether proceeds received from assigning management rights were taxable. Key points include:
1) The court referred to the history of the Patel family business and companies in Fiji and New Zealand, and a 1999 management agreement giving a New Zealand partnership control over business operations.
2) The court determined it would not allow the tax authority to rely on a new section of the tax code, as the assessments were made on different grounds.
3) The court had to consider whether the proceeds were taxable as income or a
1) The document provides summaries of three tax law cases - Weeks v Federal Commissioner of Taxation, Sanctuary Lakes Pty Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation, and Walker v Federal Commissioner of Taxation.
2) In Weeks v Federal Commissioner of Taxation, the court found that an employee's redundancy payment did not qualify as a tax-free genuine redundancy payment under tax law.
3) In Sanctuary Lakes Pty Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation, the court dismissed the taxpayer's appeal regarding deductions claimed and penalties imposed, finding the penalties were correctly imposed for failing to take reasonable care.
4) The document provides recommendations and analysis of the legal issues and sections breached in the
This document is an arbitration decision from the Illinois Workers' Compensation Commission regarding a case between an employee, Petitioner, and her employer, Respondent HEI Hospitality/Marriott International Inc. The Petitioner, a 56-year-old housekeeper, injured her right knee at work on August 16, 2018 while stripping a bed. She underwent treatment including surgery and was found to have a permanent partial disability. The Arbitrator awarded the Petitioner medical benefits, temporary total disability benefits, and permanent partial disability benefits of 40% loss of use of the person as a whole.
The document discusses amendments made to the Building and Construction Industry Payments Act (BCIPA) in Queensland that came into effect in December 2014. Key points:
- The amendments introduced a distinction between standard payment claims (under $750k) and complex claims (over $750k) with different timeframes and processes.
- Timeframes for responding to claims and for adjudicators to make decisions were extended, especially for complex claims. This makes the overall dispute resolution process longer.
- For complex claims, respondents can now provide any reasons for withholding payment in their adjudication response, even if not previously stated.
- The number of adjudicator-related changes including fees, grading of
The Court of Tax Appeals ruled on the petition of Philex Mining Corporation seeking a refund of P14 million in excess input taxes for the fourth quarter of 2008. The Court reduced the amount of the claim to P2.5 million based on an independent audit. To receive a refund, the law requires taxpayers to prove zero-rated export sales, that input taxes were attributable to exports and not used for other tax liabilities, and the claim was filed within two years. The Court found Philex proved its copper concentrate exports to Japan were zero-rated under law.
The document discusses contractors' claims for loss and expense in building contracts. It addresses three key points:
1) A contractor is not automatically entitled to recovery of loss and expense just because an extension of time was granted. The entitlements to extensions of time and loss/expense are separate.
2) For a contractor to claim loss and expense, the grounds must be one of the specific causes listed in the contract that materially affected regular work progress. Claims must follow the procedures in the contract by providing written notices and applications with evidence.
3) There are three main types of claims: contractual, extra-contractual, and exgratia. Six common reasons for claims include issues like late instructions, variations
The document provides an overview of security of payment claims under the NSW Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999. It outlines the key steps if a party is served with a security of payment claim, including serving a payment schedule within 10 days and potential adjudication of the claim if payment is withheld. The summary also details what should be included in payment claims, payment schedules, adjudication applications and responses to adhere to the strict time limits under the Act.
Framework for Hispanic or Female Farmers' Claims ProcessRAFI-USA
Published 13 January, 2012.
DEADLINE EXTENDED: Claims must be submitted by May 1, 2013.
MORE INFORMATION: http://rafiusa.org/deadline-march-25th-usda-claims/
The United States Government has established a claims process to make available $1.33 billion or more to farmers or ranchers who allege discrimination by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) in the denial of farm loan benefits based on being female or Hispanic. The exact time period covered by this claims process are as follows: Hispanic Farmers & Ranchers: Jan. 1, 1981 to Dec. 31, 1996 -or- Oct. 13, 1998 to Oct. 13, 2000. Female Farmers & Ranchers: Jan.1, 1981 to Dec. 31, 1996 -or- Oct. 19, 1998 to Oct. 19, 2000.
