§ 275-41 Tourism Board; funding.
§ C25-1 Establishment of Board.
There shall be in the City of Hudson a board known as the "City of Hudson Planning Board.
§ C32-1 Establishment of Review Board.
There shall be in the City of Hudson a review board known as the "Local Waterfront Revitalization Program Consistency Review Board."
§ C10-1 Examining Board of Plumbers.
The Examining Board of Plumbers of the City of Hudson shall be constituted in such manner, possess such power and authority and perform such duties as shall be prescribed by law.
§ 221-150 Plumbing Board to determine fixtures.
The Plumbing Board will be the sole judge of what constitutes a plumbing fixture.
§ C12-25 Common Council to be Board of Auditors.
§ C34-12 Boards and commissions to hold regular monthly meetings.
§ C25-12 Required reports of Chairman of Board.
§ C32-5 Matters to be referred to Board.
§ 29-1 Election to participate in County Mental Health Board.
§ C12-12 Records of Common Council, boards and commissions as evidence.
§ C25-7 Certain matters to be referred to Board.
§ 176-14 Board of Appeals for Building; creation; membership; powers and duties.
There shall be a Board of Appeals for Building of ... of the City of Hudson. The Board of Appeals for Building shall ... The powers and duties of the Board of Appeals for Building may ... procedures adopted by said Board.
The New York State Racing and Wagering Board.
Games of Chance > Definitions and word usage.
§ 325-35.2 Consistency review with Local Waterfront Revitalization Program.
§ 221-372 Approval of location transfer of metal sign required.
The metal sign issued by the Board of Plumbers shall not be transferred to a new location without first notifying the Board of Plumbers of Hudson, New York.
When a master plumber has been refused the current year's license, he may appeal to the Board of Health, which with the Examining Board of Plumbers shall jointly hear and determine such appeal.
§ C25-5 Members serve without compensation.
The members of the Board shall serve without compensation for their services as such members.
§ C32-4 Members to serve without compensation.
There shall be a Zoning Board of Appeals of seven members as provided by law.
§ C12-20 Common Council to provide offices and supplies.
This article is enacted and the Hudson City Planning Board is created pursuant to the powers given by Article 3 of the General City Law.
The individual, inspector, official, board, department or agency authorized to administer and enforce the provisions of this Plumbing Code as adopted or amended.
Plumbing > Definitions > Terms defined.
§ 221-371 Transfer of metal sign to other businesses prohibited.
The metal sign issued by the Board of Plumbers shall not be transferred to any partnership or corporation.
Application for such exemption shall be filed with the Assessor on or before the taxable status date on a form prescribed by the state board.
Zoning > Definitions > Terms defined.
§ C5-6 Other officers not to be surety.
Whenever by any provision of this Charter an officer or a member of a board or commission of the City is required to furnish a bond, no other officer nor member of any board or commission of the City shall be a surety upon such bond.
§ C25-11 Rules and regulations.
§ 221-385 Other codes, rules and regulations superseded.
Editor's Note: Amended at time of adoption of Code (see Ch. 1 , General Provisions, Art. I ). All other codes, rules and regulations of the Examining Board of Plumbers in conjunction with the Columbia County Board of Health relative to plumbing and drainage are hereby superseded.
§ C34-13 Publication of expenditures required.
§ 221-383 Method of serving notice; time limit for correction.
... the address registered by him with the Examining Board of Plumbers, but the failure of the master plumber to register will relieve the Examining Board of Plumbers from the requirement of giving notice ... of the day of serving or mailing, the Examining Board of Plumbers may proceed according to law.
§ 310-2 Review of proposed scale.
... system during the ensuing fiscal year, to the Board of Estimate and Apportionment, which shall have ... approve or modify such proposed water rents. The Board of Estimate and Apportionment shall forthwith ... to increase, the water rents authorized by the Board of Estimate and Apportionment as aforesaid.
§ C4-5 Appointments: how made.
All appointments and removals by any officer, board or commission shall be in writing over the hand of the officer or commissioner making the same and shall be filed with the City Clerk before taking effect.
§ C32-3 Certification of appointment of members.
The appointment of the Board shall be evidenced by a certificate in writing signed by the Mayor and filed forthwith in the office of the City Clerk.
Legal tender or a form of scrip or chip authorized by the board, any of which may be used at the discretion of the games of chance licensee.
A person who holds a master plumber's certificate of competency obtained after having successfully passed an examination given by the Examining Board of Plumbers of the City of Hudson.
§ 221-21 Suitable plumbing fixtures required.
Every structure intended for human occupancy shall be provided with a sufficient number of suitable plumbing fixtures. Such fixtures shall be generally located within the structure as required by the rules of this Board.
§ 221-177 Relief valve quality standards.
Any relief valve that meets the specifications of the National Board of Casualty and Surety Underwriters shall be considered acceptable. All relief waste from valves shall be run as an indirect waste.
§ 221-375 Renewals after conviction of violation prohibited.
No renewal slip shall be issued by the Board of Plumbers to any master plumber who has been convicted of willfully violating any of the provisions of this chapter.
§ C16-1 How constituted; organization; quorum; meetings; duties.
§ C25-8 Requests for reports.
§ 221-38 Modification of regulations authorized.
§ 221-154 Interconnections with other sources restricted.
... time except in strict compliance with the rules and regulations of the Board of Public Works and not until a signed permit has been issued by the Superintendent of said Board.
§ 221-323 Complaints; investigations and reports.
§ 221-369 Investigation of applicants for master plumber certificates.
§ 221-382 Notice of violation of rules.
... approved plan or specification for plumbing and drainage filed with any board or department, the Plumbing Inspector shall first serve a notice of the ... doing the work, if a registered plumber, and shall advise the Examining Board of such action.
§ C16-6 Transfer of funds between budgetary items.
§ C25-2 Members; appointment; terms of office; removal; filling of vacancies.
§ C16-3 Consideration of budget by Common Council.
§ C8-1 Duties in general.
§ C12-24 Power to require reports, information or estimates.
§ C32-2 Members; terms of office; filling of vacancies.
... from the outside. Unoccupied structures boarded up shall have a two-inch hole within the confines of the opening of the board on all present and future boarded-up windows and ... boarded-up structures must comply before being boarded up.
§ 176-15 Finding of hearing; variances.
§ C16-4 Power of Common Council to reduce budget.
§ C17-4 Completion and filing of roll.
§ C25-4 Appointment of Chairperson and staff; payment of expenses.
The Mayor shall annually appoint a Chairperson from the members of the Board. It shall have the power and authority to employ experts, clerks and a ... in all the appropriation that may be made by the Common Council for said Board.
§ 221-378 Enforcement of registration regulations.
§ 221-380 Cancellation of registration.
§ C6-1 Chief executive officer; enforcement of laws.
... laws, ordinances, bylaws, resolutions, rules and regulations of the Common Council and of the boards and commissions, are faithfully executed.
§ C6-5 Power of investigation.
The Mayor shall have power at all times to examine the books, vouchers and papers of any board, commission, officer or employee of the City, and to summon and examine under oath any person or persons in relation thereto.
§ C15-2 Public bidding required.
... shall be received at any time other than at a regular meeting of the Common Council or of such board or Commissioner in accordance with published notice under the provisions of this Charter.
§ C19-18 Powers of serving and executing civil process.
Policemen shall have the same power and authority which constables possess in civil cases and special proceedings, in serving and executing all process and papers in any action or proceedings in behalf of the City of Hudson, or any board, commission or officer of said City.
§ C34-4 Debt, how incurred; claims payments to be authorized.
No person shall have power to make any purchase or contract any debt on behalf of the City, except as herein provided. No account, claim or demand of any kind shall be audited, allowed or paid by the Common Council or by any board or commission unless the same was duly authorized or ratified by it.
§ C34-6 Judges, jurors and witnesses not disqualified by residence.
No person shall be disqualified from acting as judge, juror, witness or justice, by reason of being an inhabitant or freeholder in the City of Hudson, in any action or proceeding in which the City or any of its officers, boards or commissions is a party or interested.
§ C34-9 Officers not to be interested in contracts.
... or supplies furnished, or contract made, in pursuance of any action of the Common Council or any board or commission or officer of the City.
Alcoholic Beverages > Drinking in Public Places > Definitions.
