Suchergebnisse

Letter and attached "Ballot title and caption for Initiative Measure No. 192" from the attorney general's office, Olympia, to the Honorable Earl Coe, Secretary of State.

published_or_final_version ; Housing Management ; Master ; Master of Housing Management

One of the more important aspects of federalism lies in the relationship which has been established between state and federal courts. The interworkings of the judicial process involve power in some in-stances and principles of comity in others. The purpose of this article is to examine this relationship, including possible areas of abrasion resulting from the interworkings between the two court systems.

The Internal Revenue Code is premised on an annual accounting concept which requires the taxpayer to count up his transactions at the end of the year and remit to the Government taxes based on the occurrences of that particular year. In theory this requires disregarding the factors of prior or subsequent taxable years, despite the irrelation to events of the tax year in question. In most instances, annual accounting poses no special problem. When applied to certain items whose tax impact transcends more than a single taxable year,however, inconsistencies and inequities may result. Two instances in which inconsistent tax treatment is occasioned by annual accounting are: (1) the restoration to another of items previously included in the taxpayer's gross income because he had held them under a claim of right; and (2) the recovery of items by the taxpayer which he had deducted from his income in a prior tax year. To require annual accounting with respect to these items makes the timing of the restoration or recovery determinative of the tax consequences. Variable factors such as fluctuation in the taxpayer's income and changes in tax rates determine whether the taxpayer ultimately pays more or less tax than if the original tax accounting were not erroneous in light of subsequent events. For example, if recovery of a previously deducted item occurs in a high income year for the taxpayer, the progressive rate structure is likely to exact a higher toll than if the taxpayer had foregone the original deduction so that the later recovery would be a return of capital, and therefore not taxable. It is the thesis of this note that the inconsistency is unnecessary and that the timing of a recovery or restoration need not deter-mine the tax consequences. It is submitted that a transactional approach that would provide tax accounting for an item in light of events of prior years, as well as consideration of facts of the year of restoration or recovery, should be used.

I. Excise Tax--Entire Net Income of Domestic Corporation Engaged in Multistate Operations Attributable to Tennessee =========================== II. Privilege Tax as Applied to Foreign Corporation--Orders Solicited in State Accepted in Foreign State ============================ III. Applicability of Tax for Privilege of Doing Business to Foreign Corporation--Sufficiency of Local Activity ============================ IV. Use Tax--Exclusion if Subject to Sales Tax ============================ V. Franchise Tax--Leased Property Included in Measure ============================ VI. Privilege Tax on Persons Engaged in Business of Collecting Accounts--Deductability of Attorney's Fees from Gross Collections ============================ VII. Ad Valorem Tax--Applicability to Non-Domiciliary Interstate Motor Carriers ============================ VIII. Exemption of Religious Institution from Property Taxation--Applicability During Construction of Structure to be Used for Non-Exempt Purpose ============================= IX. Immunity of Federal Government from Sales Tax--Taxability as Independent Contractor ============================= X. Administrative Remedies--Exhaustion of Remedies as Condition Precedent to Seeking Judicial Relief ============================= XI. Failure to Make Proper Collections of Sales and Use Tax--Honest Mistake as Excuse ============================== XII. Legislative Changes

There was a time when state and local taxes were perhaps only a minor factor in determining where a new business would locate and were probably not seriously considered in connection with most locational decisions. In recent years, however, because of the need for additional revenue on the part of state and local governments and the resulting increases in varieties and amounts of taxes, business must give more attention to the question of state and local taxes in deciding where to locate and operate. In this discussion of state taxation of corporate income from multi-state operations, we will include taxes involving net income of a corporation as well as taxes involving gross income. Also, this discussion will cover any general tax on corporations that reaches income as a basis for its computation, whether the tax is levied directly on that income or whether the income is used only as a measure for computing the amount of the tax, the legislatively designated subject of the tax being some activity or event having to do with the corporate operations. This latter type of tax would include such exactions as franchise and business taxes measured by corporate income. The limitations upon taxation of corporate income imposed by the commerce and due process clauses will be discussed somewhat fully.There will be a survey of the tax structure of each of the fifty states insofar as their taxes reach corporate net income from multistate business. Some attention will be given to the tax statutes reaching corporate gross income. Our endeavors also will include discussions of the various steps that have been taken to untangle the tangled skein of state taxation of corporate income from multistate operations,as well as other proposals that have been made for that purpose. That the problem of the commerce and due process clause curbs on state taxation of corporate income from multistate operations is of tremendous current importance can easily be shown by the fact that during the last term of the United States Supreme Court, ...