The debtor, Cordillera Golf Club, LLC, filed a motion seeking approval of procedures for interim compensation and reimbursement of expenses for professionals retained in the chapter 11 case. The motion requests that professionals be allowed to submit monthly fee applications for payment of 80% of fees and 100% of expenses, with interim fee applications submitted every three months. The procedures are consistent with those approved in other large chapter 11 cases and will help streamline the professional compensation process.
The debtor, Cordillera Golf Club, LLC, filed a motion seeking approval of procedures for interim compensation and reimbursement of expenses for professionals retained in the chapter 11 case. The motion requests that professionals be allowed to submit monthly fee applications for payment of 80% of fees and 100% of expenses, with interim fee applications submitted every three months. The procedures are intended to streamline the payment process in this large chapter 11 case.
The new no-fault regulations in New York that take effect on April 1st aim to:
1) Prevent insurers from having to pay for medical services that were not actually provided or pay more than the established fee schedule.
2) Require healthcare providers to respond to insurers' requests for medical necessity verification within 120 days or provide justification for not doing so, to speed up the claims process.
3) Specify that technical defects in insurers' denial of claims or verification requests will not invalidate them, to reduce unnecessary litigation.
New no fault regulations to take effect april 1Rene Garcia
The new no-fault regulations in New York that take effect on April 1st aim to:
1) Prevent insurers from having to pay for medical services that were not actually provided or that exceed the fee schedule.
2) Require healthcare providers to respond to insurers' verification requests within 120 days or risk having the claim denied.
3) Specify that technical defects in insurers' documents like denials or verification requests will not invalidate them.
QUESTIONSALC fraud1. Describe in simple language and in detail.docxmakdul
QUESTIONS
ALC fraud
1. Describe in simple language and in detail, the purpose of the fraud. (e.g. why did they do it?)
2. What is the auditor’s responsibility with respect to debt covenants when opining on financial statements? What are the financial covenants with Ventas as you understand them from the case? What is the purpose of financial covenants from a lessor’s perspective?
3. What was the impact on the financial statements from the fraud? i.e. what would the statements have looked like if management did not commit fraud and reported truthfully? What would have been the implications to ALC?
4. What evidence was provided to GT from ALC management to support their practice for the 2009 audit? Was this sufficient? – “No”. What evidence was included in the GT workpapers? What evidence could have been sufficient for the auditor’s to conclude that management’s practice was acceptable and authorized by Ventas?
5. From your reading of the SEC documents, please provide examples of failures on the part of the lead engagement partner with respect to his/her audit of ALC? One way to approach this question is to provide a comparison of what she did do, vs. what she should have done. Be as specific as possible.
6. In the not-too-distant future, you will be “junior auditors” as identified in this case study. What could/should the junior auditors have done differently in the 2009 and 2010 audits performed by GT?
7. Using examples from this case, why is it important for an auditor to understand a client’s business operations? Were other signs of fraud present?
8. What did this fraud cost ALC and GT? Think big picture in this response.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Before the
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
Release No. 76537 / December 2, 2015
ACCOUNTING AND AUDITING ENFORCEMENT
Release No. 3719 / December 2, 2015
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING
File No. 3-16977
In the Matter of
Melissa K. Koeppel, CPA, and
Jeffrey J. Robinson, CPA,
Respondents.
ORDER INSTITUTING PUBLIC
ADMINISTRATIVE AND CEASE-AND-
DESIST PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO
SECTIONS 4C AND 21C OF THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934,
AND RULE 102(e) OF THE
COMMISSION’S RULES OF PRACTICE,
MAKING FINDINGS, AND IMPOSING
REMEDIAL SANCTIONS AND A CEASE-
AND-DESIST ORDER
I.
The Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) deems it appropriate that public
administrative and cease-and-desist proceedings be, and hereby are, instituted pursuant to
Sections 4C
1
and 21C of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) and Rule
102(e)(1)(ii) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice
2
against Melissa K. Koeppel, CPA
(“Koeppel”) and Jeffrey J. Robinson, CPA (“Robinson”) (collectively, “Respondents”).
1
Section 4C provides, in relevant part, that:
The Commission may censure any person, or deny, temporarily or permanently,
to any person the pr ...
