Alexander D. Cardosi v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 85 F.3d 640 (10th Cir. 1996). · Go Syfert
Search
Alexander D. Cardosi v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 85 F.3d 640 (10th Cir. 1996). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
34 citation events (13 in the last 25 years) across 6 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Ekotek Site PRP Committee v. Self (utd, 1996-06-11)
Treatment trajectory · 1996 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1996 2011 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Ekotek Site PRP Committee v. Self
D. Utah · 1996 · confidence medium
“The law of the case must be followed unless the evidence on a subsequent trial was substantially different, controlling authority has since made a contrary decision of the law applicable to such issues, or the decision was clearly erroneous and would work a manifest injustice.” Cascade Energy & Metals Corp. v. Banks, 85 F.3d 640, 640 (10th Cir.1996).
discussed Cited "see" Garcia v. United States
D. Utah · 2024 · signal: see · confidence high
See Espinoza v. United States, 85 F.3d 640 (10th Cir. 1996) (declining to apply continuous treatment doctrine where claimant did not receive continuous treatment); Bradley v. U.S. by Veterans Admin., 951 F.2d 268, 271 (10th Cir. 1991) (citing Outman, 890 F.2d at 1053 ) (“continuous-treatment doctrine” is not available to toll the FTCA statute of limitations when plaintiff knows what acts caused the alleged injury).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." American Freight System, Inc. v. Powell
D. Kan. · 1997 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See Orner v. Shalala, 30 F.3d 1307, 1309 (10th Cir.1994) (“[W]e may affirm challenged decisions of the district court on alternative grounds, so long as the record is sufficient to permit conclusions of law.”) (citing United States v. Roederer, 11 F.3d 973, 977 (10th Cir.1993)); see generally Bolden v. PRC Inc., 43 F.3d 545, 548 (10th Cir.1994) (appellate court can affirm a summary judgment on alternative grounds as long as the grounds are supported by the record), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 92 , 133 L.Ed.2d 48 (1995); see, e.g., Burke v. Woods, 85 F.3d 640 (10th Cir.1996) (Table;…
Alexander D. Cardosi
v.
Commissioner of Internal Revenue
26111-93.
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
May 13, 1996.
85 F.3d 640
Published

85 F.3d 640

77 A.F.T.R.2d 96-2297, 96-1 USTC P 50,264

NOTICE: Although citation of unpublished opinions remains unfavored, unpublished opinions may now be cited if the opinion has persuasive value on a material issue, and a copy is attached to the citing document or, if cited in oral argument, copies are furnished to the Court and all parties. See General Order of November 29, 1993, suspending 10th Cir. Rule 36.3 until December 31, 1995, or further order.

Alexander D. CARDOSI, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 95-9013.
(D.C.No. T.C. No. 26111-93).

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

May 13, 1996.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT[*]

Before PORFILIO, McKAY and KELLY, Circuit Judges.[**]

KELLY, Circuit Judge.

1

Mr. Cardosi appeals from a Tax Court decision upholding the denial of various Schedule C deductions claimed with respect to his roofing and consulting businesses. Cardosi v. Commissioner, 69 T.C.M. (CCH) 2311 (1995). Our jurisdiction arises under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1). We review the tax court's judgment "in the same manner and to the same extent as decisions of the district courts in civil actions tried without a jury," id.; thus, we review legal issues de novo and factual issues for clear error. We cannot say that the tax court's findings of fact are clearly erroneous though we might have found otherwise; given those findings the correct law was applied. We affirm the denial of a deduction for CCH tax products on the ground that the taxpayer has failed to prove that such expenditures were ordinary and necessary to his business ventures. See Love Box Co., Inc. v. Commissioner, 842 F.2d 1213, 1216 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 820 (1988).

2

AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue forthwith.

*

This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. This court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3

**

After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material assistance in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument