26 U.S.C. § 222

Repealed. Pub. L. 116–260, div. EE, title I, § 104(b)(1), Dec. 27, 2020, 134 Stat. 3041]

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 26 CasesGoogle Scholar

[repealed]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 2014–2017 · leading case: John Thomas Longino v. Comm'r of IRS, 593 F. App'x 965 (11th Cir. 2014).
John Thomas Longino v. Comm'r of IRS, 593 F. App'x 965 (11th Cir. 2014). “26 U.S.C. § 222 (a). The Tax Court found that “someone” had paid the tuition, but that none of Longino’s credit card or bank statements included payment information that corroborated his “vague testimony” that he had incurred the tuition expenses.”
Khinda v. Comm'r, 2017 T.C. Summary Opinion 32 (Tax Ct. 2017). · cites it 2× “According to respondent, in addition to other reasons that support the disallowance of the deduction, petitioner failed to substantiate the amount claimed.”
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.