26 U.S.C. § 120
Repealed. Pub. L. 113–295, div. A, title II, § 221(a)(19)(A), Dec. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 4039]
[repealed]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8
cases, 1937–2005 · leading case: Harold Brannon Magness v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 247 F.2d 740 (5th Cir. 1957).
Harold Brannon Magness v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 247 F.2d 740 (5th Cir. 1957). “” 26 U.S.C.A. § 120 . 9 . See Senate Committee Report on Internal Revenue Code of 1954, Part I, Sec.”
Wyndham v. United States, 197 F. Supp. 856 (E.D.S.C. 1961). “This is an action for the recovery of income taxes alleged to have been erroneously and illegally collected by the United States from the plaintiffs for the years 1955, 1956 and 1957, the claim being based upon a five dollar a day subsistence allowance allegedly excludable from…”
Shirah v. United States, 158 F. Supp. 40 (E.D.S.C. 1957). “That claim was based upon a $5 per day subsistence allowance thought to be authorized under Section 120 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, 26 U.S.C.A. § 120 , and an ordinance of the City of Columbia passed pursuant to said Section 120 by the City Council of Columbia, South…”
Pleasants v. United States, 22 F. Supp. 964 (Ct. Cl. 1938). “26 , and section 120 of the Acts of 1928 and 1932, 26 U.S.C.A. § 120 and note. In such case it is obvious that on no theory could a capital net loss be deducted from ordinary net income for the purpose of reducing or entirely denying the deduction for the charitable contribution…”
Cler, Barbara v. IL Educ Ass'n, 423 F.3d 726 (7th Cir. 2005). “” 26 U.S.C. § 120 (b). The district court stated that this provision of the IRC “defines prepaid legal services,” when, in fact, it defines a different phrase used in the IRC, namely, “qualified group legal services plan.”
Parrish v. United States, 158 F. Supp. 238 (M.D. Ga. 1958). “Parrish, as a statutory subsistence allowance within the meaning of Section 120 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, 26 U.S.C.A. § 120 . At all times during 1955, J.”
Lockhart v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 89 F.2d 143 (3rd Cir. 1937). “The petitioner concedes that he is not within the exceptions to the 15 per cent, limit on deduction for contributions set forth in section 120 of the Revenue Act of 1928 ( 26 U.S.C.A. § 120 and note). The deduction for contributions claimed by the petitioner in his income tax…”
Judge v. Dep't of Emp., Unemployment Ins. Comm'n, 50 P.3d 686 (Wyo. 2002). “r during the year in which he became entitled to disability insurance benefits under the Social Security Act; (N) Services or benefits received under any educational assistance program; (0) Any benefit or other value received under an employee achievement award; (P) The value of…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.