text:
Dr Zaccone has returned to Italy to take up the post of Associate Professor at the University of Milan.
Alessio Zaccone and his group are interested in obtaining a deeper understanding of the atomic and molecular-level many-body dynamics in a variety of condensed matter systems and materials, from liquids to glasses, crystals and complex fluids. He and his group aim to combine two fundamental schools of thought in condensed matter physics: one known as atomistic theory of real solids, the historical continuation of the works of Enrico Fermi, Edward Teller, Max Born, John Slater, Walter Kohn among others, and the other known as the nonequilibrium statistical mechanics approach to condensed matter, going back to Hendrik A. Kramers, Léon van Hove, Robert Zwanzig, and Wolfgang Goetze among others.
One of his main interests at the moment is the development of nonaffine lattice dynamics, which is a general theory framework for disordered condensed matter systems (e.g. defective crystals, liquids and glasses) with many applications ranging from the molecular spectroscopy (Brillouin and Raman) of liquids and solids, to the mechanical, electronic and thermal properties of metallic glasses, polymer glasses, molecular glasses, colloids and suspensions, nuclear materials, and granular systems. He is also very much interested in biomolecular systems and their self-assemby into aggregates and large-scale structures, with applications in biotechnology and medical science.
Alessio Zaccone, who has been awarded the title of Professor of Physics in Germany and in Switzerland, has published 86 articles in peer-reviewed journals (since 2007) on several problems of physics (incl. condensed matter, statistical physics, soft and biological matter, astrophysics and plasma physics, nuclear physics), physical chemistry, metallurgy, and on engineering-motivated problems.
In 2017, he has been listed by the American Chemical Society journal Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research as one of the 37 most influential scientists of his generation worldwide, for the impact of his research on chemistry and industrial chemistry.
M. Baggioli and A. Zaccone.
Universal origin of boson peak vibrational anomalies in ordered crystals and in amorphous materials.
Physical Review Letters 122, 145501 (2019).
J. Yang, Y.J. Wang, E. Ma, A. Zaccone, L.H. Dai, M.Q. Jiang.
Structural parameter of orientational order to predict the boson vibrational anomaly in glasses.
Physical Review Letters 122, 015501 (2019).
M. Lu, L. Banetta, L.J. Young, E.J. Smith, G.B.Bates, A. Zaccone, G. S. Kaminski-Schierle, A. Tunnacliffe, C. F. Kaminski.
Journal of Biological Chemistry 294, 257-268 (2018).
B. Cui, Z. Evenson, B. Fan, M. Li, W.-H. Wang, A. Zaccone.
Possible origin of beta relaxation in amorphous metal alloys from atomic-mass differences of the constituents.
Physical Review B 98, 144201 (2018).
C. Eccles, S. Roy, T. H. Gray and A. Zaccone.
Reply to 'Comment on "Temperature dependence of nuclear fission time in heavy-ion fusion-fission reactions"'.
Physical Review C 98, 029802 (2018).
V.V. Palyulin, C. Ness, R. Milkus, R.M. Elder, T.W. Sirk, A. Zaccone.
Parameter-free predictions of the viscoelastic response of glassy polymers from nonaffine lattice dynamics.
Soft Matter 14, 8475 (2018).
J. Krausser, A. Lagogianni, K. Samwer, A. Zaccone.
Reply to 'Comment on "Disentangling interatomic repulsion and anharmonicity in the viscosity and fragility of glasses"'.
Physical Review B 98, 016202 (2018).
B. Cui and A. Zaccone.
Generalized Langevin Equation and fluctuation-dissipation theorem for particle-bath systems in external oscillating fields.
Physical Review E 97, 060102(R) (2018).
M. Dang, R. Zargar, D. Bonn, A. Zaccone, P. Schall.
Nonequilibrium free energy of colloidal glasses under shear.
Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics 51, 324002 (2018).
B. Cui, J. Gebbia, J.-L. Tamarit, A. Zaccone.
Disentangling alpha and beta relaxation in orientationally disordered crystals with theory and experiments.
Physical Review E 97, 053001 (2018).
G. M. Cicuta, J. Krausser, R. Milkus, A. Zaccone.
Unifying model for random matrix theory in abritrary space dimensions.
Physical Review E 97, 032113 (2018).
V. Vetri, F. Piccirilli, J. Krausser, G. Buscarino, U. Lapinska, B. Vestergaard, A. Zaccone, V. Fodera'.
Ethanol controls the self-assembly and mesoscopic properties of human insulin amyloid spherulites.
Journal of Physical Chemistry B 122, 3101 (2018).
Harnessing entropy in single-molecule force spectroscopy with semiconducting polymers.
R. Milkus, C. Ness, V. Palyulin, J. Weber, A. Lapkin, A. Zaccone.
Interpretation of the vibrational spectra of glassy polymers using coarse-grained simulations.
R. Higler, J. Krausser, J. van der Gucht, A. Zaccone, J. Sprakel.
Linking slow dynamics and microscopic connectivity in dense suspensions of charged colloids.
Soft Matter 14, 780-788 (2018).
L. Perez-Ocampo, A. Zaccone, M. Laurati.
A well defined glass state obtained by oscillatory shear.
Journal of Rheology 62, 197 (2018).
C. S. Eccles, S. Roy, T. H. Gray, A. Zaccone.
Temperature dependence of nuclear fission time in heavy-ion fusion-fission reactions.
Physical Review C 96, 054611 (2017).
A. Maestro and A. Zaccone.
Nonaffine deformation and tunable yielding of colloidal assemblies at the air-water interface.
B Cui, J. Yang, J. Qiao, M. Jiang, L. Dai, Y.-J. Wang, A. Zaccone.
Atomic theory of viscoelastic response and memory effects in metallic glasses.
Physical Review B 96, 094203 (2017).
C. Ness, V.V. Palyulin, R. Milkus, R. Elder, T. Sirk, A. Zaccone.
Nonmonotonic dependence of polymer glass mechanical response on chain bending stiffness.
Physical Review E (Rapid Communication) 96, 030501(R) (2017).
J. Krausser, R. Milkus, A. Zaccone.
Non-affine lattice dynamics of defective fcc crystals.
Soft Matter 13, 6079 (2017).
V. Hieronymus-Schmidt, H. Roesner, G. Wilde, A. Zaccone.
Shear banding in metallic glasses described by alignments of Eshelby quadrupoles.
Physical Review B 95, 134111 (2017).
M. Abkenar, T. H. Gray, A. Zaccone.
Dissociation rates from single-molecule pulling experiments under large thermal fluctuations or large applied force.
Physical Review E 95, 042413 (2017).
S.H. Varol, F. Meng, B. Hosseinkhani, C. Malm, D. Bonn, M. Bonn, A. Zaccone, S. H. Parekh.
Nanoparticle amount, and not size, determines chain alignment and nonlinear hardening in polymer nanocomposites.
C. Ness and A. Zaccone.
Effect of hydrodynamic interactions on the lifetime of colloidal bonds.
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 56 (13), 3726–3732 (2017).
J. Krausser, A. Lagiogianni, K. Samwer, A. Zaccone.
Disentangling interatomic repulsion and anharmonicity in the viscosity and fragility of glasses.
Physical Review B 95, 104203 (2017).
J. Sprakel, A. Zaccone, F. Spaepen, P. Schall, D. A. Weitz.
Direct observation of entropic stabilization of bcc crystals near melting.
Physical Review Letters 118, 088003 (2017).
B. Cui, R. Milkus, and A. Zaccone.
Direct link between boson-peak modes and dielectric alpha-relaxation in glasses.
Physical Review E 95, 022603 (2017).
R. Milkus and A. Zaccone.
Atomic-scale origin of dynamic viscoelastic response and creep in disordered solids.
Physical Review E 95, 023001 (2017).
M. Laurati, P. Masshoff, K.J. Mutch, S.U. Egelhaaf, A. Zaccone.
Long-lived neighbors determine the rheological response of glasses.
Physical Review Letters 118, 018002 (2017).
B. Cui, R. Milkus, A. Zaccone.
The relation between stretched-exponential relaxation and the vibrational density of states in glassy disordered systems.
Physics Letters A 381, 446 (2017).
W.Y. Chen, L. Young, M. Lu, Meng, A. Zaccone, F. Ströhl, N. Yu, G. Kaminski Schierle, C. Kaminski.
Fluorescence self-quenching from reporter dyes informs on the structural properties of amyloid clusters formed in vitro and in cells.