This chapter is subject and subordinate to all the conditions and provisions contained in Article 9-A of the General Municipal Law and all amendments thereto and any and all rules and regulations and opinions adopted or to be adopted by the New York State Racing and Wagering Board.
§ 176-16 Record of hearing.
The Board of Appeals for Building shall keep a summary of testimony and a copy of every relevant notice or order, the request for a hearing, entries of appearance, findings of fact, if any, and the final determination, and such record shall be maintained as a public record.
§ 221-360 Issuance of permit.
No plumbing or drainage work shall be undertaken prior to the issuance of a permit therefor by the Plumbing Inspector. A permit may be issued only to a licensed master plumber duly registered with the Hudson Examining Board of Plumbers.
§ 221-377 Notice of location change; surrender of certificate and plate.
Every master plumber shall give immediate notice of any change in his place of business and, upon his retirement from business, shall surrender his certificate of registration and his plate to the Board of Plumbers.
§ 325-37 Powers and duties.
The Zoning Board of Appeals shall have all the ... to limit any power of said Board that is conferred by law: ... on request by any official, board or agency of the City to ... shall be issued unless the Board finds: That denial of a ... terms and conditions as the Board may prescribe.
§ C16-5 Veto of reductions by Mayor; how overridden.
§ C16-8 Tax rate limitation.
§ 91-1 Legislative findings and purpose.
§ 221-321 Vacation of buildings having defective plumbing or drainage.
§ 221-345 Examination; issuance of certificate; renewals; fees.
... better, he shall receive a certificate of competency from the Examining Board of Plumbers. He shall pay a fee as established by the Common Council for ... be renewed within 30 days preceding such expiration by application to the Board of Plumbers, with a renewal fee as established by the Common Council.
§ 221-349 Registration of master plumbers doing business required.
§ 325-40 Method of amendment.
§ C18-12 Uncollected taxes may be added to next budget.
§ C26-4 Review of estimates pertaining to materials purchases.
... of materials and supplies prior to the time when such estimates are to be forwarded to the Board of Estimate and Apportionment for inclusion in the following year's fiscal budget.
Ethics, Code of > Definitions.
§ 221-322 Stopping of improper construction or use.
§ 221-324 Ordering of changes or improvements.
§ 221-342 Certificate of competency required for plumbers.
... mains or sewerage system outside of the City of Hudson without first obtaining from the Examining Board of Plumbers of the City of Hudson a certificate of competency.
§ 221-351 Expiration of registrations; renewal fees.
... and shall be renewed within 30 days preceding such expiration by application to the Examining Board of Plumbers and upon payment of a renewal fee as established by the Common Council.
§ 221-368 Condemnation of plumbing; improvements required.
§ 318-4 Additional sale dates.
§ C8-4 Payment of claims against City.
§ C15-3 Receiving of bids; action thereon.
§ C25-10 Layouts of streets and building lots to be approved.
§ 152-10 Form, content and display of licenses.
§ 152-11 Supervision and inspection; alcoholic beverages.
§ 325-35 Site development plan approval.
§ 325-18 Schedule of Bulk and Area Regulations; density calculation.
§ 152-6 Application for license.
§ C12-10 Penalties for offenses.
§ C15-4 Public bidding not required in emergencies.
§ C19-17 Powers of arrest.
... of any ordinance or local law of the City of Hudson, or rule or regulation of any commission or board of said City.
§ C19-19 Payment of expenses of policemen.
§ C34-8 Claims for extra services.
§ 67-14 Insurance and health permit requirements.
... sufficiency by the Legal Advisor; and shall procure necessary permits that may be required by the Board of Health of Columbia County.
§ 221-3 Standards for outside connections to City systems.
... or corporation except a master plumber holding a certificate of competency issued by the Examining Board of Plumbers of the City of Hudson.
§ 221-4 Issuance of licenses restricted.
... upon payment of an additional fee as established by the Common Council. After that, the Examining Board of Plumbers will set a date for reexamination for such applicant.
§ 325-17 Industrial I-1 District.
§ C34-11 Increases in compensation during fiscal year.
§ 74-7 Appeal from denial, revocation or suspension of license.
§ 152-9 Denial of issuance; appeal; amendment of license.
§ 225-1 Injury to City property prohibited.
§ 325-17.4 Riverfront Gateway R-G District.
§ C12-21 Payment of audits vetoed by Mayor.
§ C17-3 Review of assessments.
§ C18-5 Delivery of warrant to City Treasurer.
§ 221-361 Applications for permits; fees.
§ 221-384 Penalties for offenses.
§ 325-34 Permits for conditional uses.
§ C22-17 Method of excavation; collection of costs; penalties.
§ 325-10 Multiple Residence-Conditional Office R-3 District.
§ 325-19 Detailed regulations for off-street parking.
§ 152-8 Investigation of applicant; issuance of license; fees.
§ 325-8 One- and Two-Family Residence R-2 District.
§ 325-9 One- and Two-Family Residence-Conditional Office R-2H District.
§ 325-31 Certificates of occupancy.
§ C4-4 Appointive officers and terms.
§ C12-8 Publication and record of ordinances and local laws.
§ 325-12 Residential Transitional Service Facility R-5 District.
§ 325-14 Central Commercial C-C District.
§ 325-16 General Commercial Transitional Service Facility G-C-T District.
§ C2-1 Officers and salaries.
§ C8-6 Reports of City Treasurer.
§ C12-7 General legislative powers.
§ C18-1 Preparation of City tax lists.
§ 221-370 Metal sign: deposit; required display.
§ 325-6 Subdivision or site plan approval required; local waterfront consistency determination required.
§ 325-32 Duties of Building Inspector.
§ 152-12 Procedure following conduct of games of chance.
§ 325-11 Three-Story Multiple Residence R-4 District.
§ 325-15 General Commercial G-C District.
§ 325-21 Additional regulations for parking and loading facilities and trailers.
§ 325-33 Penalties for offenses.
§ 65-8 Alcohol consumption in Waterfront Park for non-City-sponsored events.
§ 325-22 Supplementary regulations applying to residence uses.
§ 325-17.1 Core Riverfront C-R District.
§ 325-7 One-Family Residence R-1 District.
§ C3-6 Filling of vacancies in office.
§ C15-1 When bidding required; notice of bid and specifications.
§ 11-3 Emergency interim successors.
§ 65-9 Alcohol consumption in Waterfront Park for events sponsored or co-sponsored by City.
§ 325-17.2 Recreational Conservation R-C District.
§ 325-17.3 Institutional-Residential Conservation I-R-C District.
§ A333-59 Fire hydrant installation and use.
§ 169-3 Historic Preservation Commission.
§ 20-3 Standards of conduct.
§ 325-13 Residential Special Commercial R-S-C District.
§ 325-25 Supplementary sign regulations for all districts.
§ A333-31 Service installation requirements.
§ 152-13 Prohibited activities; penalties for offenses.


Investment income must be $3,400 or less for the year to qualify for the 2016 earned income credit.
The Earned Income Tax Credit, EITC or EIC as it is commonly know, is a tax benefit for working people with low to moderate income. It essential boosts their income by providing a refundable tax credit based on their income. Remember that you must have a job or other earned income in order to qualify for this tax credit. The government does not want encourage people not to work and to rely on government welfare by collecting this tax credit. Thus, there are certain income thresholds you must meet, but also certain income limitations which will prevent someone from claiming the earned income tax credit if they are making too much money.
To qualify for the earned income tax credit, taxpayers must meet certain requirements and file a tax return with IRS, even if you do not owe any tax or are not required to file a tax return. This is very important because many people do not file a tax return and then forgo the EITC when they would have otherwise qualified for it. For most people, the EITC reduces the amount of tax you owe and may give you a refund.
It will be very important to check with a tax preparer for more information. The IRS also has more information on claiming the earned income tax credit in 2016 on their website.
You need to file a tax return to claim EITC.
Important to remember that the 2012 American Tax Relief act extended the relief for married taxpayers claiming the EITC. This new tax expanded tax credit for taxpayers with three or more qualifying children and other provisions to December 31, 2017. Future laws could always change how the credit will apply to different taxpayer situations.
What are the Uniform Capitalization UNICAP § 263A Rules?
