Maxims, axioms & idioms · a browsable collection

[Cite as Carnes v. Ohio Dept. of Taxation, 2016-Ohio-3428.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT Jeffrey Carnes, : Appellant-Appellee, : No. 15AP-971 (C.P.C. No. 15CV-4044) v. :

Justice Rehnquist delivered the opinion of the Court. Appellee Taxation With Representation of Washington (TWR) is a nonprofit corporation organized to promote what it conceives to be the “public interest” in the area of federal *542taxation. It proposes to advocate its point of view before Congress, the Executive Branch, and the Judiciary. This case be

OPINION KENNEDY, Judge. {1} In this consolidated appeal, we address whether the Tax Administration Act’s (Act) provisions protecting the privacy of citizens’ tax information, together with Rule 11-502 NMRA, which provides an evidentiary privilege for records and returns that are required by law to be made, applies to exclude gross receipts tax returns and other related docu

FIELD, Senior Circuit Judge: The appellant, Taxation With Representation, Inc., (TWR), filed this action for the refund of $378.29 paid with respect to the tax periods 1973-1975 under the Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA). The complaint alleged that TWR is an educational or charitable organization under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 19541

Rose, J. Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Mc-Donough, J.), entered January 25, 2012 in Albany County, which, among other things, partially granted petitioners’ application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to annul determinations of respondent Department of Taxation and Finance partially denying petitioner Kathleen M. Diina-Feldman’s Freedom of Information Law requests. In connection wit

OPINION Per Curiam: In this appeal, we consider two issues regarding a taxpayer’s request for a refund from the Nevada Department of Taxation. First, we consider whether the Nevada Tax Commission improperly substituted its own judgment for that of an administrative law judge in reversing the judge’s determination that the taxpayer was entitled to a refund. Second, we consider whether the statut

Rose, J. Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Mc-Donough, J.), entered January 25, 2012 in Albany County, which, among other things, partially granted petitioners’ application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to annul determinations of respondent Department of Taxation and Finance partially denying petitioner Kathleen M. Diina-Feldman’s Freedom of Information Law requests. In connection wit

HARRY T. EDWARDS, Circuit Judge: The issues raised by this appeal require this court’s consideration for the first time whether certain records of the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) may be withheld from public disclosure pursuant to Exemption 5 of the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(5). Exemption 5 of the FOIA protects “inter-agency or intra-agency memorandum

485 F.Supp. 263 (1980) TAXATION WITH REPRESENTATION FUND, Plaintiff, v. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, Defendant. Civ. A. No. 78-2304. United States District Court, District of Columbia. January 22, 1980. William A. Dobrovir, Washington, D.C., for plaintiff. John J. McCarthy, Donald J. Gavin, Michael J. Salem, Tax Division, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for

DeALMEIDA, P.J.T.C. This is the court’s opinion with respect to the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment. The central issue before the court is whether plaintiff, a wireless telecommunications provider, is entitled to a refund of approximately $32 million in sales tax it contends it erroneously collected from its customers on charges for Internet access services. The Director, Division of Taxation denied plaintiffs refu

104 P.3d 1104 (2004) 136 N.M. 713 2005-NMCA-009 Vivian CORDOVA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE of New Mexico, TAXATION AND REVENUE, PROPERTY TAX DIVISION, Bernalillo County Treasurer's Office, W & P Real Estate, Inc., Defendants-Appellees. No. 23,625. Court of Appeals of New Mexico. December 1, 2004.

RECKTENWALD, C.J., NAKAYAMA, McKENNA, POLLACK, AND WILSON, JJ. OPINION OF THE COURT BY POLLACK, J. *1157 This case is a consolidated appeal from twenty-nine General Excise Tax assessments levied by the Director of Taxation of the State of Hawai'i against five online

NARAYANAN, J.T.C. Plaintiff (“Labor Ready”) moves for summary judgment seeking declaratory relief from defendant’s notice that Labor Ready’s business activities would generally be subject to sales tax unless Labor Ready receives sales tax exemption certificates or the *610services were nontaxable or non-enumerated. Labor Ready claims it provides temporary labor servic

MENYUK, J.T.C. Plaintiffs Hainesport Township and Mount Laurel Township (collectively, the “Townships”) challenge orders of the Burlington County Board of Taxation (the “Board”) * directing the Townships to implement complete revaluations by September 30, 2009 to be effective for the 2010 tax year on the ground that the orders are invalid and void because the Board acted without a quorum. This issue originally came before th

KUSKIN, J.T.C. General Engines Company, Inc. has filed a motion seeking leave to appear as amicus curiae in this matter. For the reasons set forth below, I deny the motion but direct General Engines to file a summary judgment motion in accordance with the schedule for the filing of a summary judgment motion set forth in the Pretrial Order entered in this matter.1 The background t

30 A.3d 962 (2011) 422 Md. 544 Charles MUSKIN, Trustee Trusts Created Under the Last Will and Testament of Israel Braverman v. STATE DEPARTMENT OF ASSESSMENTS AND TAXATION. No. 140, September Term, 2010. Court of Appeals of Maryland. October 25, 2011. *964 Charles Muskin, Annapolis, MD, for Appellant.

DeALMEIDA, J.T.C. At issue is whether the Director, Division of Taxation, properly denied as untimely plaintiffs request for a refund of estate tax. For the reasons explained more fully below, the court concludes that plaintiff failed to present its refund request within the statutorily defined period for doing so. The Director’s final determination, therefore, must be upheld. I. Findinga of Fact

MENYUK, J.T.C. This matter comes before the court following the denial without prejudice of plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment. The motion sought to invalidate certain assessments of taxes for periods prior to June 1, 1998 on the ground that the assessments were made beyond the periods permitted by the relevant statutes of limitations for the assessment of tax deficiencies by the Division of Taxation (“Division”).

MENYUK, J.T.C. Plaintiff operates the website known as drugstore.com through which customers can purchase prescription drugs, over-the-coun*626ter medicines, and other items typically sold in a drugstore. The issue in this ease is whether defendant Director, Division of Taxation (“Director”) can require plaintiff, an entity that is admittedly physically present in New

KUSKIN, J.T.C. Plaintiff Chiron Corporation, a Delaware corporation with its corporate headquarters in California, has appealed assessments of corporation business tax (“CBT”) for tax years 1992, 1993, and 1994 imposed by the defendant Director of the New Jersey, Division of Taxation (“Director”) under the New Jersey Corporation Business Tax Act, N.J.S.A. 54:10A-1 to -41. Specifically, the appeal challenges the Direct