| Found: 23 | Showing: 1 - 23 |
| 03-1034 ESTATE OF KANTER, ET AL | ||
| . V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE Decision below: 337 F.3d 833 (7th Cir. 2003) QUESTIONS PRESENTED: The Tax Court keeps secret, even from the reviewing courts of appeals, the findings of fact and credibility judgments of its special trial judges. | |||
| [2/10/2009] (59k) | |||
| 03-184 BALLARD V | ||
| . COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE Decision below: 321 F.3d 1037 (11th Cir. 2003) QUESTIONS PRESENTED: In this case, the trial was conducted by a Special Trial Judge employed at will by the Tax Court. The Special Trial Judge was required to create a | |||
| [2/10/2009] (59k) | |||
| QPReport | ||
| 06-376 HINCK V. UNITED STATES DECISION BELOW:446 F3d 1307 CERT. GRANTED 1/12/2007 QUESTIONS PRESENTED:Before 1996, the circuits held that district courts and the Court of Federal Claims had 28 U.S.C. §§1346(a)(1) and 1491(a)(1) refund jurisdiction | |||
| [2/10/2009] (2k) | |||
| 02-1809 HIBBS v | ||
| 02-1809 HIBBS v. WINN Ruling below: CA 9, 307 F.3d 1011 QUESTION PRESENTED Did the Ninth Circuit err in holding, in conflict with the First, Sixth, and Eleventh Circuits, that the Tax Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1341, and principles of comity that | |||
| [2/10/2009] (33k) | |||
| Microsoft Word - 04-01704qp.doc | ||
| 04-1704 DAIMLER CHRYSLER CORP. V. CHARLOTTE CUNO, ET AL. DECISION BELOW: 386 F.3d 738 (6th Cir. 2004) LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 01-3960 QUESTION PRESENTED Whether Ohio's investment tax credit, Ohio Revised Code § 5733.33, which seeks to encourage | |||
| [2/10/2009] (49k) | |||
| Microsoft Word - 04-01724qp | ||
| 04-1724 WILKINS, ET AL. V. CUNO, ET AL. DECISION BELOW: 386 F.3d 738 (6th Cir. 2004) LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 01-3960 QUESTION PRESENTED Does the dormant Commerce Clause allow a State to attempt to attract new business investment in the State by | |||
| [2/10/2009] (57k) | |||
| QPReport | ||
| 06-1286 KNIGHT V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE DECISION BELOW:467 F3d 149 CERT. GRANTED 6/25/2007 QUESTIONS PRESENTED:There is a deep, irreconcilable and widely noted conflict among the Second, Fourth, Sixth and Federal Circuits about the meaning | |||
| [2/10/2009] (2k) | |||
| Microsoft Word - 03-01230qp.doc | ||
| 03-1230 AMERICAN TRUCKING ASS’NS, INC., ET AL. V. MI PUBLIC SERVICE COMM’N, ET AL. DECISION BELOW: 662 N.W.2D 784 (2003) QUESTION PRESENTED Whether an unapportioned flat tax like Michigan's can be spared from invalidation under the Commerce Clause on | |||
| [2/10/2009] (40k) | |||
| QPReport | ||
| 06-1413 MEADWESTVACO V. IL DEPT. OF REVENUE DECISION BELOW:861 NE2d 1131 EXPEDITED BRIEFING SCHEDULE CERT. GRANTED 9/25/2007 QUESTIONS PRESENTED:Is the attempt by Illinois to tax the approximately $1 billion gain realized by Petitioner when it sold | |||
| [2/10/2009] (2k) | |||
| QPReport | ||
| 06-1509 BOULWARE V. UNITED STATES DECISION BELOW:470 F3d 931 THE PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI IS GRANTED LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING QUESTION: "WHETHER THE DIVERSION OF CORPORATE FUNDS TO A SHAREHOLDER OF A CORPORATION WITHOUT EARNINGS AND PROFITS | |||
| [2/10/2009] (2k) | |||
| QPReport | ||
| 08-310 POLAR TANKERS, INC. V. VALDEZ, AK DECISION BELOW:182 P. 3d 614 CERT. GRANTED 12/12/2008 QUESTIONS PRESENTED:1. Whether a municipal personal property tax that falls exclusively on large vessels using the municipality’s harbor violates the | |||
| [2/10/2009] (2k) | |||
| 02-1389 UNITED STATES v | ||
