26 U.S.C. § 214
Repealed. Pub. L. 94–455, title V, § 504(b)(1), Oct. 4, 1976, 90 Stat. 1565]
[repealed]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6
cases, 1939–1993 · leading case: Heublein, Inc. & Subsidiaries v. United States, 996 F.2d 1455 (2d Cir. 1993).
Heublein, Inc. & Subsidiaries v. United States, 996 F.2d 1455 (2d Cir. 1993). “In Lucky Stores, in attempting to ascertain the meaning of the phrase, the Tax Court relied upon 26 U.S.C. § 214 (Supp. IY 1974) and an IRS regulation for § 214 because both had utilized the phrase “substantially full-time.”
Charles E. Moritz v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 469 F.2d 466 (10th Cir. 1972). “26 U.S.C.A. § 214 (a) (1967). The Tax Court sustained the Government’s position, holding that the deduction was not available to Moritz as a man who has never married and rejecting the contention that the denial of the deduction to him by § 214 is arbitrary or unlawful.”
Dolores M. Hulick v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 357 F.2d 329 (2d Cir. 1966). “Code of 1954, § 214(c) (3) ( 26 U.S.C. § 214 ) (1958). We agree with the court below that an order of the Municipal Court for the District of Columbia granting custody of her child and an award of maintenance for herself and minor child against her husband did not effect a legal…”
Paul Lustig v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, Comm'r of Internal Revenue v. Halina Lustig, 274 F.2d 448 (9th Cir. 1960). “As counsel for the Commissioner has pointed out, when § 214 of the 1954 Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C.A. § 214 , was added, Congress intended to give a taxpayer in the position of Halina Lustig a tax benefit in addition to the exemption for a dependent.”
Gerlinger v. Comm'r, 106 F.2d 997 (9th Cir. 1939). “Upon consideration of stipulation of counsel for respective parties, and by direction of the court, ordered that this cause be remanded to the said United States Board of Tax Appeals for further proceedings by it in view of, and in accordance with, the provisions, particularly…”
Dreher v. Comm'r, 107 F.2d 1012 (6th Cir. 1939). “d into by the above named parties, through their respective attorneys, and filed in this court, and in accordance with said stipulation, it is now ordered by this Court that the above and foregoing proceeding be, and the same is hereby, remanded to the said Board of Tax Appeals…”
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.