Search the opinions of the US Supreme Court

Find lawyers in the LII Lawyer Directory

Did you mean income and tax or IRS?

Your query (income and tax) or irs returned 71 results.

	BOB JONES UNIV. V. UNITED STATES [Opinion]
	ALLEN V. WRIGHT [Opinion]
	BOB JONES UNIV. V. UNITED STATES [Dissent]
	ALLEN V. WRIGHT [Dissent]
	UNITED STATES V. FIOR D’ITALIA, INC. [Syllabus] In assessing a restaurant for Federal Insurance Contribution Act taxes based upon tips that its employees may have received but did not report, the Internal Revenue Service is authorized to use an aggregate estimate of all tips that the restaurant's customers paid its employees.
	BOB JONES UNIV. V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	ALLEN V. WRIGHT [Dissent]
	BOB JONES UNIV. V. UNITED STATES [Concurrence]
	YOUNG V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] The Bankruptcy Code's lookback period, which provides that a discharge does not extinguish certain tax liabilities for which a return was due within three years before the filing of the individual debtor's petition, 11 U. S. C. §507(a)(8)(A)(i), is tolled during the pendency of a prior bankruptcy petition.
	CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF CAL. V. UNITED STATES, 506 U.S. 9 (1992). [Syllabus]
	GRABLE & SONS METAL PRODUCTS, INC. V. DARUEENGINEERING & MFG. [Syllabus]
	DRYE V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] Whether the interest of an heir in an estate constitutes 'property ' or a 'right to property' to which the federal tax lien attaches under 26 U.S.C 6321 even though the heir thereafter purports retroactively to disclaim the interest under state law.
	UNITED STATES V. CLINTWOOD ELKHORN MINING CO. [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. GALLETTI [Syllabus] Whether, in order to enforce the derivative liability of partners for the tax debts of their partnership, the United States must make a separate assessment of the taxes owed by the partnership against each of the partners directly?
	EC TERM OF YEARS TRUST V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	EMPIRE HEALTHCHOICE ASSURANCE, INC. V. MCVEIGH [Syllabus]
	CLINTON V. CITY OF NEW YORK [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	CLINTON V. CITY OF NEW YORK [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	UNITED STATES V. BURKE, 504 U.S. 229 (1992). [Syllabus]
	NEWARK MORNING LEDGER V. UNITED STATES, 507 U.S. 546 (1993). [Syllabus]
	HINCK V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. CRAFT [Syllabus] Michigan law gives a tenant by the entirety individual rights in the estate sufficient to constitute "property" or "rights to property" to which a federal tax lien may attach under 26 U. S. C. §6321.
	KOONS BUICK PONTIAC GMC, INC. V. NIGH [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. NOLAND, 517 U.S. 535 (1996) [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. CARLTON, 512 U.S. 26 (1994). [Syllabus]
	UNITED DOMINION INDUSTRIES, INC. V.UNITED STATESSYLLABUS [Syllabus] The "product liability loss" (PLL) of an affiliated group of corporations electing to file a consolidated federal income tax return must be figured on a consolidated, single-entity basis, not by aggregating PLLs separately determined company by company.
	U.S. V. BROCKAMP, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF MCGILL, DECEASED, 519 U.S. 347 (1997) [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. BAJAKAJIAN [Dissent]
	ALLEN V. WRIGHT [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. FIOR D’ITALIA, INC. [Syllabus] In assessing a restaurant for Federal Insurance Contribution Act taxes based upon tips that its employees may have received but did not report, the Internal Revenue Service is authorized to use an aggregate estimate of all tips that the restaurant's customers paid its employees.
	YOUNG V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] The Bankruptcy Code's lookback period, which provides that a discharge does not extinguish certain tax liabilities for which a return was due within three years before the filing of the individual debtor's petition, 11 U. S. C. §507(a)(8)(A)(i), is tolled during the pendency of a prior bankruptcy petition.
	HINCK V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. CRAFT [Syllabus] Michigan law gives a tenant by the entirety individual rights in the estate sufficient to constitute "property" or "rights to property" to which a federal tax lien may attach under 26 U. S. C. §6321.
	NEWARK MORNING LEDGER V. UNITED STATES, 507 U.S. 546 (1993). [Syllabus]
	UNITED DOMINION INDUSTRIES, INC. V.UNITED STATESSYLLABUS [Syllabus] The "product liability loss" (PLL) of an affiliated group of corporations electing to file a consolidated federal income tax return must be figured on a consolidated, single-entity basis, not by aggregating PLLs separately determined company by company.
	LUNDING V. NEW YORK TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL, 522 U.S. 287 (1998) [Syllabus]
	HUNT-WESSON, INC. V. FRANCHISE TAX BD. OF CAL. [Syllabus] 1. Whether a State may tax constitutionally exempt income under the guise of denying a deduction for expenses in an amount equal to such income when there is no evidence that the expenses relate to the production of the exempt income? 2. Whether a state tax discriminates against interstate commerce in violation of the Commerce Clause by disallowing an otherwise deductible expense, thereby increasing California taxable income, solely because the corporation is not domiciled in the State or does not have subsidiaries that engage in taxable in-state activity?