The UNICAP rules deny taxpayers immediate deduction for costs of producing property that taxpayer will use in its business or sell as inventory. Costs that must be capitalized (or added to the cost of inventory) include depreciation on equipment used in producing the property, employee’s wages allocable to production of the property, and an appropriate share of the rent and utilities expenses of the facility where property is produced. § 263A is for tangibles. This better matches expenses other related income and avoid un-wanted deferral of taxes by IRS.
If § 263A applies to property, they the must apply direct and indirect costs allocated to the property. A taxpayer cannot capitalize a cost if it would not be otherwise deductible. Same limitations in other deduction rules apply, for example the entertainment 50% limitation.
Direct Costs = Materials and labor directly attributable to some specific property produced are CAPITALIZED.
Indirect Costs = ALWAYS HAVE TO CAPITALIZE. Includes rent, utilities, insurance, an indirect labor costs, compensation that can’t be attributed, quality control and inspection, certain taxes on production facilities, costs of soliciting contracts to make property, hazardous waste costs, and storage costs.
Costs that are never capitalized – Selling and distribution expenses, overall management costs, research and development, deductible losses (§ 165), income taxes, product liability insurance, and strike costs. Even if they are arguable attributable to creating or buying some piece of tangible property.
Mixed- Service Costs – They are indirect business admin costs. Much in the same way that the regulations dictate that they must allocate indirect costs. They say that mixed service costs, some of them to pieces of property and deduct others. Statutory Formula.
How much do these costs directly benefit the making or buying of tangible property and how much do they not? Then split up. Split between deductibility. Personnel, Payroll departments, Security Departments.
Qualified Creative Exceptions. § 263A(h) – includes a personal efforts requirement, but does not mean that the taxpayer has to physically create the art in question. THINK ARTISTS. If they are doing something, it probably qualifiedunder 263A(h)- Not performing detailed design work, then does not qualify because he not exerting effort.
What does the IRS consider reasonable compensation?
This section often comes into play because the double taxation of corporations. If the officers and executives of a corporation are substantially identical with its major shareholders, a temptation may arise to distribute some of the earnings of the corporation under the label of additional compensation for services, rather than under the dividend label to save on taxes.
The reduction in dividend tax lessens that tax advantage of compensation over dividends, but in many situations a significant tax advantage for compensation remains. There are several exception for performance related compensation. However, what is reasonable compensation for the IRS is subject to lots of debate between the taxpayer and IRS on audit.
To find what is reasonable compensation, look at the market return. If investors are obtaining a high rate of return, executives should be compensated. Courts approach it many different ways. No indication how any of the factors should be weighed. Courts are not human resource departments. The test is unpredictable and leads to arbitrary conclusion.
No Super Personnel Department for Closely Held Corporation. The primary purpose of § 162(a)(1), which is to prevent dividends (or in some cases gifts), which are not deductible from corporate income, from being disguised as salary, which is. The IRS limits the amount of salary that a corporation can deduct from its income primarily in order to prevent the corporation from eluding the corporate income tax by paying dividends but calling them salary because salary is deductible and dividends are not.
Unreasonable compensation cases with can get very sticky. This is a lot like valuation, and courts rely heavily on expert testimony. How do you figure out if the compensation is reasonable? The IRS can really go after companies for unreasonable compensation and appeals might be necessary.
How does INDOPCO ruling affect the treatment of advertising costs as business expenses, which were generally deductible under § 162?
INDOPCO does not affect the treatment of advertising costs under § 162. These costs are generally deductible under that section even though advertising may have some future effect on business activities, as in the case of institutional or goodwill advertising. Maintain good image with public.
Taxpayers can immediately deduct promotional material that is given out to potential customers. Same thing for package design. However, trademarks are capital costs. Remember to capitalize the cost of the trademark. Deduct the package design but capitalize the facilitation of hiring the lawyer for the trademark. EVEN PAYING FOR MARKETING STRATEGY IS DEDUCTION.
Only in the unusual circumstance where advertising is directed towards obtaining future benefits significantly beyond those traditionally associated with ordinary product advertising or institutional goodwill advertising, must costs of that advertising me capitalized. What are benefits beyond advertising?
Advertising costs that create a separate and distinct asset must be capitalized. If there is ad campaign, but the only reason is to get admitted to a business organization. There is no other purpose but to create a separate and distinct asset. Make someone argument that you got something else.
What is the IRS definition of a Trade or Business?
TEST: To be engaged in a trade or business, the taxpayer must be involved in the activity with continuity and regularity and that the taxpayer’s primary purpose for engaging in the activity must be for income or profit. A sporadic activity, hobby, or amusement diversion does not qualify.
Allowance of a deduction constitutes something of a congressional blessing, an indication that Congress regards the expenditure in question as worthy and appropriate for the taxpayer to do. A finding of “necessity” cannot be made, however, if allowance of the deduction would frustrate sharply defined national or state policies proscribing particular types of conduct, evidence by some governmental declaration thereof.
The test of non-deductibility always is the severity and immediacy of the frustration resulting from allowance of the deduction. The flexibility of such a standard is necessary if we are to accommodate both the congressional intent to tax only net income, and the presumption against congressional intent to encourage violation of declared public policy.
POLICY: § 162 business expense deduction should not encourage taxpayers to violate the law.
Qualified Residence Income- Section 163- Itemized Deduction - Taxpayers are allowed to deduct most interest on mortgages that are secured by their personal residence. Very important politically because many people do it.
FIRST, the number of personal residence is limited to two. § 163(h)(4)(A)(ii). Second home only qualifies if it used 15 days a year. Married couples may deduct one each.
SECOND, the home in question must secure the mortgage loan whose interest obligation the taxpayer seeks to deduct.
A taxpayer who has sufficient equity in the residence may borrow against that equity, use the proceeds for any purpose whatever, and still deduct the interest on the debt.
There is criticism about the vertical equity problem. The rich get more subsidy than the poor in this manner. Lots of people take this exemption. Maybe the Federal Government is losing too much REVENUE on the program. Economic distortion problem. From the political perspective, lots of people bought their homes calculating their purchases with the interest deduction. All these rules apply to mobile homes.
Finally, the loan amounts generating deductible interest (but not directly the interest itself) are limited by dollar-level maximums: Interest with respect up to $1 millions of acquisition indebtedness can be deducted, as can interest with respect for up to $100,000 of home equity debt. These numbers have not been adjusted recently.
§ 165(a) – Losses incurred in a trade or business, or in activities engaged in for profits, are generally deductible. POLICY: The usual justification is that income tax should reach only the net income from business and profit-seeking activities, not gross receipts from those activities.
§ 262(a) provides a general casualty loss rule that no deduction shall be allowed “for personal living, or family expenses” The tax rules disallowing for deductions for gradual loss in wealth in effect presume conclusively that the amount by which the value of an asset is diminished over time is itself the best measure of the consumption value enjoyed by the taxpayer over the same period.
§ 165(c)(3) will allow you to claim a casualty loss deduction.
§ 165(h)(1) - Even if the property damage is a result of an acceptable sort of casualty, a casualty loss deduction is allowed only if and to the extent that the taxpayer’s loss exceeded $100.
§ 165(h)(2) which provides that the total amount of a taxpayer’s casualty losses for the year is deductible only to the extent is exceeds 10% of the taxpayer’s AGI in the same year. Sometimes specific exceptions to waive rules.
§ 165(h)(2)(B)- If the casualty gains exceed casualty losses, the gains are treated as capital gains and the losses are treated as capital losses.
Steps for Calculating the Deductions – Lesser of Adjusted Basis or Loss!
For each piece of property damaged, begin with FMV of the property before casualty.
Subtract the value of the property after the casualty.
Compare the result with the adjusted basis of the property, taking the lesser of the two numbers as the tentative casualty loss.
Subtract the amount of any recoveries from tortfeasors or insurance coverage.
If the taxpayer suffered more than one casualty, the steps above must be repeated for each piece of property in each additional casualty suffered.
Once the gains and loses from each casualty are computed, the taxpayer adds them together, then subtracts 10 percent of AGI. 1. That is the amount allowed for the deduction. 2. Check to see if this is bigger than the standard deduction.
History and Rationale of State and Local Tax Deduction - Best justified as a concession to Federalism. The Federal Government recognizes by this deduction that state and local governments have their own revenue needs. They can get money how they please. Consents to assess federal taxes only against the income that remains after state and local governments have exacted their assessments. POLICY: Equality issues if states provide different services and assess different kinds of taxes.
For example: Interest imposed on real property, for the general public welfare. Then it is property tax and is deductible. Distinguish from fees that increase that value of the property assessed. Allows foreign taxes, this is controversial. Not a lot of wealth taxes, other countries do. What kinds of wealth taxes are deductible?
NO FEES FOR USE or STATE PRIVILEGE! For example access to parks or a state university. These are not the type of state and local taxes that are deductible on a federal return.
§ 162 says that deductions shall be allowable for all ordinary and necessary expenses paid or incurred during the taxable year in carrying on any trade or business.An ordinary expense is one that is normally to be expected in view of the circumstances facing the business, and a “necessary” expense is one that is appropriate and helpful to the business.
Necessary means “appropriate and helpful” in the development of the taxpayer’s business. A requirement that a business show the absolute necessity of its expenses, in other words, would put the IRS in the position of reviewing every business decision to ensure that no money was spent unnecessarily.
Ordinary Expense- The question of whether expenditure is “ordinary” has been more controversial in the development of the business deduction. "Ordinary” means something that is “normal, usual, or customary” in the trade or business in which the taxpayer is engaged. Commonplace and used up in the course of a year. NOT CAPITAL EXPENSE.
The Principal function of the term “ordinary” is to clarify the distinction, often difficult, between those expenses that are currently deductible and those that are in the nature of capital expenditures, which, if deducible at all, must be amortized over the useful life of the asset.
There could be a public policy exception for some types of ordinary and necessary business expenses under § 162.
2. SCOPE: § 1031(a)(1): It is limited to property that is used in a business or held for investment.
a. There must be sign of continuous investment. Stuff cannot just sit there.
b. LITIGATED ISSUE: The cases often turn on this requirement.
4. Party claiming like-kind exchange must not be dealer in type of property exchanged.
1. The asset is not liquid, so the taxpayer might not have cash to pay the tax on gain.
2. Is the real justification, then, that a taxpayer who receives like-kind property should not be taxed because he has not changed the fundamental nature of his investment?
iii. Continuation of the basic nature of the taxpayer’s investment.
a. The properties must be in the same asset class.
3. In determining if two properties are of like kind, look first to the characterization of the properties in question.
a. If both are real property, the answer will almost be yes.
b. All real property is considered “like kind” for purposes of the statute, even if one is improved and the other is not, or if they are in different states.
iv. What qualifies as an “exchange”?
1. Three party exchanges are OK. Someone can buy real estate from a third party, then trade it or other real estate.
2. The IRS acknowledges that a properly structured three-party transaction such as this can qualify for Nonrecognition under § 1031.
3. If the law did not permit such three-party exchanges, the practical significance of § 1031 would be very limited.
1. Boot = Equalizing the transaction by throwing in cash. Does that mean anything thrown into the boot will spoil the transaction for § 1031 purposes?
a. § 1031(b) says that if the taxpayer has gain on the property she transfers and receives consideration both in the for of qualified (like-kind) property and nonqualified property or cash (generally referred to as “boot” in either case), then the gain realized on the transferred property will be recognized, but only up to the amount of the boot – the amount of cash or the fair market value of the nonqualified property.
i. It is necessary, in order to apply the rule of § 1031(b), to determine the taxpayer’s gain realized, which in turn requires a determination of the taxpayer’s amount realized – including the fair market value of the property.
ii. Is it really possible to defend § 1031 as a response to valuation difficulties?
c. Taxpayers with losses that they are disposing prefer not to qualify under § 1031.
a. Decreased by the amount of any money received (BOOT) by the taxpayer in the transaction; In order to reflect the allocation of basis to the cash received by the taxpayer.
b. Increased by the amount of any gain recognized by the taxpayer on the transaction;. To ensure that he is not taxed twice. The total basis to which the taxpayer is entitled is his old basis in the transferred property, plus his gain recognized on the transfer.
c. Decreased by the amount of any loss recognized by the taxpayer on the transaction.
d. INCREASE BASIS BY MONEY PAID. Not specified in statute: It is that the basis in the acquired property must be increased by any money paid by the taxpayer as part of the like-kind exchange.
i. The regulations state that when additional consideration is given in a § 1031 transaction, the basis of the acquired property is the basis of the transferred property, increased by the amount of the additional consideration.
2. POLICY: Most recognize built in gain.


28B.80.035 Council review of new degree programs, procedure.
28B.80.040 Members — Selection — Special duties of certain public officials as members.
28B.80.050 Voting power limited to citizen members.
28B.80.070 Members — Filling vacancies.
28B.80.080 Chairman — Bylaws — Executive coordinator of services — Deputy coordinators and other employees and consultants — Expenditure of council funds, limitation.
28B.80.090 Council meetings, notice of — Quorum.
28B.80.110 Members — Compensation and travel expenses.
[1985 c 370 § 16; 1984 c 287 § 65; 1975-'76 2nd ex.s. c 34 § 77; 1969 ex.s. c 277 § 12. Formerly RCW 28.89.110.] Recodified as RCW 28B.76.080 pursuant to 2004 c 275 § 77.
28B.80.120 Federal funds, private gifts or grants.
28B.80.129 Staff support for high-technology coordinating board.
28B.80.130 Council as clearinghouse for technological education — Scope.
Repealed by 1983 1st ex.s. c 72 § 16.
28B.80.131 Distinguished professorship trust fund program — Board to administer.
28B.80.132 Graduate fellowship trust fund program — Board to administer.
28B.80.133 Higher educational opportunities program — Administration — Staff member as coordinator.
Cross-reference section, decodified August 1990.
28B.80.134 Board to administer future teachers conditional scholarship program.
28B.80.135 Board to administer nurses conditional scholarship program.
28B.80.140 Special advisory council on technological education — Representation on — Duties.
28B.80.150 Board to coordinate state participation within student exchange compact programs — Designate certifying officer.
[1985 c 370 § 17; 1974 ex.s. c 4 § 3.] Recodified as RCW 28B.76.640 pursuant to 2004 c 275 § 77.
28B.80.160 Board to coordinate state participation within student exchange compact programs — Criteria — Washington interstate commission on higher education professional student exchange program trust fund.
[2004 c 275 § 23; 1995 c 217 § 1; 1985 c 370 § 18; 1974 ex.s. c 4 § 4.] Recodified as RCW 28B.76.645 pursuant to 2004 c 275 § 77.
28B.80.170 Board to coordinate state participation within student exchange compact programs — Advice to governor, legislature.
[1985 c 370 § 19; 1974 ex.s. c 4 § 5.] Recodified as RCW 28B.76.650 pursuant to 2004 c 275 § 77.
28B.80.175 Forum for education issues — Task force.
[2004 c 275 § 17; 1994 c 222 § 3.] Recodified as RCW 28B.76.330 pursuant to 2004 c 275 § 77.
28B.80.180 Board may develop and administer demonstration projects.
[1989 c 306 § 2.] Recodified as RCW 28B.76.530 pursuant to 2004 c 275 § 77.
28B.80.200 Board as state commission for federal law purposes.
[2004 c 275 § 5; 1985 c 370 § 20; 1975 1st ex.s. c 132 § 9.] Recodified as RCW 28B.76.110 pursuant to 2004 c 275 § 77.
28B.80.210 Board to administer certain federal programs.
[1985 c 370 § 21; 1975 1st ex.s. c 132 § 12. Prior: 1969 ex.s. c 263 § 3. Formerly RCW 28.90.120, 28B.81.030.] Recodified as RCW 28B.76.510 pursuant to 2004 c 275 § 77.
28B.80.220 Additional powers and duties of council.
28B.80.230 Federal funds, private gifts or grants, board to administer.
[1985 c 370 § 22; 1975 1st ex.s. c 132 § 14. Prior: 1969 ex.s. c 263 § 5. Formerly RCW 28.90.140, 28B.81.050.] Recodified as RCW 28B.76.520 pursuant to 2004 c 275 § 77.
28B.80.240 Student financial aid programs, board to administer.
[1985 c 370 § 23; 1975 1st ex.s. c 132 § 15. Prior: 1969 ex.s. c 263 § 7. Formerly RCW 28.90.160, 28B.81.070.] Recodified as RCW 28B.76.500 pursuant to 2004 c 275 § 77.
28B.80.245 Washington scholars award and Washington scholars-alternate award.
[2004 c 275 § 24; 1999 c 159 § 3; 1995 1st sp.s. c 5 § 3; 1990 c 33 § 560; 1988 c 210 § 1.] Recodified as RCW 28B.76.660 pursuant to 2004 c 275 § 77.
28B.80.246 Washington scholars award waivers or grants — Transfers between colleges and universities.
[2004 c 275 § 25; 1995 1st sp.s. c 5 § 4; 1988 c 210 § 2.] Recodified as RCW 28B.76.665 pursuant to 2004 c 275 § 77.
Repealed by 1985 c 461 § 16.
Reviser's note: RCW 28B.80.250 was amended by 1985 c 370 § 24, effective January 1, 1986, without reference to its repeal by 1985 c 461 § 16. It has been decodified for publication purposes under RCW 1.12.025.
28B.80.255 Washington award for excellence — Use of academic grant.
[1992 c 83 § 3; 1992 c 50 § 2; 1991 c 255 § 6.] Repealed by 2004 c 275 § 75.
28B.80.256 Washington award for excellence conversion of grant to recognition award — Rules.
28B.80.260 Management employee performance evaluations — Procedures and forms.
Reviser's note: RCW 28B.80.260 was amended by 1985 c 370 § 25, effective January 1, 1986, without reference to its repeal by 1985 c 461 § 16. It has been decodified for publication purposes under RCW 1.12.025.
28B.80.265 Washington award for excellence — Rules.
[1992 c 83 § 4; 1991 c 255 § 7.] Repealed by 2004 c 275 § 75.
28B.80.270 Management employee performance evaluations — Merit increases in salary.
Reviser's note: RCW 28B.80.270 was amended by 1985 c 370 § 26, effective January 1, 1986, without reference to its repeal by 1985 c 461 § 16. It has been decodified for publication purposes under RCW 1.12.025.
28B.80.272 Washington award for vocational excellence — Grants — Definitions.
[1995 1st sp.s. c 7 § 8.] Recodified as RCW 28B.76.670 pursuant to 2004 c 275 § 77.
28B.80.280 Statewide transfer of credit policy and agreement — Board to establish with assistance of institutions of higher education, when.
[2004 c 275 § 10; 1998 c 245 § 23; 1985 c 370 § 27; 1983 c 304 § 1.] Recodified as RCW 28B.76.240 pursuant to 2004 c 275 § 77.
28B.80.290 Statewide transfer of credit policy and agreement — Requirements.
[2004 c 55 § 5; 1983 c 304 § 2.] Repealed by 2004 c 275 § 75; and subsequently recodified as RCW 28B.76.2401 by the code reviser.
Reviser's note: RCW 28B.80.290 was repealed by 2004 c 275 § 75 without cognizance of its amendment by 2004 c 55 § 5; and subsequently recodified as RCW 28B.76.2401 by the code reviser. For rule of construction concerning sections amended and repealed in the same legislative session, see RCW 1.12.025.
28B.80.295 Uniform academic transfer policies for students completing state community college associate degrees.
Cross-reference section, decodified September 1985.
[1985 c 370 § 1.] Recodified as RCW 28B.76.010 pursuant to 2004 c 275 § 77.
[1985 c 370 § 2.] Recodified as RCW 28B.76.020 pursuant to 2004 c 275 § 77.
[1985 c 370 § 3.] Repealed by 2004 c 275 § 75.
[2004 c 275 § 7; 2003 c 130 § 3; 1997 c 369 § 10; 1996 c 174 § 1; 1993 c 363 § 6; 1985 c 370 § 4.] Recodified as RCW 28B.76.210 pursuant to 2004 c 275 § 77.
28B.80.335 Prioritized capital project lists for higher education institutions.
[2004 c 275 § 8; 2003 1st sp.s. c 8 § 2.] Recodified as RCW 28B.76.220 pursuant to 2004 c 275 § 77.
[2003 c 130 § 4; 1985 c 370 § 5.] Repealed by 2004 c 275 § 75.
28B.80.345 Statewide strategic master plan for higher education.
[2004 c 275 § 6; 2003 c 130 § 2.] Recodified as RCW 28B.76.200 pursuant to 2004 c 275 § 77.
28B.80.350 Coordination of activities with segments of higher education.
[1993 c 77 § 2; 1992 c 60 § 3; 1988 c 172 § 4; 1985 c 370 § 6.] Recodified as RCW 28B.76.290 pursuant to 2004 c 275 § 77.
[2004 c 275 § 18; 1998 c 245 § 24; 1995 1st sp.s. c 9 § 12; 1990 c 33 § 561; 1986 c 136 § 20; 1985 c 370 § 7.] Recodified as RCW 28B.76.540 pursuant to 2004 c 275 § 77.
[1985 c 370 § 8.] Recodified as RCW 28B.76.120 pursuant to 2004 c 275 § 77.
[2004 c 275 § 2; 1985 c 370 § 9.] Recodified as RCW 28B.76.100 pursuant to 2004 c 275 § 77.
[2002 c 348 § 1; 2002 c 129 § 1; 1985 c 370 § 10.] Recodified as RCW 28B.76.040 pursuant to 2004 c 275 § 77.
[2004 c 275 § 3; 2002 c 129 § 2; 1985 c 370 § 11.] Recodified as RCW 28B.76.050 pursuant to 2004 c 275 § 77.
[1985 c 370 § 12.] Recodified as RCW 28B.76.060 pursuant to 2004 c 275 § 77.
[1985 c 370 § 13.] Recodified as RCW 28B.76.070 pursuant to 2004 c 275 § 77.
28B.80.430 Director — Duties — Board use of state agencies.
[2004 c 275 § 4; 1987 c 330 § 301; 1985 c 370 § 14.] Recodified as RCW 28B.76.090 pursuant to 2004 c 275 § 77.
28B.80.440 Interstate discussions and agreements about standards and programs for teachers, administrators, and educational staff associates.
[1987 c 40 § 1.] Repealed by 2004 c 275 § 75.
28B.80.442 Interstate discussions — Support and services of western interstate commission on higher education.
[1987 c 40 § 2.] Repealed by 2004 c 275 § 75.
28B.80.450 Placebound students — Study of needs.
[1990 c 288 § 1.] Repealed by 2004 c 275 § 75.
28B.80.500 Branch campuses — Adjustment of enrollment lids.
[1989 1st ex.s. c 7 § 2.] Repealed by 2004 c 57 § 7; and repealed by 2004 c 275 § 75.
28B.80.510 Branch campuses — Partnership between community colleges and four-year institutions.
[2004 c 57 § 5; 1989 1st ex.s. c 7 § 8.] Recodified as RCW 28B.45.080 pursuant to 2004 c 57 § 6 and 2004 c 275 § 79.
28B.80.520 Branch campuses — Facilities acquisition.
[1989 1st ex.s. c 7 § 9.] Repealed by 2004 c 57 § 7; and repealed by 2004 c 275 § 75.
28B.80.530 Branch campuses — Demonstration project.
Repealed by 1990 c 288 § 9.
28B.80.540 Branch campuses — Demonstration project eligibility.
28B.80.550 Advisory committee on access to education for students with disabilities.
Repealed by 1995 c 269 § 901, effective July 1, 1995.
28B.80.555 Advisory committee — Duties.
28B.80.570 Rural natural resources impact areas — Program for dislocated workers — Definitions.
28B.80.575 Rural natural resources impact areas — Program for dislocated workers — Duties.
28B.80.580 Rural natural resources impact areas — Program for dislocated workers — Placebound students — Waiver from tuition and fees.
28B.80.585 Rural natural resources impact areas — Program for dislocated workers — Priority.
28B.80.600 Coordination of telecommunications planning.
[1996 c 137 § 9; 1990 c 208 § 9.] Repealed by 2004 c 275 § 75.
28B.80.610 Higher education institutional responsibilities.
[2003 c 130 § 5; 1993 c 363 § 2.] Repealed by 2004 c 275 § 75.
28B.80.612 Identification of methods to reduce administrative barriers.
[1998 c 245 § 25; 1993 c 363 § 3.] Repealed by 2004 c 275 § 75.
28B.80.614 Study of higher education system operations.
[1993 c 363 § 4.] Repealed by 2004 c 275 § 75.
