Raymond DeSABATO, Jr., and Robin DeSabato, Plaintiffs,v.UNITED STATES of America, Defendant.Civil Action No. 06–40151–FDS.March 6, 2008. Background: Taxpayers brought action against government for a refund of penalties and interest totaling $89,736 imposed for late filing and payment of taxes. Government moved for summary judgment. Holdings: The District Court, Saylor, J., held that: 1 taxpayers' reliance on disputed advice was unreasonable as to late filing of tax return; 2 reliance on disputed advice was unreasonable as to penalties imposed for failure to pay tax liability during period after extended deadline; but 3 fact issues existed as to whether taxpayers' delay prior to filing deadline was justified by reasonable cause. Motion granted
The issue in this case is that the petitioner is contesting if knew of the tax returns and if she was aware of what the husband was up to. She also wants to file for individual tax returns for the year 1987 and the year 1988. This
Moreover, Sue Johnson CPA, could be subject to penalties if in preparing a tax return with understatement of a tax liability, takes a frivolous position or one for which there is not realistic possibility of being sustained on its merits, the penalty is greater of $1000 or 50 percent of the income derived by the tax return preparer with respect to the return. Code Sec. 6694 (a).
Adrian is a salesperson who represents several wholesale companies. On January 2, 2008, she received by mail a commission check from Ace Distributors in the amount of $10,000 that was dated December 31, 2007. Adrian is concerned about the year in which the amount of $10,000 is taxable. Although the check is dated 2007, she contends that it would have been unreasonable for her to drive 100 miles (one way) to the Ace offices on the eve of a holiday to collect her check. Further, Adrian maintains that even if she had made the trip to collect the check, by the time she returned home, the bank would have closed and she could not have deposited the check until January.
Issues: Throughout the trail process on behalf of the court the inquiry for exceptions to the charge inaccuracy developed regarding instructions. The appellant was seeking a claim based of the defense of his
Procedural History: Appellants filed suit in U.S. District Court which ruled that the Appellants Constitutional rights were violated. Officials from both Burlington and Essex County Appealed
Dale Alleman v. Brett J. Kitson, 341 Fed. Appx. 234. Appellant creditors, a corporation and its owner petitioned than an order of the
To properly understand the events a chronological descripcion of the litigation is to be provided.
3) On what basis could County argue that it is conforming with the criterion at 1715(3)? On what basis could the state agency argue that County's application in nonconforming with the criterion? In your opinion, which side has the more persuasive argument? Why?
The petition alleges that the preventable death of the daughters of Ms. Gonzales and the damage they suffered violate her rights to life and to the safety of the person enshrined in Article I, her right to privacy and family life provided in article V, his right to protection of the family, provided in article VI, his right to protection of motherhood and childhood, in accordance with article VII and his right to the inviolability of the home, provided in article IX of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man (hereinafter, "the American Declaration"). The petitioners add that the fact that the United States did not investigate Ms. González's complaint or provide her with a remedy violates her right to justice, enshrined in Article XVIII, as well as her right to obtain a quick decision from the courts. authorities, provided for in Article XXIV. Finally, the petition maintains that the fact that the United States did not ensure the substantive rights provided for in the articles listed violates Ms. Gonzales' right to equality, as provided in Article II. In response to the petition, the State argues that the petitioners' complaints are inadmissible because the alleged victim did not exhaust domestic
Parties to the Case, Facts of the Case, and Business Reasons for the Dispute (30 points)
Procedural History: U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia granted judgment in favor of defendants. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed, holding that the respondents’ refusal to pay the
D.A case between a citizen from Maine and a citizen from Rhode Island, where the claim is more than $75,000.
United States v. Lopez was a landmark case, being the first United States Supreme Court case, since the New Deal, to set limits on Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause of the United State Constitution. United States v. Lopez dealt with a previous decision made by the Supreme Court called the “Gun-Free Schools Zone Act of 1990,” and whether this act was constitutional. In other words, is Congress given the power by the Constitution to regulate guns in schools under the Commerce Clause?
The first step under Trevino and Nelson is to gather the facts. In this case, the manager was not aware of or chose to ignore the facts surrounding the Italian tax system. The knowledge that the bank had with respect to the Italian tax system was therefore incomplete. The facts in this case included the mores surrounding the Italian system of tax collection and negotiation. The manager was informed that it would be advisable to declare a low amount of income and was subsequently informed of the need to hire a commercialista to handle the negotiations. The manager failed to heed this advice, in particular because he thought that these practices were unethical. The manager should have gathered the facts with respect to the mores and customs of the Italian tax collection system.
c) Tax Rate: Use of a tax rate derived from the summation of state and statutory taxes instead of the firm's marginal tax rate