Nano Letters 17, 143 (2017).
A. Saric, T. Michaels, A. Zaccone, T.P.J. Knowles, D. Frenkel.
Kinetics of spontaneous filament nucleation via oligomers: insights from theory and simulation.
Journal of Chemical Physics 145, 211926 (2016).
A. Zaccone, I. Terentjev, T. Herling, T.P.J. Knowles, A. Aleksandrova, E.M. Terentjev.
Kinetics of fragmentation and dissociation of two-strand protein filaments: coarse-grained simulations and experiments.
Journal of Chemical Physics 145, 105101 (2016).
A. Lappala, A. Zaccone and E.M. Terentjev.
Polymer glass transition occurs at the marginal rigidity point with z*=4.
Soft Matter 12, 7330 (2016).
A. Lagogianni, J. Krausser, Z. Evenson, K. Samwer, A. Zaccone.
Unifying interatomic potential, g(r), elasticity, viscosity, and fragility of metallic glasses: analytical model, simulations, and experiments.
Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment 084001 (2016) - Special Issue on Structure in Glassy and Jammed Systems.
B.O. Conchuir, C. Tarantini, C. McNeill, S. Huettner, A. Zaccone.
Chain-assisted charge transport in semicrystalline conjugated polymers.
Journal of Physical Chemistry C 120, 14539 (2016).
M. Lattuada, A. Zaccone, H. Wu, M. Morbidelli.
Population-balance description of shear-induced clustering, gelation and suspension viscosity in sheared DLVO colloids.
Soft Matter 12, 5313 (2016).
Local inversion-symmetry breaking controls the boson peak in glasses and crystals.
Physical Review B 93, 094204 (2016).
F. Mura and A. Zaccone.
Effects of shear flow on phase nucleation and crystallization.
Physical Review E 93, 042803 (2016).
M. T. Dang, D. Denisov, B. Struth, A. Zaccone, P. Schall.
Reversibility and hysteresis in the sharp yielding transition of colloidal glasses under oscillatory shear.
European Physical Journal E 39, 44 (2016).
M. Schlegel, J. Brujic, E. M. Terentjev, A. Zaccone.
Local structure controls the nonaffine shear and bulk moduli of disordered solids.
Scientific Reports (Nature) 6, 18724 (2016).
K. Kyriakos, M. Philipp, C.-H. Lin, M. Dyakonova, M. Vishnevetskaya, I. Grillo, A. Zaccone, A. Miasnikova, A. Laschewski, P. Mueller-Buschbaum, C. Papadakis.
Quantifying the interactions in the aggregation of thermoresponsive polymers - the effect of cononsolvency.
Macromolecular Rapid Communications 37, 420 (2016).
J. Krausser, K. Samwer, A. Zaccone.
Interatomic repulsion softness directly controls the fragility of supercooled metallic melts.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 112, 13762 (2015).
D. Denisov, M.T. Dang, B. Struth, A. Zaccone, G. H. Wegdam, P. Schall.
Sharp symmetry-change marks the mechanical failure transition of glasses.
Scientific Reports (Nature) 5, 14359 (2015).
M. Mermet-Guyennet, J. de Castro, S. Varol, M. Habibi, B. Hosseinkhani, N. Martzel, R. Sprik, M. Denn, A. Zaccone, S. Parekh, D. Bonn.
Size-dependent reinforcement of composite rubbers.
M. van der Linden, B. O. Conchuir, E. Spigone, A. Niranjan, A. Zaccone, P. Cicuta.
Microscopic origin of the Hofmeister effect in gelation kinetics of colloidal silica.
Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters 6, 2881 (2015).
A. Zaccone, I. Terentjev, L. Di Michele, E. M. Terentjev.
Fragmentation and depolymerization of non-covalently bonded filaments.
Journal of Chemical Physics 142, 114905 (2015).
S. Gu, J. Kaiserc, G. Marzuna, A. Ott, Y. Lu, M. Ballauff, A. Zaccone, S. Barcikowski, P. Wagener.
Ligand-free gold nanoparticles as a reference material for kinetic modelling of catalytic reduction of 4-nitrophenol.
Catalysis Letters 145, 1105 (2015).
A. Zaccone, P. Schall, E. M. Terentjev.
Microscopic origin of nonaffine nonlinear deformation in bulk metallic glasses.
Physical Review B 90, 140203(R) (2014).
S. Gu, S. Wunder, Y. Lu, M. Ballauff, R. Fenger, K. Rademann, B. Jaquet, A. Zaccone.
Kinetic analysis of the catalytic reduction of 4-nitrophenol by metallic nanoparticles.
Journal of Physical Chemistry C 118, 18618-18625 (2014).
A. Zaccone, M. Siebenbürger, H. H. Winter, M. Ballauff.
Linking self-assembly, rheology, and gel transition in attractive colloids.
Journal of Rheology 58, 1219 (2014).
B. O. Conchuir, Y.M. Harshe, M. Lattuada, A. Zaccone.
Analytical model of fractal aggregate stability and restructuring in shear flows.
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 53, 9109 (2014).
A. Zaccone and E.M. Terentjev.
Short-range correlations control the G/K and Poisson ratios of amorphous solids and metallic glasses.
Journal of Applied Physics 115, 033510 (2014).
A. Moussa, M. Lattuada, B. O. Conchuir, A. Zaccone, M. Morbidelli, M. Soos.
Flow-Induced aggregation and breakup of particle clusters controlled by surface nanoroughness.
A. Lappala, A. Zaccone, E.M. Terentjev.
Ratcheted diffusion through crowded nanochannels.
Scientific Reports (Nature) 3, 3103 (2013).
V. Fodera’, A. Zaccone, M. Lattuada, A.M. Donald.
Electrostatics controls the formation of amyloid superstructures in protein aggregation.
Physical Review Letters 111, 108105 (2013).
Slowing-down of diffusion-controlled reactions in dense liquid matter.
Journal of Chemical Physics 138, 186101 (2013).
A. Zaccone and E. M. Terentjev.
Disorder-assisted melting and the glass transition in amorphous solids.
Physical Review Letters 110, 178002 (2013).
B. O. Conchuir and A. Zaccone.
Mechanism of flow-induced biomolecular and colloidal aggregate breakup.
Physical Review E 87, 032310 (2013).
A. Zaccone, J.J. Crassous, M. Ballauff.
Colloidal gelation with variable attraction energy.
Journal of Chemical Physics 138, 104908 (2013).
Elastic deformations in covalent amorphous solids.
Modern Physics Letters B 27, 1330002 (2013).
T. Gibaud, A. Zaccone, E. Del Gado, V. Trappe, P. Schurtenberger.
Unexpected decoupling of stretching and bending modes in protein gels.
Physical Review Letters 110, 058303 (2013).
L. DiMichele, A. Zaccone, and E. Eiser.
Predictive theory of polymer-network mediated attraction between colloid particles.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 109, 10187 (2012).
Theory of molecular crowding in Brownian hard-sphere liquids.
Physical Review E 85, 061202 (2012).
Theory of thermally-activated ionization and dissociation of bound states.
Physical Review Letters 108, 038302 (2012).
A. Zaccone, J.R. Blundell, and E.M. Terentjev.
Network disorder and nonaffine deformations in marginal solids.
Physical Review B 84, 174119 (2011).
A. Zaccone, J.J. Crassous, B. Beri, and M. Ballauff.
Quantifying the reversible association of thermoresponsive nanoparticles.
Physical Review Letters 107, 168303 (2011).
A. Zaccone, N. Dorsaz, C. DeMichele, F. Piazza, M. Morbidelli, and G. Foffi.
Crowding, intermolecular interactions and shear-flow effects in the diffusion model of chemical reactions.
Journal of Physical Chemistry B 115, 7383 (2011).
A. Zaccone and E. Scossa-Romano.
Approximate analytical description of the nonaffine response of amorphous solids.
Physical Review B 83, 184205 (2011).
A. Zaccone, D. Gentili, H. Wu, M. Morbidelli, and E. Del Gado.
Shear-driven solidification of dilute colloidal suspensions.
Physical Review Letters 106, 138302 (2011).
D. Xie, H. Wu, A. Zaccone, L. Braun, and M. Morbidelli.
Criticality for shear-induced gelation of charge-stabilized colloids.
Soft Matter 6, 2692 (2010).
A. Zaccone, D. Gentili, H. Wu, and M. Morbidelli.
Shear-induced reaction-limited aggregation kinetics of Brownian particles at arbitrary concentrations.
Journal of Chemical Physics 132, 134903 (2010).
H. Wu, E. Tsoutsoura, M. Lattuada, A. Zaccone, and M. Morbidelli.
Effect of temperature on high shear-induced gelation of charge-stabilized colloids without adding electrolytes.
A. Zaccone and E. Del Gado.
On mean coordination and structural heterogeneity in model amorphous solids.
Journal of Chemical Physics 132, 024906 (2010).
A. Zaccone, H. Wu, and E. Del Gado.
Elasticity of short-ranged attractive colloids: homogeneous and heterogeneous glasses.
Physical Review Letters 103, 208301 (2009).
A. Zaccone, H. Wu, D. Gentili, and M. Morbidelli.
Theory of activated-rate processes under shear with application to shear-induced aggregation of colloids.
Physical Review E 80, 051404 (2009).
The shear modulus of metastable amorphous solids with strong central and bond-bending interactions.
Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 21, (28) 285103 (2009).
A. Zaccone, M. Soos, M. Lattuada, M. U. Bäbler, and M. Morbidelli.
Breakup of dense colloidal aggregates under hydrodynamic stresses.
Physical Review E 79, 061401 (2009).
H. Wu, A. Zaccone, E. Tsoutsoura, M. Lattuada, and M. Morbidelli.
High shear-induced gelation of charge-stabilized colloids in a microchannel without adding electrolytes.
A. Zaccone, H. Wu, Portaluri, M. Lattuada, and M. Morbidelli.
Mechanically stirred single-stage column for continuous gelation of colloidal systems.
AIChE Journal 54, 3106 (2008).
A. Zaccone, H. Wu, M. Lattuada, and M. Morbidelli.
Charged molecular films on Brownian particles: structure, interactions and relation to stability.
Journal of Physical Chemistry B 112, 6793 (2008).
Correlation between surfactant adsorption/association phenomena and colloidal stability studied by light scattering.
Journal of Physical Chemistry B 112, 1976 (2008).
A. Zaccone, M. Lattuada, H. Wu, and M. Morbidelli.
Theoretical elastic moduli for disordered packings of interconnected spheres.
Journal of Chemical Physics 127, 174512 (2007).
A. Zaccone, A. Gäbler, S. Maaß, D. Marchisio, and M. Kraume.
Drop breakage in liquid-liquid stirred dispersions - Modelling of single drop breakage.
Chemical Engineering Science 62, 6297-6307 (2007).
S. Maass, A. Gäbler, A. Zaccone, A. Paschedag, and M. Kraume.
Experimental investigations and modelling of breakage phenomena in stirred liquid/liquid systems.
Chemical Engineering Research & Design 85, 703 (2007).

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


text:
Decided March 3, 2006) involves many item of interest the only one addressed in this post is the FedCir. and Veteran Courts definition of the 5 elements that make up a claim.
Vargas-Gonzales v. Principi, 15 Vet.App. 222, 227 (2001)); App. Din. Suppl.
Br. at 5-11; Amicus Br. at 19, 26, 28.
of Marco Island, Florida, was on the brief, for appellant Donald L.
Susan Paczak, of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, for appellant Marcellus S.
brief in No. 02-1506, for the appellee.
the National Organization of Veterans’ Advocates as amicus curiae.
amended by the Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000 (VCAA), Pub. L. No.
from his service-connected disability. Previous HitDingessNext Hit Record (Din. R.) at 1-14.
prejudicial error pursuant to Conway v. Principi, 353 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir.
Veterans’ Advocates (NOVA) for its assistance in these appeals.
higher than 10%. Id. at 231.
employable.” Din. R. at 374.
In January 2001, a decision review officer (DRO) increased Mr.
TDIU rating. Id. at 400- 01, 403-08.
showing that his service- connected PTSD had increased in severity. Id.
431. Mr. Previous HitDingessNext Hit again appealed to the Board. Id. at 443- 52, 456.
been satisfied.” Id. at 4. The Board determined that, in May 2001, Mr.
. . . prevent him from obtaining substantially gainful employment.” Id.
decision was vacated and the matter remanded for compliance with the VCAA.
light of the Federal Circuit’s order.
indicate that Mr. Hartman appealed that decision. See id. at 1-206.
and asked VA to obtain certain VA medical records. Id. at 107.
necessary records from various VA facilities. Har. R. at 197.
assignment of effective dates for grants of service connection.
based on the facts of the instant case.
1986 statement, he nevertheless had abandoned his claim at that time. Id.
pursuant to Conway, supra. Hartman v. Principi, 98 Fed. Appx. 885 (Fed.
ordered the February 2002 Board decision vacated, and remanded the matter.
and invited any interested amicus curiae to file a brief. Hartman v.
Principi, 18 Vet.App. 432, 433 (2004) (per curiam order).
demonstrating that VA’s error was not prejudicial. Appellant (App.) Din.
Secretary “failed to fulfill his statutory duty to assist under 38 U.S.C.
App. Din. Br. at 2-5.
10-18; Sec’y Din. Suppl. Br. at 14-18.
extraschedular consideration under 3.321(b)(1). Id. at 19-20.
argued, No. 05-7157 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 6, 2006).
law, will attempt to obtain on behalf of the claimant.
38 U.S.C. 5103(a). On August 29, 2001, the Secretary issued 38 C.F.R.
termed ‘a fourth element of the requisite notice.'” Mayfield, 19 Vet.App.
provided by the claimant and which portion, if any, the Secretary . . .
will attempt to obtain on behalf of the claimant.'” Quartuccio, 16 Vet.
App. at 187 (quoting 38 U.S.C. 5103(a)).
Power Equip. v. Greenwood, 464 U.S. 548, 553 (1984)).
The VCAA also requires the Secretary to assist claimants. 38 U.S.C.
connection claimant of the evidence needed to substantiate the claim.
disability) and 5 (effective date of the disability).
substantiate the claim.” 38 U.S.C. 5103(a) (emphasis added); 38 C.F.R.
evidence to substantiate the claim.” Sec’y Din. Suppl. Br. at 5.
evidence to assign the claimant a disability rating and an effective date.
to rebut adverse RO findings on effective dates and disability ratings.
Sec’y Har. Suppl. Br. at 4-5; Sec’y Din. Suppl. Br. at 9.
deciding each element of the claim. 38 U.S.C. 5103(a); 38 C.F.R. 3.
suggests that they are applicable. See Douglas v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App.
could entitle him to disability compensation.”).
Government.” 38 C.F.R. 3.103(a) (2005) (emphasis added). In AB v.
ratings.” Shoemaker, 3 Vet.App. 248, 253 (1992) (emphasis added).
1345-46 (citation omitted) (emphasis added).
the process” envisioned by Senator Rockefeller.
is shared with the claimant as part of our notification procedures.
law does not directly address the precise question at issue.” Gallegos v.
dates when those elements are not directly made an issue by the claimant.
notice must be given on these elements of the service-connection claim.
of the application actually filed.
discharge. See Wright v. Gober, 10 Vet.App. 343, 347 (1997).
entitlement to only a 30% rating.” Id. at 39.
than for the first time as part of disagreement with a decision.
emphasis added); see 38 C.F.R.
and “to participate effectively” in the development of the claim.
Mayfield, 19 Vet.App. at 120-21.
the entire legislative scheme of which it is a part.”); see also King v.
mistake or error.” Sutherland, 46:06; see also Splane v. West, 216 F.
3d 1058, 1068-69 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
time limits, to initiate an appeal of the decision.
longer required because the claim has already been substantiated.
that the notice is intended to serve has been fulfilled.
ensure that a claimant receives assistance throughout the appeals process.
argument to contend that any notice error is prejudicial. See In Re: 38 U.
S.C. 7261(b)(2) and Mayfield v. Nicholson, 19 Vet.App. 103 (2005), Misc.
fully developing the record. App. Din. Suppl. Br. at 21-25; App. Har.
error was not prejudicial. App. Din. Suppl. Br. at 25.
that the outcome of the case was affected by the error. Sec’y Din. Suppl.
carry this burden then a notice error is not prejudicial. Sec’y Har.
have been awarded as a matter of law.
the fairness of the adjudication. Id. at 122-23.
further duty to notify Mr. Previous HitDingessNext Hit on how to substantiate his PTSD claim.
Board reasons-or-bases deficiency in discussing how section 5103(a) . . .
the January 2001 DRO decision (Din. R. at 390-92) and January 2001 SOC (Id.
establishing and maintaining effective work and social relationships.
veteran] does not have suicidal or homicidal thoughts.
him of how to appeal the decision on his claim. Both letters provided Mr.
VA complied with the procedural statutory requirements of 38 U.S.C.
claim, because of his service-connected disabilities, was not working.
latter statement, the RO denied Mr. Previous HitDingess’Next Hit TDIU claim in May 2000. Id.
requirements or in any way reveals that Mr. Previous HitDingessNext Hit received such notice.
prejudicial. See Mayfield and Conway, both supra.
there was a lack of prejudice. See Sec’y Din. Suppl. Br. at 21-25.
under 4.16 will be remanded for complying notice and readjudication.
limitation of activity imposed by the disabling condition.” Further, 38 C.
Vet.App. 121, 124 (1991); 38 C.F.R. 4.1.
to obtain and maintain substantially gainful employment.
determining that the preponderance of the evidence was against awarding Mr.
fulfilled his duty to assist under section 5103A(d)(1) by providing Mr.
err by relying on those examinations.
regarding his claim for a TDIU rating. See Best v. Principi, 15 Vet.App.
have the opportunity to present any allegations of error to this Court.
extraschedular consideration under 38 C.F.R. 3.321(b)(1). App. Din. Br.
the application of the regular schedular standards.'” Sec’y Din. Suppl.
Br. at 19-20 (quoting 38 C.F.R. 3.321(b)(1)).
Allday v. Brown, 7 Vet.App. 517, 527 (1995); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.
rejection of any material evidence favorable to the veteran. See Caluza v.
Floyd v. Brown, 9 Vet.App. 88, 96 (1996); see EF v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App.
the Board may not simply ignore an issue so raised.'” Beverly v.
when it was neither specifically nor reasonably raised. See Talbert v.
prior to that he was represented by veterans service organizations (Din. R.
or explained why it is not applicable” (citations omitted)).
substance abuse and PTSD symptoms. Id. at 6-7. The Board noted that Mr.
in not discussing 3.321(b)(1) in its statement of reasons or bases. Cf.
Smallwood and Grantham, both supra.
time of the VCAA’s enactment. Therefore, the VCAA applied to his claim.
See Mayfield, 19 Vet.App. at 128; Pelegrini, supra.
substantiated in August 1999. Cf. Mayfield, 19 Vet.App. at 129.
receipt of application within one year after date of discharge), and 38 U.
EED for his service- connected PTSD.
decision, the Federal Circuit in Cook v. Principi, 318 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir.
2002) (en banc), overruled the grave-procedural-error concept in Hayre.
Court denied that petition. Cook v. Principi, 539 U.S. 926 (2003).
Accordingly, his argument on grave procedural error is now unavailing.
an adequate statement of reasons or bases.
in Mayfield v. Nicholson, 19 Vet.App. 103 (2005), argued, No. 05-7157 (Fed.
been given the authority to write regulations implementing law. See 38 U.
creation of an exception thereto.
hand, we should hold that the Secretary erred by failing to provide Mr.
processing of her claim by VA” (citations omitted)).
claims, they seek the maximum compensation authorized by law. See 38 U.S.

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


These guidelines provide guidance to manufacturing companies regarding the modification to Virginia’s corporate apportionment formula for manufacturers under Va. Code § 58.1-422. Pursuant to Acts of Assembly, Chapter 821 (House Bill 2437), enacted by the 2009 General Assembly, and Acts of Assembly, Chapter 427, (House Bill 460), enacted by the 2012 General Assembly, the development and publication of these guidelines are exempt from the provisions of the Administrative Process Act (§ 2.2-4000 et seq.). These guidelines complement the Department’s existing Corporate Apportionment Formula Regulations (23 Virginia Administrative Code (“VAC”) 10-210-10, et seq.). To the extent that there is a conflict between the existing regulations and § 58.1-422, the provisions of § 58.1-422, as interpreted by these guidelines, supersede the existing regulations.
These guidelines represent the Department’s interpretation of the relevant laws. They do not constitute formal rulemaking and hence do not have the force and effect of law or regulation. In the event that the final determination of any court holds that any provision of these guidelines is contrary to law, taxpayers who follow these guidelines will be treated as relying on erroneous written advice for purposes of waiving penalty and interest under Va. Code §§ 58.1-105, 58.1-1835 and 58.1-1845. To the extent there is a question regarding the application of these guidelines, taxpayers are encouraged to write to the Department and seek a written response to their question.
The Department has worked with affected manufacturers and other interested parties to develop these guidelines and rules. As necessary, additional information will be published and posted on the Department’s website, at www.tax.virginia.gov.
“Affiliated group” has the same meaning as provided in Va. Code§ 58.1-3700.1.
"Base year employment" has the same meaning as provided in Va. Code§ 58.1-422 D.
"Full-time employee" has the same meaning as provided in Va. Code§ 58.1-422 D.
"Manufacturing company" has the same meaning as provided in Va. Code§ 58.1-422 D. For purposes of these guidelines, “primarily engaged” means that either fifty percent or more of the gross receipts are derived from the sale of goods that are manufactured by the taxpayer, or fifty percent or more of the employees are engaged in manufacturing activities.
“Pass-through entity” has the same meaning as provided in Va. Code § 58.1-390.1.
for taxable years beginning on or after July 1, 2014, and thereafter, qualifying corporations use the single sales factor method to apportion Virginia taxable income.
Once a manufacturing company elects the modified apportionment method, the method of apportionment may not be changed for three taxable years.
After the due date, as extended, of the return in which the election is made, the election may not be revoked for three taxable years. Therefore, a manufacturing company may not file an amended separate, consolidated or combined return to change its modified apportionment method election because it will not be able to meet the base year employment level or wage requirements in the second or third taxable year of the modified apportionment method election. This policy is consistent with existing combined and consolidated election regulations (see 23 VAC 10-120-324 and Public Document (“P.D.”) 91-271, 91-278 and 91-279).
Under the standard three-factor formula with double-weighted sales, the apportionment factor is 19.58% ([25% + 33.33% + 2(10%)] / ).
The manufacturing company would use the triple-weighted sales factor apportionment method. The apportionment factor would be 17.76% ([25% + 33.33% + 3(10%)] / ).
The manufacturing company would use the quadruple-weighted sales factor apportionment method. The apportionment factor would be 16.39% ([25% + 33.33% + 4(10%)] / ).
The manufacturing company would use the single sales factor apportionment method. The single sales factor only apportionment factor would be 10%.
A multistate manufacturing company that elects the modified apportionment method and files its income tax return on a calendar year basis must use the apportionment formula that is effective at the time of the election. The manufacturing company is prohibited from using two different apportionment methods in any calendar year in which the election is made.
Example 2. A multistate manufacturing company files its Virginia corporate income tax return on a calendar year basis, and elects the modified apportionment method in July 2011. The manufacturing company will use the regular double-weighted sales factor for its 2011 Virginia return. The modified apportionment method is effective for the manufacturing company’s 2012 Virginia return, in which it will use the triple-weighted sales factor method. The manufacturing company must continue using the applicable modified apportionment method for its 2013 and 2014 corporate income tax returns.
The modified apportionment method for manufacturing companies is an election made by the taxpayer. A qualified manufacturing company that elects the modified apportionment method under Va. Code § 58.1-422 will make one election, and may not revoke that election for three taxable years. The manufacturing company will be required to use the apportionment factor that is effective at the time the modified apportionment method election is made, and any apportionment factor that becomes effective in the first three taxable years of the election.
Example 3. A manufacturing company is currently using Virginia’s double-weighted sales factor apportionment method, and has decided to elect the modified apportionment method beginning January 1, 2013. The manufacturing company must not use two different apportionment methods for the 2013, 2014 and 2015 calendar years. After December 31, 2015, the manufacturing company may continue using the single sales factor method of apportionment, or revoke the election and apportion income according to the standard double-weighted sales factor apportionment method.
Example 4. A manufacturing company is currently using Virginia’s double weighted sales factor apportionment method, and has decided to elect the modified apportionment method beginning January 1, 2014. The manufacturing company decides to make the election under the quadruple-weighted sales factor apportionment methods. The manufacturing company, therefore, will apportion income using the quadruple-weighted sales factor method for 2014 and the single sales factor method for 2015 and after. The manufacturing company is prohibited from revoking the modified apportionment method election for three years, until January 1, 2017. The manufacturing company must not use two different apportionment methods for the 2014, 2015 and 2016 calendar years.
A manufacturing company that, after having used the applicable modified apportionment method for three taxable years, elects not to continue using the modified apportionment method, may revoke the election and use the standard double-weighted sales factor apportionment method pursuant to Va. Code § 58.1-408 beginning in any taxable year following the conclusion of the three-year election requirement.
If a manufacturing company is part of an affiliated group consisting of non-manufacturing entities or manufacturing entities that have not elected the modified apportionment method and files a Virginia consolidated return, then the affiliated group must follow the mixed apportionment factors method under 23 VAC 10-120-326.
Pass-through entities (“PTE”) are required to use corporate apportionment to determine the portion of their income that is from Virginia sources for purposes of allocating a share of that income to nonresident individuals. This will affect the amount that the nonresident individuals report on their Virginia nonresident income tax return or that the PTE reports on behalf of its nonresident owners, and the amount for which the PTE may be required to withhold from Virginia income. See the PTE Guidelines (P.D. 07-150) for more information.
A corporate owner of a PTE may be required to include its share of the PTE’s property, payroll, and sales in the corporation’s own apportionment factors. (See P.D. 95-19, 95-263, and 99-76.) If the PTE meets the requirements of a manufacturing company it may elect to use the modified apportionment method for this purpose under the same conditions applicable to corporations. If elected, the corporate owners would include in their factors only their share of the PTE’s factors for the applicable taxable year.
A manufacturing company will be subject to additional tax (hereinafter “recapture”) and interest if the average weekly wage of its full-time employees is lower than the state or local weekly wage for its industry or its number of full-time employees do not equal or exceed 90 percent of its base year employment level, as provided in Va. Code § 58.1-422 C. A manufacturing company must satisfy both the wage and employment requirements in order to use the modified apportionment method.
The recapture is equal to the difference between the tax that would have been due under the standard apportionment method (Va. Code § 58.1-408) and the amount of tax that was due using the modified apportionment method for each of the first three years in which the average weekly wage of its full-time employees was lower than the state or local weekly wage for its industry or its number of full-time employees did not equal or exceed 90 percent of its base year employment level.
The Department will assess interest, at a rate prescribed under Va. Code § 58.1-15, which will begin accruing from the original due date of the appropriate Virginia income tax return until the date of the payment of the recaptured amount.
A manufacturing company must certify to the Department, on the appropriate form, that the average weekly wage of its full-time employees is greater than the lower of the state or local average weekly wages according to labor market data provided by the Virginia Employment Commission (“VEC”), which is updated quarterly. A manufacturing company must rely on the weekly wage data from the quarter in which the manufacturing company’s taxable year ends, or the most recent quarterly data that is available. The Department will rely on VEC data unless the manufacturing company can provide the Department with other labor market data sources that show an average state or local weekly wage for its industry that is lower than the Virginia state or local average weekly wages.
A manufacturing company must certify to the Department, on the appropriate form, that the average annual number of full-time and full-time equivalent employees (hereinafter, “full-time employees”) for the average of the first three taxable years of the modified apportionment method election is at least 90 percent of the base year employment level.
A full time employee must (i) be employed by the taxpayer for an indefinite duration; and (ii) require a minimum of 35 hours per week for the entire year (minimum of 48 weeks) or 1,680 hours per year. The hours of two part-time employees may be combined to qualify as one “equivalent” full-time employee. A taxpayer may not use seasonal or temporary positions, contractors, subcontractors and positions that are ancillary to its manufacturing activities, in determining the employment level.
A qualified manufacturing company’s average annual number of full-time employees in Virginia during the first three taxable years of the modified apportionment method election must equal or exceed 90 percent of the base year employment level. The manufacturing company is required to demonstrate to the Department each of the three years that the modified apportionment method election is used that the average annual number of Virginia full-time equivalent employees has not fallen below the base year employment level.
Example 5. A manufacturing company elects to use the modified apportionment method on January 1, 2012, beginning with the triple-weighted sales factor apportionment method. The manufacturing company has 100 full-time employees for taxable year 2011, which is its base year employment level. The manufacturing company must maintain at least 90 percent of its full-time employees for three taxable years, until after December 31, 2014.
After the first three taxable years in which a manufacturing company has used a modified apportionment method as provided under Va. Code § 58.1-422 A, the manufacturing company is no longer required to satisfy the employment requirements.
Example 6. A manufacturing company elects to use the modified apportionment method for taxable year beginning July 1, 2014, beginning with the single sales factor apportionment method. The manufacturing company has 100 full-time employees for taxable year 2013, which is its base year employment level and maintains that number of employees for three taxable years, until June 30, 2017. The manufacturing company eliminates 20 full-time employees on January 1, 2018. Because the three year employment requirement was fulfilled by the manufacturing company, it is not subject to recapture and interest, as specified in Va. Code § 58.1-422 C.
A manufacturing company that is a member of an affiliated group consisting of more than one manufacturing company is permitted to aggregate the number of full-time employees provided that the aggregate number of full-time employees of the affiliated group members equals or exceeds 90 percent of the aggregate base year employment level of the manufacturing company members of the affiliated group. Aggregation, however, is limited to affiliates that are eligible to elect, and have elected, the modified apportionment method under Va. Code § 58.1-422. The affiliated group must file a combined or consolidated Virginia return in each of the relevant years in order to aggregate full-time employees.
Example 7. A Virginia affiliated group consists of three manufacturing companies with the following base year employment levels in the first taxable year of the modified apportionment method election: Company A has 50 full-time employees; Company B has 25 full-time employees; and Company C has 25 full-time employees. All affiliates elect the modified apportionment method. In the second taxable year of the modified apportionment method election, Company A experienced a decline of 25 jobs from its base year full-time employee level, while Company B and Company C remained constant with a base year full-time employee level of 25 jobs. The aggregate number of full-time employees for the affiliated group decreased to 75 jobs. The affiliated group will be subject to recapture and interest because the number of employees fell below 90 percent of the base year employment level for Company A. The recapture will be computed solely with reference to Company A’s failure to maintain 90 percent of the base year employment level.
Example 8. A Virginia affiliated group consists of three manufacturing companies with the following base year employment levels in the first taxable year of the modified apportionment method election: Company A has 50 full-time employees; Company B has 25 full-time employees; and Company C has 25 full-time employees. All of the affiliates elect the modified apportionment method. In the second taxable year of the modified apportionment method election, Company A experienced a decline of 25 jobs from its base year full-time employee level, while Company B remained constant with its base year full-time employee of 25 jobs and Company C increased its employment to 100 full-time employees. The aggregate number of full-time employees for the affiliated group increased to 150 jobs. No recapture is required of Company A because the aggregate employment level of the manufacturing affiliates is at least equal to 90 percent of the aggregate base year employment level.
Internal Revenue Code (“IRC”) § 368, establishes the federal tax treatment of various forms of corporate restructuring transactions. Virginia law provides that when a corporation merges with other corporations, all liabilities of parties to the merger become the liabilities of the surviving corporation. (See Va. Code § 13.1-721.) Therefore, when there is corporate restructuring, any recapture and interest for failure to maintain 90 percent of the base year employment level requirement under Va. Code § 58.1-422 C will remain with the manufacturing company or the survivor into which the manufacturing company was merged.
If, after the merger, the survivor does not qualify as a manufacturer it may not use the modified apportionment method under Va. Code § 58.1-422 for taxable years beginning on or after the date of the merger. However, the survivor will not be subject to recapture provided that the survivor’s employment level remains at or above 90 percent of the merged manufacturing company’s base year employment level for the remainder of the three year election period.
A manufacturing company that is acquired by a corporation or an affiliated group of manufacturing companies will be allowed to maintain its modified apportionment method election, if one was made, and fulfill the requirement that the modified apportionment method be maintained for three taxable years. The affiliated group may include as part of the aggregation the acquired manufacturing company’s full-time employees for purposes of satisfying the employment requirement. If the acquired manufacturing company’s number of full-time employees does not equal or exceed 90 percent of the base year employment level, resulting in recapture and interest, then the affiliated group will need to use the acquired manufacturing company’s income while it existed under the selling affiliated group to compute recapture and interest.