The United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority was constituted as a public corporation in 1954 by the Atomic Energy Authority Act.' The Government had decided in the previous year that the atomic energy undertaking, then in the hands of the Minister of Supply, should be transferred to a non-departmental organization and a committee of three under the chairmanship of Lord Waverley had been appointed to devise a plan for the transfer and to work out the most suitable form for the new organization. The committee fulfilled their task with admirable clarity, but many legal problems arose in drafting the bill, which related to matters beyond the committee's terms of reference.

Administrative Procedure Legislation in the State By Ferrell Heady Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1952. Pp. 137. $1.00. reviewer: Ralph F. Fuchs ========================= Bar Examinations and Requirements for Admission to the Bar Prepared by Committee on Bar Examinations and Requirements for Admission to the Bar for the Survey of the Legal Profession Colorado Springs: Shepard's Citations. 1952. Pp. xvii, 498. $5.00. reviewer: Will Allen Wilkerson ======================== Trial Judge By Bernard Botein New York: Simon and Schuster, 1952.Pp. 337 $5.00. reviewer: Walter C. Lindley ========================== The Spirit of Liberty: Papers and Addresses of Learned Hand Collected and with Introduction and Notes by Irving Dilliard New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1952. Pp. xxx, 262. $3.50. reviewer: Robert S. Lancaster ========================== American Federal Government: A General View By Herman Clarence Nixon New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1952. Pp. x, 476. $4.00. reviewer: Vincent V. Thursby

On September 1, 1931 Lt. Col. C. Seymour Bullock wrote a letter to Mr. Meloy containing his criticism of an article that Meloy wrote for the March 1931 issue of the ""New York Waltonian"" on the Hewitt Amendment and an article Mr. Hopkins wrote for the next issue of the ""New York Waltonian"" on the same topic that Bullock has seen an advance copy of. Bullock is a member of the Izaak Walton League and wants an unbiased portrayal of the Amendment put before the membership so they can decide if they support it.

This item was digitized as part of the Million Books Project led by Carnegie Mellon University and supported by grants from the National Science Foundation (NSF). Cornell University coordinated the participation of land-grant and agricultural libraries in providing historical agricultural information for the digitization project; the University of Arizona Libraries, the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, and the Office of Arid Lands Studies collaborated in the selection and provision of material for the digitization project. ; historical publication

One-page letter and envelope dated September 23, 1866, from Hez L. [Hezekiah Lord] Hosmer in Virginia City to Lysander Spooner [probably in Boston, Massachusetts] written on the back of a circular titled "Chief Justice H. L. Hosmer's Charge to the Grand Jury."

p. 1 ; columns 2–6 ; 106 col. in. ; Laws pertaining to custody of property for indebtedness, slavery, Indian servants, and polygamy are discussed. Mr. Morrill advocates that the United States government remove all Utah Territorial laws that are not in harmony with the constitution. The Adam God theory is mentioned. A rebellion of polygamous women on 21 Sep 1856 is discussed and Brigham Young's responce given. Murders committed by "Danites" such as Orrin Porter Rockwell are insinuated.

One-page letter from Gerrit Smith of Peterboro [New York] to Lysander Spooner dated March 20, 1856, to notify Spooner that he has "got said Wilhelm himself to [?] the Constitution" and abolitionism.

Manuscript copy of a four-page letter from Gerrit Smith of Peterboro [New York] to Hon. D. [David] Wilmot, in which he responds to a letter from Wilmot discussing slavery and the United States Constitution, and sends him a copy of Lysander Spooner's "the Unconstitutionality of Slavery."

One-page letter dated December 18, 1855, from William Goodell in New York, to Lysander Spooner in Boston [Massachusetts], giving his approval of Spooner's "form of a letter to be forwarded to Congress, with the form of petition."