28B.80.616 Reports to legislature and citizens on postsecondary educational system — Reports to board from state board for community and technical colleges and state institutions of higher education — Cooperation with independent colleges and universities.
[1993 c 363 § 5.] Repealed by 2004 c 275 § 75.
28B.80.620 Washington teacher training pilot program — Higher education coordinating board powers and duties — Reports.
[2004 c 275 § 26; 1999 c 177 § 2.] Recodified as RCW 28B.76.700 pursuant to 2004 c 275 § 77.
28B.80.622 Washington teacher training pilot program — Established.
[1999 c 177 § 3.] Recodified as RCW 28B.76.705 pursuant to 2004 c 275 § 77.
28B.80.624 Washington teacher training pilot program — Gifts, grants, endowments.
[1999 c 177 § 4.] Recodified as RCW 28B.76.710 pursuant to 2004 c 275 § 77.
28B.80.626 Higher education coordinating board teacher training pilot account.
[2004 c 275 § 27; 1999 c 177 § 5.] Recodified as RCW 28B.76.715 pursuant to 2004 c 275 § 77.
28B.80.800 Task force on international education and cultural exchanges.
Expired June 30, 1995, pursuant to 1993 c 382 § 5.
28B.80.801 Task force — Purposes.
28B.80.802 Task force — Receipt of gifts and grants.
28B.80.803 Task force — Reports.
28B.80.805 Border county higher education opportunity project — Findings — Intent.
[2003 c 159 § 1; 2002 c 130 § 1; 1999 c 320 § 1.] Recodified as RCW 28B.76.680 pursuant to 2004 c 275 § 77.
28B.80.806 Border county higher education opportunity project — Created.
[2003 c 159 § 2; 2002 c 130 § 2; 2000 c 160 § 3; 1999 c 320 § 2.] Recodified as RCW 28B.76.685 pursuant to 2004 c 275 § 77.
28B.80.807 Border county higher education opportunity project — Administration.
[2003 c 159 § 3; 2002 c 130 § 4; 1999 c 320 § 3.] Recodified as RCW 28B.76.690 pursuant to 2004 c 275 § 77.
28B.80.810 Transfer standards pilot project.
[2003 c 131 § 2.] Recodified as RCW 28B.76.720 pursuant to 2004 c 275 § 77.
28B.80.900 Chapter not to affect other administrative official or agency powers and duties.
28B.80.910 Severability — 1969 ex.s. c 277.
[1969 ex.s. c 277 § 15. Formerly RCW 28.89.910.] Repealed by 2004 c 275 § 75.
28B.80.911 Severability — 1985 c 370.
[1985 c 370 § 107.] Repealed by 2004 c 275 § 75.
28B.80.912 Effective dates — 1985 c 370.
[1985 c 370 § 108.] Repealed by 2004 c 275 § 75.


Before DAVIS, JONES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
Stangel is a well-educated2 actor and acting instructor who runs a flea market business on the side. Over a number of years between 1982 and 1995, he failed to pay income taxes and had repeated skirmishes with the Internal Revenue Service. He has also filed previous Chapter 13 bankruptcies; this is his third one.
The instant case was commenced February 2, 1996. The IRS was his sole creditor. The service filed a secured claim for unpaid tax assessments dating from 1982, 1983, 1984, 1987, and 1988; an unsecured priority claim for the years 1989-95; and an unsecured general claim for penalties and interest from 1989-95.
Stangel responded by initiating two adversary proceedings. The first concerned the amount of taxes owed by the debtor. The bankruptcy court entered a final judgment of the amount owed on August 12, 1997. Ten days later, Stangel timely filed motions for a new trial and to amend judgment and to amend the findings of fact and conclusions of law. In an order entered September 8, 1997, the bankruptcy court denied these motions. On September 5, Stangel filed an amended motion for additional findings of fact and conclusions of law, which the bankruptcy court denied on September 21. Stangel's notice of appeal was filed on October 1, 1997.
Stangel's second adversary proceeding, filed in September 1997, was titled a "complaint to avoid lien." Stangel alleged therein that he was entitled to exercise the avoidance powers of the bankruptcy trustee under 11 U.S.C. §545(2) and thereby avoid attachment of tax liens to his personalty.
In response to this second proceeding, the bankruptcy court rejected Stangel's standing to pursue the avoidance action, on the grounds that §545 states only that "the trustee" may pursue such claims. Alternatively, the court held that the provision does not substantively permit the avoidance of a federal tax lien, because the tax law contains a more stringent standard for defeat of a federal tax lien pursuant to IRC §6323. The district court affirmed these holdings. Stangel now appeals.
Because Stangel's appeal from the bankruptcy court to the district court in the first adversary proceeding was not timely, we lack jurisdiction.
Whether Stangel's appeal was timely depends on (1) when the district court entered its orders denying the first of Stangel's successive post-judgment motions, and (2) when Stangel filed his notice of appeal. The dates of these events are as follows: (1) September 8, 1997, when the bankruptcy court entered judgment denying debtor's first post-judgment motion; and (2) October 1, 1997, the date of Stangel's notice of appeal.
Bankruptcy Rule 8002(a) allows a debtor ten days from the date of entry on an order disposing of a Rule 59-type motion in which to file his notice of appeal. That a debtor files a second round of post-judgment motions has been held ineffective to extend this time period.3 See In re Stangel, 68 F.3d 857, 859 (5th Cir. 1995). Stangel's October 1, 1997 notice of appeal was filed more than 10 days after the bankruptcy court's September 8, 1997 judgment denying his first post-judgment motion, and his second post-judgment motion was successive and did not toll the time period. Under Rule 8002(a), his appeal to the district court was thus untimely.
Because Stangel's appeal to the district court was untimely, the district court lacked jurisdiction over the appeal. When the district court lacks jurisdiction over an appeal from a bankruptcy court, this Court lacks jurisdiction as well. See In re Don Vicente Macias, Inc., 168 F.3d 209, 211 (5th Cir. 1999). We therefore dismiss for want of jurisdiction.
Two cases - one from the Fifth Circuit and one from the Supreme Court - lead us to conclude that Stangel lacks standing to pursue his avoidance motion. Matter of Hamilton, 125 F.3d 292 (5th Cir. 1997), addressed the standing of a Chapter 13 debtor to exercise avoidance powers available to a trustee under §544 of the Bankruptcy Code.5 While acknowledging earlier case law to the contrary, Hamilton stated that " [m]ore recently, bankruptcy courts addressing the issue have receded from their earlier opinions and refused to use §544 to allow Chapter 13 debtors to exercise strong-arm powers reserved for Chapter 13 trustees." Hamilton, 125 F.3d at 296. The court went on to reason that a Chapter 13 debtor does not have standing to pursue a §544 avoidance through 11 U.S.C. §1303, a catch-all clause that allows the debtor "the rights and powers of a trustee" under 11 U.S.C. §§ 363(b), (d), (e), (f) and (l). See Hamilton, 125 F.3d at 296. The court did find, however, that since the debtor's suit satisfied the criteria of §522(h), which gives the debtor power to avoid the fixing of certain liens on otherwise exempt property, the debtor had standing to avoid the foreclosure sale under that provision. See Hamilton, 125 F.3d at 298.
Petitioner argues that in the absence of such restrictive language [stating that only the trustee may make the claim], no party in interest is excluded. This theory - that the expression of one thing indicates the inclusion of others unless exclusion is made explicit - is contrary to common sense and common usage. Many provisions of the Bankruptcy Code that do not contain an express exclusion cannot sensibly be read to extend to all parties in interest.
Hartford, 120 S. Ct. at 1948.
Stangel's property on which he seeks to avoid a lien is not exempt from a federal tax lien. See §522(c) (2) (B).
Stangel has a B.A. from Michigan State University and a law degree from LaSalle University.
The latter post-judgment motion is treated as a motion under Federal Rule 60(b), with similar effects on timeliness. Stangel does not contend that he seeks review of the denial of his second round of post trial motions on the same standard that applies to Rule 60(b).
§545 reads: "The trustee may avoid the fixing of a statutory lien on property of the debtor...." See 11 U.S.C. §545.
Specifically, the debtor wished to use §544 to avoid a foreclosure sale on his homestead that occurred just before bankruptcy. See Hamilton, 125 F.3d at 295.
The Government cites two circuit court cases supporting its position that §545 cannot be used to avoid federal tax liens. See In re Berg, 121 F.3d 535 (9th Cir. 1997) and In re Walter, 45 F.3d 1023 (6th Cir. 1995). Furthermore, we note that if bankruptcy law permitted freer avoidance of federal tax liens, it would create a huge incentive to file bankruptcy.


text:
Law Web: Whether father is liable to pay marriage expenses of daughter if mother is earning income?
Whether father is liable to pay marriage expenses of daughter if mother is earning income?
daughter and he should not be left free of such liability.
liable to share the responsibility in pro-rata to their income.
maintainable before the Family Court is unsustainable in law.
Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumannor is the appellant in Mat.A.No.
respondent/husband in the same case is the appellant in Mat.A.No.
for which she sent a reply expressing her unwillingness to join him.
12.04.82 onwards. She was living separately from the petitioner.
relatives. She was accusing him as a womanizer and a drunkard.
relationship even with his close relatives and several women.
home with children. Thereafter, he never cared to look after her.
caring their parents and they are in enemical terms with each other.
family is the root cause for his misbehaviour and bad character.
prayed for dismissal of the same.
petitioner and he is liable to return the same.
property which he had sold to the second wife vide sale deed No.
property or creating any encumbrance.
he prayed for dismissal of the petition.
born in the relationship with the first respondent.
purchased the property, the sister of the first respondent, Smt.
of the same is ill motivated and they will teach a lesson to her.
recorded in OP.No.613/2003 treating that case as a leading case.
respondent in OP.No.613/2003 has filed Mat.A.No.681/2007.
of return of gold ornaments directed him to pay a sum of Rs.
parties are party to that proceedings alone.
the 1st respondent for restitution of conjugal rights as OP(HMA).
No.82/2014 dated 6.1.2017 between Mrs. Nisha Rani v.
11 and granted the entire amount claimed under that head.
v. Rama Sisodia (2015 KHC 2303), Rajesh Shivhare v.
KHC 2786), Rohin Kumar v. Silvia (2015 KHC 2930), Imlesh v.
David M.D v. K.G. Mercy (2013 (3) KHC 739), Jagbir Singh V.
Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli (2006 KHC 621) and Suman v.
Gajender (2015 KHC 3201) in support of his case.
Musturappa and Others (2006 KHC 3719), Viswambharan v.
rise to a reasonable apprehension of such danger".
leading to constant disturbance of mental peace of other party"
subsequent event could have been looked into by court."
reported in Vinita Saxena v. Pankaj Pandit (2006 KHC 749).
attempts made for that purpose will amount to desertion."
cruelty and husband is entitled to get divorce on that ground."
reported in Rohin Kumar v. Silvia (2015 KHC 2930), Imlesh v.
by wife will amount to mental cruelty."
dissolved by relying of flimsy, shallow and baseless allegations."
will not by itself contribute to the factum of cruelty."
33. In the decision reported in David M.D. v. Mercy K.G.
35. In the unreported decision of the Delhi High Court bin M.F.
wife to stay away from the matrimonial home.
Chandra Kapour v. Ritu Kapour (2015 KHC 2020).
continue the marital tie, not possible will amount to mental cruelty.
Mat.A.No.681/2007 filed has to be considered.
dispute. It is also not in dispute that husband filed O.P.(HMA)No.
that there was desertion on the part of the wife.
the part of the wife.
Magistrate-I, Ettumanoor was ended in acquittal.
of cruelty u/s.13(1) (ia) of Hindu Marriage Act.
find any reason to interfere with the same. So the Mat.A.No.
681/2007 fails and the same is hereby dismissed.
his right in that property as per Ext.B13 document No.1338/83.
is not entitled to get any relief in respect of the same.
cents each and later they have sold the same separately.
will go to show that he had taken loan from the Department.
not find any reason to interfere with that finding.
and we do not find any reason to interfere with the same.
nothing mentioned in the counter statement regarding the same.
marriage was conducted by the mother by taking loan.
reported in Jagdish Jugtawat v. Manju Lata (2002 KHC 1275).
Section 125 Cr.PC in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.
54. In the decision reported in Binulal K. V. Roopa R.S.
dictum is not applicable to the facts of this case.
55. In the decision reported in Commissioner of Gift Tax v.
57. In the decision reported in Smt. Sneh Prabha v.
even a party to that proceedings at the instance of the mother.
58. In the decision reported in Kirtikant D. Vadodaria v.
minor son, unmarried daughters and aged or infirmed parents.
can be fixed on both.
60. In the decision reported in Thadisina Chinna Babu Rao, S/o.
religion to which she belongs.
the first respondent and the birth of the children are not in dispute.
expenses and marriage expenses of the unmarried daughter.
actual expenses incurred for the marriage of the daughter.
to interfere with the same.
coming to the matrimonial home and taking the gold ornaments.
other aspects the same has to be confirmed.
order passed by the court below is hereby confirmed.
parties are directed to bear their respective costs in all the appeals.

matches: v. v. v. v. v. v. V. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. V. v. v. v.


text:
In VANDA Pharmaceuticals v. West-Ward Pharmaceuticals, the patent at issue was directed to a treatment for schizophrenia and recited a personalized dosage of iloperidone based on a genetic test and the patient’s metabolization rate of iloperidone. Here, the Federal Circuit held that the claims were not directed to a law of nature, as held in the District Court, and were therefore patentable subject matter.
In Exergen Corp. v. Kaz USA, Inc., the patent in question was directed to a body temperature detector and related method. Multiple readings are taken while laterally moving the detector across the forehead, taking the peak reading and apply a constant coefficient. The Federal Circuit held it to be patentable subject matter, noting that there was no proof that the invention was known to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the patent application. Interestingly, the majority did not seem to be bothered that body temperature is naturally occurring (a law of nature).
In Core Wireless v. LG Electronics, the Federal Circuit found patentable subject matter in a Graphical User Interface (GUI) having a limited menu leading to an application summary with some features of the application available, while the application was in an unlaunched state. Think of this as peeking into the application with limited functionality and without opening the application. The menu also allows for directly launching a file in the application. Here, the Court found the claims not to be directed to an abstract idea, which ended the Alice inquiry. Further, it was clear that even if the Court had identified an abstract idea, the claims would have survived the second part of the Alice test.
In Berkheimer v. HP Inc., the Federal Circuit found some dependent claims to be directed to patentable subject matter. The patent involved parsing files into multiple objects and tagging the objects to create relationships, then comparing the objects to archived objects to eliminate redundant storage and improve performance. This case is also important for the fact that summary judgment at trial was found improper, because whether the invention is well known, routine or conventional is an underlying fact question for which the defendant had offered no evidence. Further, the Court noted that disclosure in the prior art alone does not automatically mean it was well known, routine or conventional.
In Ex Parte Gershfang, the PTAB found the claims to be directed to an improvement in computer functionality, citing to the Court’s Enfish decision. The invention was directed to creating barriers in a virtual environment to induce a user’s avatar toward an advertisement.
The other PTAB case, Ex Parte Kotanko, involved a method of treating a patient undergoing periodic hemodialysis treatments at increased risk for death and treating with sufficient lead time to decrease the patient’s risk of death. In finding patentable subject matter, the PTAB held the invention was not a phenomenon of nature, mental process or abstract idea, avoiding part two of the Alice test.
In Aatrix Software, Inc. v. Green Shades Software, Inc., the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded to allow the patent holder to amend the complaint to add factual allegations regarding technical improvements of and problems solved by the claimed invention. The Court’s reasoning was that, if taken as true, the allegations contradict the District Court conclusion that the invention was conventional or routine.
Finally, two cases in which the Supreme Court petitions were filed will be important to watch. In R&L Carriers, Inc. v. Intermec Technologies Corp., the petitioner asks the Court two questions. The first question is whether step one of the Alice test can be addressed without looking at individual claim elements, as has been happening in cases involving patentable subject matter. The second question is whether the Alice test allows for factual inquiries. In Cleveland Clinic Foundation v. True Health Diagnostics, LLC, the petitioner asked the Supreme Court to explain the role of evidence in the patentable subject matter analysis. Patentees of course, are hoping to prevent summary findings of ineligible subject matter by the trial court judge using fact-based pleading regarding the invention in the initial complaint or answer. Indeed, as the PTAB held in Ex Parte Johnson, involving an IBM invention directed to managing customer discounts following the receipt of a cancelation notice requested by the customer, the PTAB is “…aware of no controlling authority that requires the Office to provide factual evidence to support a finding that a claim is directed to an abstract idea.” Outcomes like Ex Parte Johnson could become less likely based on the Supreme Court decision in R&L Carriers and/or Cleveland Clinic.
