Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 11 - 20 of 48 for irc.
Search results 11 - 20 of 48 for irc.
[PDF]
The Babcock & Wilcox Company v. Wisconsin Department of Revenue
and federal tax law differed in that, under section 381 of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC), federal law
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=2226 - 2017-09-19
and federal tax law differed in that, under section 381 of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC), federal law
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=2226 - 2017-09-19
Elizabeth H. Taylor v. James A. Taylor
James filed a motion to modify them. The judgment designated the payments as IRC § 71 payments[1
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=9911 - 2005-03-31
James filed a motion to modify them. The judgment designated the payments as IRC § 71 payments[1
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=9911 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
Elizabeth H. Taylor v. James A. Taylor
James filed a motion to modify them. The judgment designated the payments as IRC § 71 payments1
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=9911 - 2017-09-19
James filed a motion to modify them. The judgment designated the payments as IRC § 71 payments1
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=9911 - 2017-09-19
[PDF]
Edmund R. Gilson v. Wisconsin Department of Revenue
that was 1 The separate share rule set forth in IRC § 663(c) provides: “For the sole purpose
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=2622 - 2017-09-19
that was 1 The separate share rule set forth in IRC § 663(c) provides: “For the sole purpose
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=2622 - 2017-09-19
Edmund R. Gilson v. Wisconsin Department of Revenue
. [1] The separate share rule set forth in IRC § 663(c) provides: “For the sole purpose
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=2622 - 2005-03-31
. [1] The separate share rule set forth in IRC § 663(c) provides: “For the sole purpose
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=2622 - 2005-03-31
Jane A. Patrickus v. Robert Patrickus
expenses, as defined in IRC § 162) of Husband’s accounting practice per year for the prior twelve months
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=16329 - 2005-03-31
expenses, as defined in IRC § 162) of Husband’s accounting practice per year for the prior twelve months
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=16329 - 2005-03-31
Carl E. Merow v. Shinners
in excess of $147,000. The trust paid this tax. Because the QTIP election is irrevocable, see 26 IRC
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=10715 - 2005-03-31
in excess of $147,000. The trust paid this tax. Because the QTIP election is irrevocable, see 26 IRC
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=10715 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
Carl E. Merow v. Shinners
this tax. Because the QTIP election is irrevocable, see 26 IRC § 2056(b)(7)(B)(v), the trust was unable
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=10715 - 2017-09-20
this tax. Because the QTIP election is irrevocable, see 26 IRC § 2056(b)(7)(B)(v), the trust was unable
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=10715 - 2017-09-20
[PDF]
Jane A. Patrickus v. Robert Patrickus
- of the net profit (defined as gross income less ordinary and necessary business expenses, as defined in IRC
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=16329 - 2017-09-21
- of the net profit (defined as gross income less ordinary and necessary business expenses, as defined in IRC
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=16329 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT
of applying the comparable sales approach to assess an IRC § 42 low income housing tax credit property
/sc/sccase/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=175370 - 2017-09-21
of applying the comparable sales approach to assess an IRC § 42 low income housing tax credit property
/sc/sccase/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=175370 - 2017-09-21