Cases from cite.case.law:

G. v., 79 T.C. 424 (T.C. 1982)

. . . .$3,435.77 Interest . 129.24 3d Quarter tax . 3,169.80 Interest . 288.35 2d Quarter tax . 3,435.77 Interest . . .

P. MITCHELL, v. KLETJIAN, Co., 181 F. Supp. 491 (D. Mass. 1960)

. . . . § 201 et seq.), Didris would be entitled to recover $1,-288.35 under the overtime provisions of the . . .

v., 26 Cust. Ct. 326 (Cust. Ct. 1951)

. . . At the time of abandonment, the deputy collector testified the gauger made a regauge and found only 288.35 . . . quantity imported at the port of Chicago was gauged at 1,001.95 gallons and that the difference between 288.35 . . . , but, as to the duties, the allowance was made only upon the quantity actually destroyed, that is, 288.35 . . .

MASON v. T. P. OPTICAL MFG. CO., 42 F. Supp. 98 (S.D.N.Y. 1941)

. . . 15,733 Semi-Rimless Frames and 5,767 Arcway Frames, for which defendant paid him $564.10, $471.99, and $288.35 . . .

H. v. W. v., 41 B.T.A. 183 (B.T.A. 1940)

. . . is in controversy, petitioner claiming refund of $11.37; and in Docket No. 92453, a deficiency of $288.35 . . .