Here is Gabe Whitley's response to my defamation lawsuit for him calling me a rapist and perjurer in court documents.
You have to read it to believe it, but after you read it, you won't believe it. And I included eight examples of defamatory statements/
El Puerto de Algeciras continúa un año más como el más eficiente del continente europeo y vuelve a situarse en el “top ten” mundial, según el informe The Container Port Performance Index 2023 (CPPI), elaborado por el Banco Mundial y la consultora S&P Global.
El informe CPPI utiliza dos enfoques metodológicos diferentes para calcular la clasificación del índice: uno administrativo o técnico y otro estadístico, basado en análisis factorial (FA). Según los autores, esta dualidad pretende asegurar una clasificación que refleje con precisión el rendimiento real del puerto, a la vez que sea estadísticamente sólida. En esta edición del informe CPPI 2023, se han empleado los mismos enfoques metodológicos y se ha aplicado un método de agregación de clasificaciones para combinar los resultados de ambos enfoques y obtener una clasificación agregada.
An astonishing, first-of-its-kind, report by the NYT assessing damage in Ukraine. Even if the war ends tomorrow, in many places there will be nothing to go back to.
Acolyte Episodes review (TV series) The Acolyte. Learn about the influence of the program on the Star Wars world, as well as new characters and story twists.
Essential Tools for Modern PR Business .pptxPragencyuk
Discover the essential tools and strategies for modern PR business success. Learn how to craft compelling news releases, leverage press release sites and news wires, stay updated with PR news, and integrate effective PR practices to enhance your brand's visibility and credibility. Elevate your PR efforts with our comprehensive guide.
1. T.C. Summary Opinion 2010-1
UNITED STATES TAX COURT
HOWARD AND ANNE SLATER, Petitioners v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Docket No. 15852-07S. Filed January 11, 2010.
Howard and Anne Slater, pro sese.
John R. Bampfield and William W. Kiessling, for respondent.
GOEKE, Judge: This case was heard pursuant to the
provisions of section 7463 of the Internal Revenue Code in effect
when the petition was filed.1 Pursuant to section 7463(b), the
decision to be entered is not reviewable by any other court, and
1
Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to
the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the year in issue.
2. - 2 -
this opinion shall not be treated as precedent for any other
case.
Respondent determined a $32,834 deficiency in petitioners’
Federal income tax and a $6,567 section 6662(a) penalty for the
year 2005. The issues for decision are:
(1) Whether an Internal Revenue Service (IRS) closing
notice issued 1 month after the issuance of a notice of
deficiency closed petitioners’ tax year. We hold it did not;
(2) whether Howard Slater (petitioner) participated in a
nonqualified deferred compensation plan under section 409A. We
hold he did not; and
(3) whether petitioners are liable for an accuracy-related
penalty under section 6662. We hold they are not.
Background
Petitioners resided in Florida at the time the petition was
filed. Petitioner received a master’s degree in taxation and was
the sole owner and representative of Slater Financial Corp.
(Slater Financial), registered as a broker-dealer with the
Securities and Exchange Commission under section 15 of the
Securities Act of 1934, ch. 404, 48 Stat. 881 (current version at
15 U.S.C. secs. 78a-78oo (2006 & Supp. 2008)).
Petitioner held four annuity accounts with Jackson National
Life Insurance Co. During late April and early May of 2005 Tim
Gillis (Mr. Gillis) of GE Life & Annuity Assurance Co. (Genworth)
3. - 3 -
approached Slater Financial to solicit new business. Petitioner
had no business to transfer to Genworth other than his personal
annuity accounts. Petitioner’s agreement to Genworth’s proposal
to transfer the annuity accounts entitled him to a commission
equal to a percentage of the value of the accounts. Instead,
petitioner asked Mr. Gillis to promise that he could receive his
broker-dealer commission as interest prepaid into his annuity
accounts, thus allowing petitioner to defer paying tax on the
amount at issue. Mr. Gillis agreed, and the parties signed
contracts outlining the details of their agreements. Among the
terms addressed in these agreements is a schedule of surrender
charges to which petitioner would be subject if he withdrew
amounts from any of his Genworth accounts. Petitioner executed
the transfers, and an amount equal to petitioner’s annuity
contracts plus commissions was paid into petitioner’s annuity
accounts at Genworth. Following these transactions, Genworth
issued petitioner a Form 1099-MISC, Miscellaneous Income,
reporting $86,868 in nonemployee compensation. Petitioner did
not receive the Form 1099-MISC because it was mailed to his prior
address. On July 2, 2007, respondent mailed a notice of
deficiency to petitioners for 2005 in which respondent denied
petitioner nonqualified deferred compensation treatment. On July
30, 2007, respondent’s automated underreporter (AUR) division in
Philadelphia issued a closing notice for petitioners’ case.