Example 9. A Virginia affiliated group consisting of one non-manufacturing company (“Company A”) and one manufacturing company (“Company B”) acquires a manufacturing company (“Company C”). Companies B and C made the election January 1, 2012 to use the modified apportionment method. Company C will still be required to maintain the use of the modified apportionment method election for the duration of the three year requirement. Companies B and C will be allowed to aggregate their number of employees in order to meet 90 percent of the base year employment level requirement.
Example 10. The facts are the same as Example 9, except Company C fails to maintain 90 percent of the base year employment level in the second taxable year that the modified apportionment method was elected and Company B maintained its base year employment level. Only Company C will be subject to the recapture and interest. In order to calculate the recapture, income attributable to Company C before its acquisition will be included in the apportionment formula.
When a multistate manufacturing company creates a new company, any recapture and interest will remain the liability of the manufacturing company from which the new entity was created. If the new entity created by the manufacturing company is another manufacturing company, any recapture and interest will still remain the liability of the manufacturing company that elected the modified apportionment method. Employees transferred to the new entity may cause employment to fall below 90 percent of the base year employment level unless the new entity also elects the modified apportionment method under Va. Code § 58.1-422 and the employment of both entities is aggregated.
Example 11. Corporation A, a manufacturing company that has elected the modified apportionment method, creates Corporation B, another manufacturing company, and transfers some of its assets and employees to the new entity. After the first taxable year of the modified apportionment election, Corporation A fails to maintain 90 percent of the base year employment level and is subject to recapture and interest. Because the modified apportionment method was elected by Corporation A, which failed to satisfy the employment requirements, Corporation B will not be subject to the recapture and interest. However, if Companies A and B are included in a combined or consolidated Virginia return they may be able to avoid recapture by aggregating employment.
A Virginia affiliated group disposing of a manufacturing company that has elected the modified apportionment method will only be affected to the extent that it must calculate the tax liability for the year(s) the manufacturing company was a member of the affiliated group. Any recapture and interest will only be attributable to the manufacturing company that failed to maintain a base year employment level, and will follow such manufacturing company if it is part of a disposition by an affiliated group. A disposed manufacturing company that failed to meet the base year employment requirement and is subject to recapture and interest will not become a tax liability for the selling group. However, a manufacturing company with an average number of employees below 90 percent of the base year employment level at the time of the disposition will carry any recapture and interest with it to the acquiring group.
Example 12. A Virginia affiliated group consists of three manufacturing companies (“Company A,” “Company B,” and “Company C”), all of which elected the modified apportionment method. Company A is sold during the second taxable year of the modified apportionment method election. During that period Company A also fails to maintain 90 percent of its base year employment level. Company A will be subject to the recapture and interest. The acquiring group will acquire any tax liabilities of Company A. Companies B and C of the affiliated group, however, will not be subject to recapture and interest, and will compute their Virginia tax liability excluding Company A and the recapture and interest it has incurred.
A Virginia affiliated group acquiring a manufacturing company from an affiliated group that aggregated its number of employees in order to meet or exceed the base year employment level, must also aggregate its number of employees to meet the base year employment level. If the acquiring group is unable to aggregate its employees to calculate the employment level, then it may calculate the employment level for the manufacturing company separately. However, if upon the acquisition the manufacturing company fails to meet 90 percent of the base year employment level, then it will be subject to recapture and interest.
Example 13. A Virginia affiliated group consists of three manufacturing companies (“Company A,” “Company B,” and “Company C”), all of which elected the modified apportionment method and aggregate their employees to meet 90 percent of the base year employment level. Company A is sold during the second taxable year of the modified apportionment method election to another affiliated group, which consists of two non-manufacturing companies (“Company D” and “Company E”). At the time of the disposition, Company A had failed to maintain its base year employment level. Because Companies D and E are non-manufacturing companies they may not use their employees to compensate for the decrease in Company A’s base year employment level. The acquiring group will have to calculate Company A’s employment level separately. Company A will be subject to the recapture and interest.
If a manufacturing company is involved in a transaction that results in a change in ownership and a short year return, which trigger recapture and interest, then an exception is provided that would abate any recapture and interest that has been incurred. The federal consolidated tax return regulations provide that the short-year tax period income for affiliate(s) that are sold is reported on a short-year tax return for the period that the entity was a member of the affiliated group from which it was disposed. (See I.R.C Regulation § 1.1502.) Under Va. Code § 58.1-422 C, recapture and interest is applied on a taxable year basis. As such, recapture and interest could be included in a short year tax return. In certain instances, due to seasonal fluctuations in employment, some manufacturing companies involved in corporate restructuring that result in a short year return may be subject to recapture and interest. Therefore, if a manufacturing company involved in a change in ownership resulting in a short year tax return has an employment level that is below 90 percent of the base year employment level for the short year period, but may not have fallen below 90 percent of the base year employment level for a regular twelve month tax return period, then any recapture and interest will be abated. If the employment level is below 90 percent of the base year employment level for the following twelve month tax year period, then the manufacturing company will be subject to recapture and interest.
The taxpayer does not need to provide a separate statement or additional documents with the Virginia return. However, the taxpayer must maintain documentation that substantiates its qualification for, and calculation of, the modified apportionment method election and provide it to the Department upon request. In addition, a taxpayer must provide documentation that substantiates the wage and employment requirements upon request.
In order to elect the modified apportionment method under Va. Code § 58.1-422, a manufacturing company must be classified under Sector 11, 31, 32 or 33 of the North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS). The NAICS replaced the Standard Industrial Classification manual in 1997, and is the standard used by Federal statistical agencies in classifying business establishments. A parent corporation with multiple NAICS codes, or a holding company consisting of corporations with different NAICS codes, must be able to demonstrate, upon request, to the Department that a manufacturing company electing the modified apportionment method qualifies under Sector 11 or 31 through 33 of the NAICS. If the Department determines that a corporation does not qualify as a manufacturer under these NAICS code sections, then the corporation will be required to file an amended return and apportion Virginia income using the standard apportionment under Va. Code § 58.1-408. The corporation will also be subject to late filing penalties and interest as provided in Va. Code § 58.1-450.
These guidelines are available on-line under the Publications/Education and Laws, Rules and Decisions sections of the Department’s website at www.tax.virginia.gov. For additional information, please contact the Department’s Customer Service Section at (804) 367-8037, or use the “Live Chat” feature on the Department’s website to communicate online in real time with a Department representative. Live Chat assistance is available at www.tax.virginia.gov or https://www.business.tax.virginia.gov. Additional information may also be obtained by writing to: Department of Taxation, P.O. Box 1115, Richmond, VA 23218-1115.


text:
Just want to throw something against the wall and see if it sticks.
I call it, "the wall and the stone." The wall is a metaphor for those kinds of stories where the central characters or groups are constantly beating their heads against a wall in the hopes of eventually getting through. The stone represents those stories where the central characters or groups are tasked with carrying a burden to point X, and then to point Y, and then to point Z.
The wall is Situation v. Fixed Attitude. The stone is Action v. Manipulation.
"central characters or groups" determines whether we're talking about relationships or characters as the unit of examination.
Therefore, a wall story examining a group of teachers ( 'group' tells us that the unit of study is relationships) trying to turn a school's performance around despite resistance from a defeatest or apathetic school board who has created a wall is a story in which the Situation v. Fixed Attitude axis is the OS v. RS axis.
But, a stone story examining a group of teachers trying to carry the student body through a series of journeys in the effort to turn the school's performance around (perhaps the first journey is getting drug dealers out of the school, the next is enforcing academic standards for student athletes, and the last is grieving the loss of a universally loved teacher who committed suicide). This would be a story in which the Action v. Manipulation axis is the OS v RS axis.
What we gain from looking at it this way is we never have to look at terms like "Action," "Fixed Attitude," etc. All we have to do is figure out if it is a wall or stone dynamic and whether that dynamic focuses on individuals or groups.
If this is a valid way to look at it, then the next question is for example whether, in a story in which the Situation v. Fixed Attitude axis is the OS v. RS axis, the OS is the Situation or Fixed Attitude. I'll examine that in a future post.
I love this. With such a complicated theory and hard-to-understand terms, putting it in relatable, identifiable language would make understanding (at least for me) so much easier. Thank you for this!

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


text:
Tuesday, October 16, 1838.Springfield, IL.