	C.I.R. V. ESTATE OF HUBERT, 520 U.S. 93 (1997) [Syllabus]
	JEFFERSON COUNTY V. ACKER [Syllabus]
	OKLAHOMA TAX COMM'N V. CHICKASAW NATION, 515 U.S. 450 (1995). [Syllabus]
	BARAL V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] Whether a remittance of estimated taxes or of taxes withheld from wages is a payment of tax that is subject to the limitation on tax refunds set forth in Section 6511(b) of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. 6511(b).
	FULTON CORP. V. FAULKNER, SECRETARY OF REVENUE OF N. C., 516 U.S. 325 (1996). [Syllabus]
	TRIVONA CORP. V. MICHIGAN DEPT. OF TREASURY, 498 U.S. 358 (1991) [Syllabus]
	GITLITZ  V.  COMMISSIONER [Syllabus] Whether, in conflict with the holdings of the Third Circuit in United States v. Farley, No 99-3209, F. 3d (3d Cir. 2000) (App. 92) and the Fifth Circuit in CSI Hydrostatic Testers, Inc. and Subs. v. Commissioner, 62 F.3d 136 (5th Cir. 1995), aff'g and adopting the opinion of the Tax Court, 103 T.C. 398 (1994), the Tenth Circuit incorrectly held that tax attributes subject to reduction under 26 U.S.C. 108(b), including the suspended losses of an S corporation shareholder, must be reduced in the year that discharge of indebtedness income, excluded under 26 U.S.C. 108(a), is realized, despite the statutory requirement that all tax attributes, including suspended losses, be adjusted in the succeeding taxable year, and only after the determination of tax for the taxable year, of the discharge."
	OKLAHOMA TAX COMM'N V. SAC & FOX NATION, 508 U.S. 114 (1993). [Syllabus]
	COMMISSIONER V. BANKS [Syllabus]
	ALLIED-SIGNAL, INC. V. DIRECTOR, DIV. OF TAXATION, 504 U.S. 768 (1992). [Syllabus]
	PORTLAND GOLF CLUB V. COMMISSIONER, 497 U.S. 154 (1990) [Syllabus]
	BARCLAYS BANK PLC V. FRANCHISE TAX BD. OF CAL., 114 S. CT. 2268, 129 L. [Syllabus]
	OKLAHOMA TAX COMM'N V. JEFFERSON LINES, 514 U.S. 175 (1995). [Syllabus]
	BOULWARE V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF CAL. V. UNITED STATES, 506 U.S. 9 (1992). [Syllabus]
	BOEING CO. V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] Title 26 CFR §1.861-8(e)(3) (1979)-which governs allocation of research and development expenses in computing taxable income from export sales entitled to special tax treatment under Internal Revenue Code provisions pertaining to "domestic international sales corporations" and "foreign sales corporations"-is a proper exercise of the Secretary of the Treasury's rulemaking authority.
	BUFFERD V. COMMISSIONER, 506 U.S. 523 (1993). [Syllabus]
	MCCORMICK V. UNITED STATES, 500 U.S. 257 (1991) [Syllabus]
	MEADWESTVACO CORP. V. ILLINOIS DEPT. OFREVENUE [Syllabus]
	DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE OF KY. V. DAVIS [Syllabus]
	NEBRASKA DEP'T OF REVENUE V. LOEWENSTEIN, 115 S. CT. 557, 130 L. ED. 2D (1994) [Syllabus]
	HIBBS V. WINN [Syllabus]
	COMMISSIONER V. SCHLEIER, 515 U.S. 323 (1995). [Syllabus]
	FRANCHISE TAX BD. OF CAL. V. HYATT [Syllabus] A long-time resident of California sued that State in a Nevada state court, alleging that California committed the torts of invasion of privacy, abuse of process, and fraud in the course of a personal income tax investigation concerning the timing of the individual's change of residence the timing of the individual's change of residence from California to Nevada. California Government Code section 860.2 reads: Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for an injury caused by….(a) Instituting any judicial or administrative proceeding of a tax. In Nevada v. Hall, 440 U.S. 410 (1979) this Court ruled that , in a tort action against Nevada arising out of a traffic accident occurring in California, California need not give full faith and credit to Nevada's statutory limitation on liability for injuries caused by Nevada state employees. However, the Court also noted that its ruling was fact-based: California's exercise of jurisdiction in this case poses no substantial threat to our constitutional system of cooperative federalism. Suits involving traffic accidents occurring outside of Nevada could hardly interfere with Nevada's capacity to fulfill its own sovereign responsibilities. 440 U.S. at 424 n.24 The question presented is: Did the Nevada Supreme Court impermissibly interfere with California's capacity to fulfill its sovereign responsibilities, in derogation of article IV, section 1, by refusing to give full faith and credit to California Government Code section 860.2, in a suit brought against California for the torts of invasion of privacy, outrage, abuse of process, and fraud allege to have occurred in the course of California's administrative efforts to determine a former resident's liability for California personal income tax?