4. - 4 -
On December 4, 2007, petitioners filed a motion for entry of
decision. The motion was denied by order dated January 2, 2008.
On January 14, 2008, petitioners filed a motion for
reconsideration of the order dated January 2, 2008. This motion
was denied on January 18, 2008. Petitioners filed a second
motion for entry of decision on November 17, 2008, and an amended
motion for entry of decision on February 17, 2009. The amended
motion for entry of decision was denied by order on February 23,
2009, following a hearing. A trial was held February 23, 2009,
in Tampa, Florida.
Following the trial petitioners again filed a motion for
entry of decision on March 31, 2009. For the reasons stated
herein, this motion will be denied.
Discussion
I. Closing Notice
Petitioners believe the closing notice respondent issued
after the issuance of the notice of deficiency closes their tax
year and precludes any further action. They cite no authority
for this proposition. Section 7121 provides the exclusive means
by which the Secretary may enter into a closing agreement as to a
determination of the taxpayer’s final tax liability. Closing
agreements are final and, following the Secretary’s approval, bar
reopening of the case. Sec. 7121(b). A closing notice is to be
distinguished from a closing agreement under section 7121.
5. - 5 -
Whereas closing agreements are final, conclusive, and binding on
the parties and generally may not be disregarded, closing notices
do not have the same force and effect. Urbano v. Commissioner,
122 T.C. 384, 393-394 (2004). Nor did the closing notice operate
to rescind the notice of deficiency under section 6212(d). See
Wong v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-88, affd. 13 Fed. Appx. 638
(9th Cir. 2001); Rev. Proc. 98-54, 1998-2 C.B. 529.
Petitioners do not by name raise a defense of estoppel.
Nevertheless, considering the nature of their claim, we think
they raise that defense. One of the elements of equitable
estoppel is reliance on the action of the Internal Revenue
Service (IRS) to the taxpayer’s detriment. Because the Notice
CP-2005 was mailed to petitioners on July 30, 2007, after
petitioners had already filed their petition on July 13, 2007,
there was no detrimental reliance. Petitioners’ reliance on the
closing notice to preclude any further collection action fails as
an estoppel defense. See McCoy v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2008-
91. Accordingly, respondent’s inquiry into the 2005 tax year is
not closed.
II. Nonqualified Deferred Compensation Treatment
Section 61(a) provides that gross income includes “all
income from whatever source derived”. Section 61(a) broadly
applies to any accession to wealth, and statutory exclusions from
income are narrowly construed. See Commissioner v. Glenshaw
6. - 6 -
Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426, 431 (1955). Section 61(a)(1) lists
“Compensation for services, including fees, commissions” as items
includable in gross income. Section 451(a) provides that any
item of income shall be included in gross income in the year
received.
Taxpayers may elect to defer recognition of certain items of
income pursuant to nonqualified deferred compensation plans. See
sec. 409A. In order for compensation to be deferred under
section 409A, a nonqualified deferred compensation plan must meet
the requirements of section 409A(a)(2), (3), and (4) concerning
distributions, acceleration of benefits, and elections.
An independent contractor may elect to defer commission
compensation for services provided only if the contractor is
unrelated to the recipient of the services. An independent
contractor may not defer commission compensation under section
409A if the recipient of the services is a related party. See
Notice 2005-1, 2005-1 C.B. 274. There is an exception to this
rule if the contractor provides the service from which the
commission arises to both related and unrelated parties and the
same service is performed in the contractor’s ordinary course of
business. See Notice 2005-1, 2005-1 C.B. 274.
