Research Tax Assingment 3

docx

School

Texas A&M University, Texarkana *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

324

Subject

Accounting

Date

Apr 3, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

2

Uploaded by loviedo817313

Report
Lydia Oviedo ACCT324 Research Tax Assignment 3 Use the internet and CCH research tools made available through the TAMUT Library resources to find the answers to the tax research questions. Upload your answers to Canvas by the assignment deadline. 1. Find the court decision located at 2007-1 USTC ¶50,210 and answer the following questions. a. What court heard the case? The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey heard the case. b. Name the judge(s) who heard the case. Judge William J. Martini heard the case. c. What Code Section(s) were at issue? The sections involved were 6320 and 6330 of the Internal Revenue Code. d. Which party is filing suit? The taxpayer. e. When was the decision rendered? March 27, 2007. f. For whom did the court rule?  For the taxpayer. 2. Find the following cases using only the following information. Provide the complete case citation and the name of the ruling judge. a.  John DiFronzo v. Commissioner. John DiFronzo v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1998-335, aff'd without opinion, 172 F.3d 954 (7th Cir. 1999) (per curiam). b.  Furey  (A case involving IRC Section 6662). Furey v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997 482.   c.  Allied-Signal, Inc.  (Decided around 1995 by an Appellate Court). Allied-Signal, Inc. v. Commissioner, 100 T.C. 538 (1993), aff'd without opinion, 28 F.3d 1018 (3d Cir. 1994).  
 d.  Burke  (A Supreme Court case on IRC Section 104). Burke v. Commissioner, 92 T.C. 57 (1989) 3. Give the proper S.Ct., and USTC citation for the  Corn Products Refining Co. v. Commissioner  case, a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court. The proper S.Ct. and USTC citation for the Corn Products Refining Co. v. Commissioner  case is: Corn Products Refining Co. v. Commissioner, 350 U.S. 46. The main issue of this case was whether or not they were liable for taxes on profits that had not been distributed. They stated that they should not because they invested the revenues by purchasing machinery and assets. The court decided that they had to pay taxes either way.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
  • Access to all documents
  • Unlimited textbook solutions
  • 24/7 expert homework help