Cluster 6578793
green
· 9 citation events
across 3 courts.
Showing the 6 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
green
Schussel v. Commissioner of Revenue (2015)
See, e.g., Boston Professional Hockey Ass’n, Inc. v. Commissioner of Revenue, 443 Mass. 276, 285 (2005); General Mills, Inc. v. Commissioner of Revenue, 440 Mass. 154, 161 (2003), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 973 (2004), quoting Olympia & York State St.
green
Schussel v. Commissioner of Revenue (2014)
L. c. 58A, § 13, and will not be disturbed if they are supported by sufficient evidence.” General Mills, Inc. v. Commissioner of Rev., 440 Mass. 154, 161 (2003).
green
Commissioner of Revenue v. Comcast Corp. (2009)
The commissioner asserts that, if there was no “legitimate business or economic purpose” for the transactions, she could invoke the “step transaction doctrine,” a rule that, “for purposes of taxation, looks to the substance of a transaction over its form.” General Mills, Inc. v. Commissioner of Revenue, 440 Mass. 154, 172 (2003).
green
Kimberly-Clark Corp. v. Commissioner of Revenue (2013)
See General Mills, Inc. v. Commissioner of Rev., 440 Mass. 154, 165 (2003), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 973 (2004).
green
WB&T Mortgage Co. v. Board of Assessors (2008)
See General Mills, Inc. v. Commissioner of Revenue, 440 Mass. 154, 161 (2003), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 973 (2004) (board’s findings are final); Stilson v. Assessors of Gloucester, 385 Mass. 724, 729 (1982) (same).
green
FMR Corp. v. Commissioner of Revenue (2004)
See, e.g., General Mills, Inc. v. Commissioner of Revenue, 440 Mass. 154, 171 (2003) (holding that gain from deemed sale of assets should have been included in Massachusetts gross income because it was includable in Federal gross income); Commissioner of Revenue v. Franchi, 423 Mass. 817, 823 (1996) (noting that adoption of Federal interpretation of statutory term is appropriate where corresponding Massachusetts tax law specifically refers to that interpretation); Parker Aff…
holding that gain from deemed sale of assets should have been included in Massachusetts gross income because it was includable in Federal gross income