Stuart & Lincoln have easy day in court. They dismiss Hill v. Truett & Truett at plaintiff's cost and file certificate of publication in Ellis v. Nave. Defendant files plea in Poor v. Stafford, and Thompson v. Osborn and A. G. Williams v. Cabiness & Cabiness. They represent plaintiff in all cases.Record.
Lincoln writes and signs "Stuart & Lincoln" to joinder in plea in Judy v. Manary & Cassity.Herndon-Weik Collection, Library of Congress, Washington, DC.
Friday, October 16, 1840.Clinton, IL?
The judge continues Ex parte Fruit and Walker, a petition to sell real estate case in which Lincoln is guardian ad litem of the infant heirs of John McGee. Record.
Monday, October 16, 1843.Charleston, IL.
Coles County Circuit Court begins fall term. Bagley v. Vanmeter, slander, is tried before jury by Lincoln and Linder. Jury awards plaintiff $80 damages. By agreement, Lincoln is to have $30 of judgment as fee, Linder $20. Herndon-Weik Collection, Library of Congress, Washington, DC.
[Mrs. Lincoln's hired girl buys pair of shoes for $1 at Robert Irwin's store.Irwin Ledger.
Wednesday, October 16, 1844.Peoria, IL.
Thursday, October 16, 1845.Danville, IL.
Saturday, October 16, 1847.Charleston, IL.
Ficklin and Constable appear before Wilson and Treat in behalf of petitioners, with Linder and Lincoln representing Matson. Court orders slaves discharged from sheriff's custody and from "all servitude whatever from henceforth and forever." At night, Matson, disgruntled at verdict, leaves state without paying his attorneys their fee. Beveridge, Abraham Lincoln, 1:392-97; Record; Charleston (Ill.) Globe, 27 October 1847; Illinois Law Review, I, 366.
Lincoln, for complainant, writes and signs declaration, pleas, and instructions for jury in Watson v. Gill. Jury finds defendant guilty and awards Lincoln's client $215. Herndon-Weik Collection, Library of Congress, Washington, DC.
Monday, October 16, 1848.Springfield, IL.
Lincoln pays 75¢ for umbrella.Irwin Ledger and Journal.
Wednesday, October 16, 1850.Urbana, IL.
Saturday, October 16, 1852.Urbana, IL.
Lincoln writes and files cross bill for defendants in Rhoades, conservator of Moss v. Corray, and writes court order. Photocopy.
Monday, October 16, 1854.Peoria, IL.
Lincoln and Douglas meet again. Douglas commences to speak at two o'clock and does not finish until after five. Lincoln takes stand and proposes that meeting adjourn until seven, since his will be extended address. At seven people reassemble, and for three hours Lincoln speaks, substantially as he had at Springfield. Illinois Journal, 21 October 1854; Peoria Press, 18 October 1854; Speech at Peoria, Illinois, 16 October 1854, CW, 2:247-83.
Tuesday, October 16, 1855.Clinton, IL.
Emery v. Illinois Central RR, in which Moore and Lincoln represent defendant, is continued. In Dungey v. Spencer, defendant, represented by McKinley and Weldon, files demurrer which is sustained as to two counts and overruled as to third. On Lincoln's motion defendant is ruled to plead by two o'clock. Record.
Friday, October 16, 1857.Clinton, IL.
Lincoln writes and files affidavit in Phares v. Dockum, and another in Smith, Murphy & Co. v. Woodard & Beam. He writes bill for discovery in Snell v. Kelly. Photocopy; Herndon-Weik Collection, Library of Congress, Washington, DC.
Springfield, IL and Lincoln, IL.
Saturday, October 16, 1858.Springfield, IL and Lincoln, IL.
Lincoln travels by train to Lincoln, Illinois. A newspaper reports that the train's cars "were completely filled inside, and covered with passengers on top, before reaching Lincoln." Lincoln arrives at about noon and "partak[es] of some refreshments." At approximately two o'clock, after local attorney Samuel C. Parks introduces him, Lincoln begins a two-hour speech. He delivers the remarks from "the stand, erected near the west front of the Court House" before approximately 5,000 people. A newspaper reports, "Mr. Lincoln made an eloquent speech, and showed up [Stephen A.] Douglas' inconsistencies in fine style." Daily Pantagraph (Bloomington, IL), 18 October 1858, 2:2; Daily Illinois State Journal (Springfield), 18 October 1858, 2:3; Chicago Daily Press and Tribune (IL), 21 October 1858, 2:3.
Someone, perhaps Lincoln, purchases nine pounds of sugar and five pounds of "Java" coffee from the John Williams & Co. store and charges the total cost of two dollars to Lincoln's account. Harry E. Pratt, The Personal Finances of Abraham Lincoln (Springfield, IL: Abraham Lincoln Association, 1943), 145-49.
Tuesday, October 16, 1860.Springfield, IL.
John G. Nicolay records incident: "Mr. Lincoln, coming to his room this morning, was accosted by a stranger who inquired the way to the same place. Mr. Lincoln offered to show him the way, and arriving, very much electrified the man by turning round and saying to him, 'I am Lincoln.' He had no idea he was being ciceroned by the famous Rail Splitter." ISLA—Memo. Ms.
Wednesday, October 16, 1861.Washington, DC.
President and Secretary of State William H. Seward call on General George B. McClellan for informal conversation. McClellan, War for Union, 170.
President and Secretary of State Seward also visited the Navy Yard. National Republican (Washington, DC), 17 October 1861, 3:2; Evening Star (Washington, DC), 17 October 1861, 2:2.
With Generals Sprague and Anderson, Lincoln reviews the Fourth Rhode Island regiment. National Republican (Washington, DC), 17 October 1861, 3:2.
Thursday, October 16, 1862.Washington, DC.
Gen. Prentiss and group of officers captured at Shiloh visit President. Nicolay to Bates, 16 October 1862, John G. Nicolay Papers, Library of Congress, Washington, DC.
Lincoln interviews D. R. Goodloe, chairman, Commission for Emancipation of Slaves in District of Columbia, and William H. Channing, pastor of Washington Unitarian Church, 6th and D Sts. NW., regarding Channing's appointment as chaplain. Memorandum: Appointment of William H. Channing, 16 October 1862, CW, 5:464-65.
Friday, October 16, 1863.Washington, DC.
Mrs. Elizabeth J. Platt of New Jersey calls and asks for son's discharge. [Lincoln orders it five days later.] Abraham Lincoln to Edwin M. Stanton, 16 October 1863, CW, 6:520.
At cabinet meeting President reads his answer to petition from Missouri and Kansas delegation. Bates, Diary.
Also reads to cabinet confidential dispatch to Gen. Meade urging him to fight Gen. R. E. Lee. Welles, Diary.
Writes Gen. Halleck: "If Gen. Meade can now attack him [Lee] on a field no worse than equal for us, and will do so with all the skill and courage, which he, his officers and men possess, the honor will be his if he succeeds, and the blame may be mine if he fails." Abraham Lincoln to Henry W. Halleck, 16 October 1863, CW, 6:518-19.
On behalf of Mrs. Elizabeth E. Hutter, of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Lincoln writes a letter of introduction to Quartermaster General Montgomery C. Meigs. Lincoln explains, "Please see Mrs. Hutter, who has given most of her time to the soldiers, during the war, and who wishes to present an invention of hers for the soldier's comfort, which she would like to have introduced into the service . . . I certainly would prefer having it over my ears in cold weather, to their being naked." Abraham Lincoln to Montgomery C. Meigs, 16 October 1863, CW, 6:519.
Writes T. W. Sweney: "Tad is teasing me to have you forward his pistol to him." Abraham Lincoln to Thomas W. Sweney, 16 October 1863, CW, 6:520-21.
Receives from Capt. Diller a further report on gunpowder. Abraham Lincoln to Gideon Welles, 16 October 1863, CW, 6:521.
Sunday, October 16, 1864.Washington, DC.
President replies to request of Cong. Moorhead (Pa.) for stay of execution: "I do not rem[em]ber about the Peter Gilner case, and must look it up before I can answer." Abraham Lincoln to James K. Moorhead, 16 October 1864, CW, 8:49.

matches:
v.
v.
v.
v.
v.
v.
v.
v.
v.
v.
v.
v.
v.
v.
in fine


text:
структур в ситуации стилевого плюрализма (работы В. Б. Вальковой, В. П. Задерацкого и др.).
форма, вариантное прорастание высшего порядка.