	UNITED STATES V. REOGANIZED CF&I FABRICATORS OF UTAH, INC., ET AL., 518 U.S. 213 (1996) [Syllabus]
	COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE V. LUNDY, 516 U.S. 235 (1996). [Syllabus]
	DIRECTOR OF REVENUE OF MO. V. COBANK ACB [Syllabus] Does 12 U.S.C. Section 2134 authorize states to tax the income of the National Bank for Cooperatives, a federally chartered instrumentality of the United States?""."
	GRABLE & SONS METAL PRODUCTS, INC. V. DARUEENGINEERING & MFG. [Syllabus]
	FREYTAG V. COMMISSIONER, 501 U.S. 868 (1991) [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. HILL, 506 U.S. 546 (1993). [Syllabus]
	PHILLIPS V. WASHINGTON LEGAL FOUNDATION, 524 U.S. 156 (1998) [Syllabus]
	O'GILVIE MINORS V. UNITED STATES, 519 U.S. 79 (1996) [Syllabus]
	NEDER V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	BARKER V. KANSAS, 503 U.S. 594 (1992) [Syllabus]
	EC TERM OF YEARS TRUST V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	EMPIRE HEALTHCHOICE ASSURANCE, INC. V. MCVEIGH [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. CLINTWOOD ELKHORN MINING CO. [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. GALLETTI [Syllabus] Whether, in order to enforce the derivative liability of partners for the tax debts of their partnership, the United States must make a separate assessment of the taxes owed by the partnership against each of the partners directly?
	ATLANTIC MUT. INS. CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 523 U.S. 382 (1998) [Syllabus]
	DRYE V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] Whether the interest of an heir in an estate constitutes 'property ' or a 'right to property' to which the federal tax lien attaches under 26 U.S.C 6321 even though the heir thereafter purports retroactively to disclaim the interest under state law.
	KNIGHT V. COMMISSIONER [Syllabus]
	DE BUONO . V. NYSA-ILA MEDICAL AND CLINICAL SERVICE FUND, 520 U.S. 806 (1997) [Syllabus]
	KRAFT GEN. FOODS V. IOWA DEP'T OF REVENUE & FINANCE, 505 U.S. 71 (1992). [Syllabus]
	COMMISSIONER V. KEYSTONE CONSOL. INDUS., 508 U.S. 152 (1993). [Syllabus]
	RAYMOND B. YATES, M.D., P.C. PROFIT SHARINGPLAN V. HENDON [Syllabus] Whether the working owner of a business (here, the sole shareholder of a corporate employer) is precluded from being a "participant" under Section 3(7) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1002(7), in an ERISA plan?
	ARKANSAS V. FARM CREDIT SERVICES OF CENTRAL ARKANSAS, 520 U.S. 821 (1997) [Syllabus]
	COMMISSIONER V. SOLIMAN, 506 U.S. 168 (1993). [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. BURKE, 504 U.S. 229 (1992). [Syllabus]
	LAMPF V. GILBERTSON, 501 U.S. 350 (1991) [Syllabus]
	ROUSEY V. JACOWAY [Syllabus]
	WISCONSIN DEP'T OF REVENUE V. WILLIAM WRIGLEY, JR., CO., 505 U.S. 214 (1992). [Syllabus]
	NATIONSBANK OF N.C. V. VARIABLE ANNUITY LIFE INS. CO., 513 U.S. 251 (1995). [Syllabus]
	OREGON WASTE SYS. V. DEPARTMENT OF ENVTL. QUALITY OF ORE., 511 U.S. 93 (1994). [Syllabus]
	BENEFICIAL NAT. BANK V. ANDERSON [Syllabus] This Court has long held that section 30 of the National Bank Act, 12 U.S.C. §§ 85-86, creates an exclusive federal cause of action and an exclusive federal remedy for usury claims by borrowers against national banks, preempting state law under the doctrine of ordinary preemption. Borrowers filed this case against a national bank in state court, claiming violation of state usury law, and the national bank removed the case to federal district court, where a motion to remand was denied. On interlocutory appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ordered the district court to remand the case to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and explicitly disagreed with decisions by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit holding that section 30 completely preempts state usury claims against national banks and thus permits removal of cases asserting state usury laws against them. The question presented is:
	KOONS BUICK PONTIAC GMC, INC. V. NIGH [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. NOLAND, 517 U.S. 535 (1996) [Syllabus]
	WASHINGTON V. RECUENCO [Syllabus]
	U.S. V. BROCKAMP, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF MCGILL, DECEASED, 519 U.S. 347 (1997) [Syllabus]
	PATTERSON V. SHUMATE, 504 U.S. 753 (1992). [Syllabus]
	BROWN V. LEGAL FOUNDATION OF WASH. [Syllabus] Interest earned on client funds deposited in IOLTA accounts that is transferred to a different owner for a legitimate public use may constitute a per se taking requiring "just compensation" to the client under the Fifth Amendment; but because such compensation is measured by the owner's pecuniary interest, which is zero whenever Washington's IOLTA law is obeyed, there is no violation of the Just Compensation Clause here.
	UNITED STATES V. CARLTON, 512 U.S. 26 (1994). [Syllabus]
	EVANS V. UNITED STATES, 504 U.S. 255 (1992). [Syllabus]