DISCLAIMER: This article is provided for informational purposes only; it is not and should not be construed as legal advice and no attorney-client relationship is created by the posting or reading of the article. Further, no liability to the reader is created by the provision or reading of this article. For any potential legal issue, including but not limited to an intellectual property issue, you should seek competent legal advice from a properly licensed attorney familiar with the issue.

matches: v. v. v. v. v. v. v.


1. In an indictment for a conspiracy under § 5440 Rev.Stat., the conspiracy must be sufficiently charged: it cannot be aided by averments of acts done by one or more of the conspirators in furtherance of the object of the conspiracy.
2. The procuring by two or more directors of a national banking association of a declaration of a dividend by the bank at a time when there are no net profits to pay it is not a willful misappropriation of the money of the association within the provisions of § 5204 Rev.Stat., and an allegation of a conspiracy to do that act is not an allegation of a conspiracy to commit an offence against the United States.
Indictment against two directors of a national bank for conspiracy to defraud the bank.
the parties to such conspiracy shall be liable to a penalty of not less than $1,000 and to imprisonment not more than two years."
"Every president, director, cashier, teller, clerk, or agent of any [banking] association who embezzles, abstracts, or willfully misapplies any of the moneys, funds, or credits of the association, . . . or who makes any false entry in any book, report, or statement of the association, with intent in either case to injure or defraud the association, or any company, body politic or corporate, or any individual person, or to deceive any officer of the association, or any agent appointed to examine the affairs of such association, . . . shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall be imprisoned not less than five years nor more than ten."
The defendants were indicted under section 5440 of the Revised Statutes. The indictment contained two counts. The first count charged in substance as follows: that Britton was the president and a director of the National Bank of the Missouri, in St. Louis, a national banking association organized under the act of Congress, and that Bates was vice-president and a director of the same association; that Britton and Bates, while president and vice-president respectively, and directors of said association, did conspire with each other to willfully misapply a large sum of money belonging to and the property of said association, to-wit, the sum of $87,500, by means of procuring to be made, on June 30, 1876, by the said association, a dividend of 3 1/2 percent on the capital stock of the association, which said dividend was to be greater, in the sum of $87,500, than the net profits of said association on hand after deducting from said net profits the amount of the losses and bad debts of the association existing on said 30th day of June.
"St. Louis, June 30, 1876. Present, Messrs. Britton and Walsh; Mr. Bates assenting on the 29th. Ordered that a dividend of 3 1/2 percent be declared payable on the tenth proximo, and that the transfer books be closed till that date. Attest, Edward P. Curtis, cashier;"
that afterwards, on July 8, 1876, in further pursuance of and to effect the object of said conspiracy, the said Britton and Bates did each receive from said association, and convert to his own use, a large sum of money, the said Britton the sum of $5,397 and the said Bates the sum of $4,112.
The second count was similar to the first, except that after averring that said dividend so to be declared on said June 30, 1876, was known to be false and fraudulent, it was added that there was on said June 30, 1876, due and owing to said association certain debts, specifying them, amounting in the aggregate to the sum of $797,214.29; that upon such debts there was owing to the association, then past due and unpaid, interest for a period of six months; that said debts were "not well secured and in process of collection," and their aggregate amount was largely in excess of the net profits and purported net profits of said association then on hand, as said Britton and Bates then well knew, and that said debts were bad debts within the meaning of section 5204 of the Revised Statutes, as said Britton and Bates then well knew.
1. Whether, under § 5209 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, it was necessary to aver that the alleged conspiracy was entered into with intent to injure and defraud, and whether the several counts in this indictment not containing the said allegations are good and sufficient in law.
2. Whether it was necessary in this indictment, in addition to the allegations charging the conspiracy to willfully misapply certain funds and property of the association, by means of procuring to be made by the board of directors a dividend, as alleged in the indictment, to further allege that said dividend was in pursuance of said conspiracy declared and made; and, if so, whether the same is sufficiently charged therein, and whether it is also necessary to allege that said dividend was fraudulent when declared, and also when paid.
3. Whether, under § 5209 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, it was necessary in this indictment to charge that the funds alleged to have been misapplied had been previously entrusted to the possession of the defendants.
4. Whether the indictment in this case alleges with sufficient certainty that the bank had no net profits out of which to declare and pay the dividend alleged to have been fraudulent.
5. Whether the said defendants, as directors of the said banking association, are liable to the penalties provided by the said § 5209, upon proof that they, as such directors, willfully voted for the declaration of a dividend, knowing that there were no net profits out of which to pay the same; and, if liable, must the indictment charge that such dividend was ordered or voted for with intent thereby to defraud the association or other persons.
must be an act done to effect the object of the conspiracy, merely affords a locus poenitentiae, so that before the act done, either one or all of the parties may abandon their design, and thus avoid the penalty prescribed by the statute. It follows as a rule of criminal pleading that in an indictment for conspiracy under section 5440, the conspiracy must be sufficiently charged, and that it cannot be aided by the averments of acts done by one or more of the conspirators in furtherance of the object of the conspiracy. Reg. v. King, 7 Q.B. 782; Commonwealth v. Shedd, 7 Cush. 514.
The charge against the defendants is a conspiracy to willfully misapply the funds of the association. It is alleged in the counts of this indictment that they, being directors, with intent to defraud the association, did conspire to willfully misapply its moneys and funds by procuring to be declared by the association a dividend of its net profits, when there were no net profits sufficient in amount to pay it.
"No association, or any member thereof, shall, during the time it shall continue its banking operations, withdraw or permit to be withdrawn, either in the form of dividends or otherwise, any portion of its capital. If losses have at any time been sustained equal to or exceeding its undivided profits then on hand no dividend shall be made, and no dividend shall ever be made by any association while it continues its banking operations, to an amount greater than its net profits then on hand, deducting therefrom its losses and bad debts. All debts due to any association on which interest is past due and unpaid for a period of six months, unless the same are well secured and in process of collection, shall be considered bad debts within the meaning of this section."
We are therefore to inquire whether the conspiracy entered into by and between the defendants to misapply the moneys of the association by procuring the declaration by the association of a dividend greater than the net profits of the association is a criminal offense against the United States.
There are no common law offenses against the United States, United States v. Hudson, 7 Cranch 32; United States v. Coolidge, 1 Wheat. 415, and section 5204 does not of itself create any offense against the United States.
But it is contended on behalf of the United States that the procuring of a dividend to be declared by the association when there are no net profits to pay it is a willful misapplication of the moneys and funds of the association, which is made an offense by section 5209 of the Revised Statutes, and that a conspiracy to commit this offense is made punishable by section 5440.
We think this construction of the statute is unwarranted, and that the indictment is based on a misconception of its provisions.
have charged a criminal act, much less when it merely charges that they conspired to procure the association to declare a dividend under like circumstances. So that it appears on the face of the indictment that the conspiracy charged was not a conspiracy to commit an offense against the United States.
We therefore answer the first branch of the fifth question propounded to us by the judges of the circuit court in the negative.
"liable to the penalties provided by section 5209 upon proof that they, as such directors, willfully voted for the declaration of a dividend, knowing there were no net profits out of which to pay the same,"
because this is not the offense with which they are charged in the indictment. And as they are charged with a conspiracy to do an act which is not an offense, we are of opinion that no penalties could be inflicted on them under the indictment.
As the answer we have given to this question is fatal to the indictment, it is not necessary for us to answer the other questions sent to us by the judges of the circuit court.
In case No. 410, United States v. James H. Britton and Barton Bates, on certificate of division in opinion from the same court, the indictment contained five counts, all substantially similar to the counts in case 409, just disposed of. What we have said in reference to the indictment in case 409 applies to the indictment in this case. As the indictment is bad and no good indictment can be framed upon the facts as they appeal therein, it is unnecessary and we decline to answer the specific questions submitted to us by the judges of the circuit court. United States v. Buzzo, 18 Wall. 125.