23 Cited authorities

  1. United States v. Carlton

    512 U.S. 26 (1994)   Cited 161 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a party's detrimental reliance on a statute prior to retroactive change is insufficient to demonstrate a due process violation where there is no vested interest
  2. Foss v. City of Rochester

    65 N.Y.2d 247 (N.Y. 1985)   Cited 111 times
    Holding that statutes require "only a reasonable degree of certainty so that individuals of ordinary intelligence are not forced to guess at the meaning of statutory terms"
  3. State Tax Comm'n v. Aldrich

    316 U.S. 174 (1942)   Cited 117 times
    Rejecting “a rule of immunity from taxation by more than one state,” including with respect to income taxation
  4. Travis v. Yale Towne Mfg. Co.

    252 U.S. 60 (1920)   Cited 147 times
    Holding that a state has jurisdiction to tax the income of nonresidents arising from business or occupations conducted within the borders of that state
  5. Bordeleau v. State

    2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 8444 (N.Y. 2011)   Cited 19 times

    2011-11-21 Lee BORDELEAU et al., Respondents, v. STATE of New York et al., Appellants. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Barbara D. Underwood, Paul Groenwegen and Andrew D. Bing of counsel), for State of New York, appellant. Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Albany (Harold Iselin, Cynthia E. Neidl and Victoria E. Lane of counsel), for Globalfoundries U.S., Inc., appellant. JONES Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Barbara D. Underwood, Paul Groenwegen and Andrew D. Bing of counsel)

  6. Matter of Tamagni v. Tax Appeals Tribunal

    695 N.E.2d 1125 (N.Y. 1998)   Cited 21 times   3 Legal Analyses
    In Matter of Tamagni v Tax Appeals Trib. of State of N.Y. (91 NY2d 530 [1998]), this Court examined the legislative history of the tax statute, and noted that there had been "several cases of multimillionaires who actually maintain homes in New York and spend ten months of every year in those homes... but... claim to be nonresidents" (91 NY2d at 535 quoting Income Tax Bureau Mem, Bill Jacket, L 1922, ch 425).
  7. Gen. Mills v. Commr. of Revenue

    440 Mass. 154 (Mass. 2003)   Cited 13 times
    Holding that gain from deemed sale of assets should have been included in Massachusetts gross income because it was includable in Federal gross income
  8. Adler v. Deegan

    167 N.E. 705 (N.Y. 1929)   Cited 177 times
    Interpreting similar language in an earlier Constitution
  9. Prince v. State Dept. of Revenue

    55 So. 3d 273 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010)   Cited 3 times
    Holding that a plurality opinion “does not constitute binding authority”
  10. Tamagni v. Tax Appeals Tribunal

    230 A.D.2d 417 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)   Cited 1 times

    June 19, 1997 PROCEEDING pursuant to CPLR article 78 (initiated in the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department pursuant to Tax Law § 2016) to review a determination of respondent Tax Appeals Tribunal which sustained a personal income tax assessment imposed under Tax Law article 22. McDermott, Will Emery, New York City ( Arthur R. Rosen and Diann L. Smith of counsel), for petitioners. Dennis C. Vacco, Attorney-General, Albany ( Daniel Smirlock and Nancy A. Spiegel

  11. Section 1361 - S corporation defined

    26 U.S.C. § 1361   Cited 269 times   15 Legal Analyses
    Defining "S corporation"
  12. Section 1366 - Pass-thru of items to shareholders

    26 U.S.C. § 1366   Cited 195 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Limiting pass-through deductions that shareholder may claim to "shareholder's basis in stock and debt"
  13. Section 338 - Certain stock purchases treated as asset acquisitions

    26 U.S.C. § 338   Cited 60 times   20 Legal Analyses

    (a) General rule For purposes of this subtitle, if a purchasing corporation makes an election under this section (or is treated under subsection (e) as having made such an election), then, in the case of any qualified stock purchase, the target corporation- (1) shall be treated as having sold all of its assets at the close of the acquisition date at fair market value in a single transaction, and (2) shall be treated as a new corporation which purchased all of the assets referred to in paragraph (1)

  14. § 1.338(h)(10)-1 Deemed asset sale and liquidation

    26 C.F.R. § 1.338(h)(10)-1   Cited 7 times

    (a) Scope. This section prescribes rules for qualification for a section 338(h)(10) election and for making a section 338(h)(10) election. This section also prescribes the consequences of such election. The rules of this section are in addition to the rules of §§ 1.338-1 through 1.338-10 and, in appropriate cases, apply instead of the rules of §§ 1.338-1 through 1.338-10. (b) Definitions - (1) Consolidated target. A consolidated target is a target that is a member of a consolidated group within the

  15. Section 4-2.2 - Computation of business allocation percentage

    N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 20 § 4-2.2   Cited 6 times

    (a) Except for corporations principally engaged in the conduct of aviation or in the conduct of a railroad or trucking business, the taxpayer's business allocation percentage is generally computed on the basis of a formula consisting of three factors. The three factors, expressed as percentages, are: (1) real and tangible personal property within and without New York State, including real and tangible personal property rented to the taxpayer (Subpart 4-3 of this Part); (2) business receipts within