| 02-1389 UNITED STATES v. GALLETTI Ruling below: CA 9, 314 F.3d 336. QUESTION PRESENTED 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 | |||
| [2/10/2009] (32k) | |||
| Microsoft Word - 04-00108qp.doc | ||
| 04-108 KELO, ET AL. V. NEW LONDON, CT, ET AL. Decision Below: 843 A.2d 500 (Conn. 2004) QUESTION PRESENTED What protection does the Fifth Amendment's public use requirement provide for individuals whose property is being condemned, not to eliminate | |||
| [2/10/2009] (37k) | |||
| Microsoft Word - 04-00302qp.doc | ||
| 04-302 PANG V. UNITED STATES QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW 1. Whether the District Court erred in refusing to allow evidence of Petitioner's pre-trial tax payment (which formed the basis of his defense) so that it could be brought before the jury and | |||
| [2/10/2009] (37k) | |||
| Microsoft Word - 04-00459qp.doc | ||
| 04-459 MATTMILLER V. MINNESOTA QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether federal law, 49 U.S.C. § 40116(f), preempts Minnesota from filing felony charges relating to the imposition of its tax laws against a person present there because of his employment as a | |||
| [2/10/2009] (45k) | |||
| Microsoft Word - 04-01477qp | ||
| 04-1477 JONES V. FLOWERS, ET AL. DECISION BELOW: 2004 WL 2609800 (AR 2004) LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 04-449 QUESTION PRESENTED When mailed notice of a tax sale or property forfeiture is returned undelivered, does due process require the government to | |||
| [2/10/2009] (43k) | |||
| QPReport | ||
| 05-1508 ZUNI PUBLIC SCHOOL DIST. NO. 89 V. DEPT. OF EDUCATION DECISION BELOW:437 F3d 1289 CERT. GRANTED 9/26/2006 QUESTIONS PRESENTED:The Federal Impact Aid Program, 20 U.S.C. § 7709, was enacted to subsidize local State school districts which have a | |||
| [2/10/2009] (2k) | |||
| QPReport | ||
| 06-116 LIMTIACO V. CAMACHO DECISION BELOW:2003 WL 21697180 IN ADDITION TO THE QUESTION PRESENTED BY THE PETITION, THE PARTIES ARE DIRECTED TO BRIEF AND ARGUE THE FOLLOWING QUESTION: WHETHER THE TIME FOR FILING A PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI FROM | |||
| [2/10/2009] (2k) | |||
| QPReport | ||
| 06-134 PERMANENT MISSION OF INDIA V. NEW YORK DECISION BELOW:446 F3d 365 CERT. GRANTED 1/19/2007 QUESTIONS PRESENTED:1. Does the exception to sovereign immunity for cases “in which ... rights in immovable property situated in the United States are in | |||
| [2/10/2009] (2k) | |||
| QPReport | ||
| 06-666 DEPT OF REVENUE OF KY V. DAVIS DECISION BELOW:197 S.W. 3d 557 CERT. GRANTED 5/21/2007 QUESTIONS PRESENTED:Whether a state violates the dormant Commerce Clause by providing an exemption from its income tax for interest income derived from bonds | |||
| [2/10/2009] (2k) | |||
| QPReport | ||
| 06-1287 CSX TRANSPORTATION V. GA STATE BD. OF EQUALIZATION DECISION BELOW:472 F.3d 1281 CERT. GRANTED 5/29/2007 QUESTIONS PRESENTED:Whether, under the federal statute prohibiting state tax discrimination against railroads, 49 U.S.C. § 11501(b)(1), a | |||
| [2/10/2009] (2k) | |||
| QPReport | ||
| 06-9130 ALI V. FED. BUREAU OF PRISONS DECISION BELOW:204 Fed. Appx. 778 CERT. GRANTED 5/29/2007 QUESTIONS PRESENTED:Under 28 U.S.C. 2680(c), the Federal Tort Claims Act’s waiver of sovereign immunity does not extend to “[a]ny claim arising in respect | |||
| [2/10/2009] (2k) | |||
| QPReport | ||
| 07-308 UNITED STATES V. CLINTWOOD ELKHORN MINING DECISION BELOW:473 F.3d 1373 CERT. GRANTED 12/3/2007 QUESTIONS PRESENTED:Whether a taxpayer who would have been entitled to file a tax refund action in federal court to seek a refund of taxes (and | |||
| [2/10/2009] (2k) |
| Found: 23 | Showing: 1 - 23 |