If the plan fails to meet the requirements of section
409A(a)(2), (3), and (4), all compensation deferred under the
plan shall be includable in gross income to the extent not
7. - 7 -
subject to a substantial risk of forfeiture. Sec. 409A(a)(1)(A).
Notice 2005-1, 2005-1 C.B. 274, provides that compensation is
subject to substantial risk of forfeiture when “entitlement to
the amount is conditioned on the performance of substantial
future services by any person or the occurrence of a condition
related to a purpose of the compensation, and the possibility of
forfeiture is substantial.”
Petitioner argues that he meets the requirements for
exclusion under section 409A. Respondent contends that the
commissions petitioner received from Genworth are not conditioned
upon the performance of any future service and thus not subject
to a substantial risk of forfeiture under section 409A.
Petitioner fails the election requirements of section
409A(a)(4)(B). Petitioner’s commission arose from services he
performed as an independent contractor for the benefit of related
parties: him and his wife. Petitioner does not satisfy the
exception in Notice 2005-1, 2005-1 C.B. 274, because he has not
provided the same service for unrelated parties in his ordinary
course of business.
Petitioner has failed to establish that his compensation is
substantially at risk. Petitioner relies on the surrender
charge, which is unrelated to the commission itself and is
instead related to the nature of petitioner’s annuity.
8. - 8 -
We do not find that the surrender charge is within the
statutory meaning of substantial risk of forfeiture. In
addition, the record does not establish that petitioner’s
commission was conditioned upon some future performance or
occurrence. Petitioner’s self-directed decision to put the
commission into an annuity subject to a surrender charge is
incompatible with the risk required under section
409A(a)(1)(A)(i). Petitioner has failed to produce evidence of a
substantial risk of forfeiture and thus cannot defer the
commission income under section 409A.
Because petitioner has failed to meet the requirements of
section 409A(a)(4) and because the commission is not subject to a
substantial risk of forfeiture, petitioner’s commissions shall be
included in petitioners’ gross income under sections 61(a) and
409A(a)(1)(A).
III. Accuracy-Related Penalty
Respondent determined that petitioners are liable for the
accuracy-related penalty under section 6662. Section 6662
imposes an accuracy-related penalty equal to 20 percent of any
portion of an underpayment of tax which is attributable to, among
other things, a substantial understatement of income tax. See
sec. 6662(b)(2). Section 6662(d)(1)(A) provides that a
substantial understatement of income tax exists if the
9. - 9 -
understatement exceeds the greater of (1) 10 percent of the tax
required to be shown on the return; or (2) $5,000.
Section 6664(c)(1) provides that the accuracy-related
penalty shall not be imposed if it is shown that the taxpayer’s
underpayment was attributable to reasonable cause and that his
action was in good faith. The determination of whether a
taxpayer acted with reasonable cause and in good faith is made on
a case-by-case basis, taking into account all pertinent facts and
circumstances. Sec. 1.6664-4(b)(1), Income Tax Regs.
Petitioner underreported his tax liability by $32,834, an
understatement that exceeds the amount provided under section
6662(d)(1)(A). Petitioner, however, had reasonable cause for
taking the position with respect to the commission compensation,
despite our finding that he was ultimately liable for this
amount. Petitioner reasonably relied on a Genworth
representative who negotiated the payment of his commission
compensation and authorized the transactions so they were paid
into his annuity accounts and provide him with the deferred
treatment he sought. Genworth ultimately issued petitioner a
Form 1099-MISC, but the Form 1099-MISC was erroneously mailed to
his old address. Petitioner could have reasonably believed that
the forms he exchanged with Genworth documenting his election for
deferred treatment guaranteed such treatment by the IRS. After
considering petitioner’s knowledge of the facts and understanding
10. - 10 -
of the law, we find petitioner’s error was made with reasonable
cause and in good faith. Accordingly, we hold that petitioners
are not liable for the penalty pursuant to section 6662.
Conclusion
For the reasons stated herein, we find respondent properly
issued a notice of deficiency and that petitioners’ case was not
closed upon respondent’s issuance of a closing notice. In
addition, we shall sustain respondent’s deficiency determination
and find that petitioners are not liable for a section 6662
accuracy-related penalty.
Decision will be entered
for respondent as to the
deficiency and for petitioners
as to the section 6662
accuracy-related penalty.