37 U.S.C. § 404
Renumbered § 474]
[renumbered]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9
cases, 1965–2012 · leading case: Comm'r v. Stidger, 386 U.S. 287 (1967).
Comm'r v. Stidger, 386 U.S. 287 (1967). “" 37 U. S. C. § 404 (a) (1). Thus, the Commissioner's position recognizes, as do the relevant statutes and the military services themselves, that the "permanence" of location in civilian life cannot find a complete parallel in military life which necessarily contemplates…”
Laningham v. United States, 5 Cl. Ct. 146 (Ct. Cl. 1984). “area constituted “Temporary Additional Duty,” thereby qualifying him for a per diem travel allowance under 37 U.S.C. § 404 . Such a claim, if granted, would allegedly entitle plaintiff to nearly $75,000 for the period at issue in this litigation.”
Miglionico v. United States, 108 Fed. Cl. 512 (Fed. Cl. 2012). “37 U.S.C. § 404 was renumbered as 37 U.S.”
Kinnucan v. United States, 25 Cl. Ct. 355 (Ct. Cl. 1992). “Congress authorized reimbursement of travel and transportation expenses to members of the uniformed services separated from active duty in 37 U.S.C. § 404 (a), which provides, in pertinent part: [U]nder regulations prescribed by the Secretaries concerned, a member of a uniformed…”
Howe A. Stidger & Betty M. Stidger v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 355 F.2d 294 (9th Cir. 1965). “In making provisions for “travel and transportation allowances * * * upon a change of permanent station” (37 U.S. C. § 404(a). (Emphasis added.)), the Congress has recognized that a soldier’s “permanent station”, being subject to “change”, is never permanent in an enduring sense.”
United States v. Antonelli, 37 M.J. 932 (1993). “See 37 U.S.C. §§ 404 -411L Like BAQ overpayments, travel allowance overpayments are treated as indebtedness and recouped.”
McGarrh v. United States, 294 F. Supp. 669 (N.D. Miss. 1969). “37 U.S.C. § 404 provides that by appropriate regulation a member of a uniformed service is entitled to travel allowance “upon a change of permanent station * * * ”, with the amount not to exceed a monetary allowance in place of the cost of transportation not more than 70…”
United States v. Lewis, 19 M.J. 623 (1984). “We specified the following issues: I DID THE GOVERNMENT RETAIN A PROPERTY INTEREST IN THE TRAVEL AND TRANSPORTATION ALLOWANCE ADVANCED APPELLANT UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF 37 U.S.C. § 404 OR DID OWNERSHIP OF THE FUNDS TRANSFER TO APPELLANT UPON PAYMENT? II IF THE GOVERNMENT DID NOT…”
Tortorella v. United States, 486 F. Supp. 2d 159 (D. Mass. 2007). “37 U.S.C. § 404 (a). 3 Plaintiffs allege that the refusal of defendants to pay TDY allowances also contravenes a specific provision of the National Guard Organization Act, 32 U.”
— 37 U.S.C. § 404(a) — 1 case
Howe A. Stidger & Betty M. Stidger v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 355 F.2d 294 (9th Cir. 1965). “In making provisions for “travel and transportation allowances * * * upon a change of permanent station” (37 U.S. C. § 404(a). (Emphasis added.)), the Congress has recognized that a soldier’s “permanent station”, being subject to “change”, is never permanent in an enduring sense.”
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.