Bobrovskiy V. P. O dvukh metodakh tematicheskogo razvitiya v simfoniyakh i kvartetakh Shostakovicha [About Two Methods of Musical Development in the Symphonies and Quartets by Shostakovich]. Dmitriy Shostakovich [Dmitry Shostakovich]. Comp. by G. Sh. Ordzhonikidze. Moscow, 1967, pp. 359–396.
Bobrovskiy V. P. O nekotorykh printsipakh temo- i formoobrazovaniya v simfoniyakh i kamerno-instrumental'noy muzyke Shostakovicha [About Certain Principles of Theme and Form Generation in Shostakovich’s Symphonies and Chamber Instrumental Music]. V. P. Bobrovskiy. Stat'i. Issledovaniya [V. P. Bobrovsky. Articles. Research Works]. Comp. by E. R. Skurko, E. I. Chigareva. Moscow, 1990, pp. 159–204.
Bobrovskiy V. P. Funktsional'nye osnovy muzykal'noy formy [The Functional Foundations of Musical Form]. Moscow: Muzyka, 1978. 334 p.
Val'kova V. B. The “Dispressed Theme”: The Paths of Russian Musical Scholarship in the Mirror Reflection of the History of One Consept. Problemy muzykal'noj nauki/Music Scholarship. 2015. No. 2, pp. 16–21. (In Russ.) DOI: 10.17674/1997-0854.2015.2.19.016-021.
Zhossan N. Yu. Realization of Folklor in Perspective of Postmodernism (on the Material of Russian Music of Second Half оf the 20th Century). Problemy muzykal'noj nauki/Music Scholarship. 2016. No. 2, pp. 25–34. (In Russ.) DOI: 10.17674/1997-0854.2016.2.025-034.
Zaderatskiy V. V. Muzykal'naya forma. Vyp. 1 [Musical Form. Issue 1]. Moscow: Muzyka, 1995. 544 p.
Kyuregyan T. S. Netipovye formy v sovetskoy muzyke 50–60-kh godov [Atypical Forms in Soviet Music of the 1950s and 1960s]. Problemy muzykal'noy nauki. Vyp. 7 [Issues of Musical Science. Issue 7]. Comp. by V. I. Zak, E. I. Chigareva. Moscow, 1989, pp. 71–89.
Lavrent'eva I. V. Variantnost' i variantnaya forma v pesennykh tsiklakh Shuberta [Variance and Variant Form in the Vocal Cycles by Schubert]. Ot Lyulli do nashikh dney [From Lully up to the Present Day]. Comp. by V. D. Konen. Moscow, 1967, pp. 33–70.
Lavrent'eva I. V. Vliyanie pesennosti na formoobrazovanie v simfoniyakh Shuberta (k voprosu o vzaimodeystvii vokal'nykh i instrumental'nykh form v pesennom simfonizme) [The Influence of Song Melodiousness on the Creation of Form in Schubert’s Symphonies (Concerning the Question of Vocal and Instrumental Interaction in Song-Inspired Symphonic Writing)]. O muzyke. Problemy analisa [About Music. Issues of Analysis]. Comp. by V. P. Bobrovskiy, G. L. Golovinskiy. Moscow, 1974, pp. 164–194.
Lavrent'eva I. V. Vokal'nye formy v kurse analiza muzykal'nykh proizvedeniy [The Vocal Forms in a Course of Analysis of Musical Compositions]. Moscow: Muzyka, 1978. 80 p.
Mazel' L. A. O melodii [About Melody]. Moscow: Muzyka, 1952. 300 p.
Protopopov V. V. Variatsionnye protsessy v muzykal'noy forme [Variation-Related Processes in Musical Form]. Moscow: Sovetskiy kompozitor, 1967. 151 p.
Protopopov V. V. Variatsionnyy metod razvitiya tematizma v muzyke Shopena [The Variation Method of the Development of Thematicism in the Music of Frederic Chopin]. Friderik Shopen [Frederic Chopin]. Moscow: Muzyka, 1960, pp. 232–296.
Skurko E. R. K voprosu formoobrazovaniya v instrumental'noy muzyke S. Rakhmaninova [Concerning the Question of Form Creation in Instrumental Music by Sergei Rachmaninoff]. Muzykal'naya akademiya [Musical Academy]. 2014. No. 3, pp. 116–120.
Skurko E. R. O zhanrovo-stilisticheskikh predposylkakh variantnosti v instrumental'noy muzyke S. V. Rakhmaninova [About the Genre-Related and Stylistic Premises of the Variant-Related Method of Development in the Instrumental Music of Sergei Rachmaninoff]. S. V. Rakhmaninov. K 120-letiyu so dnya rozhdeniya: materialy nauchnoy konferentsii [S. V. Rachmaninoff. Towards to 120th Anniversary of His Birth: Proceedings of the Scholarly Conference]. Ed. by A. I. Kandinskiy. Scholarly works of the Moscow Tchaikovsky Conservatory. Issue 7. Moscow, 1995, pp. 147–154.
Skurko E. R. Sergey Rachmaninoff’s Variations for Piano: Concerning the Question of Interpretation the Genre. Problemy muzykal'noj nauki/Music Scholarship. 2016. No. 2, pp. 50–56. (In Russ.) DOI: 10.17674/1997-0854.2016.2.050-056.
Sosnovtsev B. A. Variantnaya forma [Variant-Related Form]. Nauchno-metodicheskie zapiski Saratovskoy konservatorii [Scholarly-Methodical Notes of the Saratov Conservatory]. Ed. by A. I. Bystrov. Saratov, 1957, pp. 58–65.
Tarakanov M. E. Stil' simfoniy Prokof'eva [The Style of Prokofiev’s Symphonies]. Moscow: Muzyka, 1968. 432 p.
Tsenova V. S. K teorii sovremennoy muzykal'noy kompozitsii [Towards the Theory of Contemporary Musical Composition]. Sovetskaya muzyka [Soviet Music]. 1991. No. 9, pp. 87–99.
Tsukkerman V. A. Analiz muzykal'nykh proizvedeniy. Variatsionnaya forma [Analysis of Musical Works. Variation Form]. Moscow: Muzyka, 1974. 234 p.
Tsukkerman V. A. «Kamarinskaya» Glinki i ee traditsii v russkoy muzyke [The “Kamarinskaya” by Mikhail Glinka and Its Traditions in Russian Music]. Moscow: Muzyka, 1957. 498 p.

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


Sol. Gen. Simon E. Sobeloff, Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Mr. W. R. Ashburn, Norfolk, Va., for respondent.
In this case the United States District Court directed a verdict for respondent because petitioner failed to present evidence of either a breach of contract or resulting damages sufficient to sustain a verdict for petitioner. The Court of Appeals, however, affirmed the judgment on the ground that the alleged contract was unenforceable. For the reasons hereafter stated, we agree with the District Court that the evidence was not sufficient to sustain the alleged breach of contract. Accordingly, we do not reach or pass upon the other grounds discussed by the Court of Appeals.
In 1948, the crops of Irish potatoes in the United States and Canada were among the largest on record. As a result, the United States, in § 1(b) of the Agricultural Act of 1948, 62 Stat. 1247, 1248, 7 U.S.C.A. § 1282 note, obligated itself to support the sale of such potatoes at 90% of their parity price. This program was carried out through agreements of the Commodity Credit Corporation to purchase, from eligible growers or dealers in the United States, all Irish potatoes harvested before January 1, 1949, provided such potatoes could not be sold commercially at 90% of parity. As the unsupported Canadian prices were lower than the supported prices in the United States, it became profitable to import Canadian potatoes despite the tariff and freight charges. Recognizing that fact, Congress authorized investigations by the Tariff Commission, under the President's direction, which might lead to imposing quantitative limitations on imports or to increasing import fees. 62 Stat. 1248—1250, 7 U.S.C. § 624, 7 U.S.C.A. § 624.
However, without resorting to that procedure, the United States acted through diplomatic channels. Its Acting Secretary of State and the Canadian Ambassador exchanged notes on November 23, 1948, purporting to consummate an executive agreement effective at once. For their text see Appendix, infra, 75 S.Ct. 331. Of special significance to this litigation are the undertakings made by Canada, in its note, to place its Irish potatoes under export control, to withhold export permits for the movement of table stock potatoes to the United States, and to issue export permits for the shipment of Canadian certified seed potatoes to the United States only under specified circumstances. Those circumstances were that the shipments be limited to specified States where there was a legitimate demand for certified seed potatoes and to a short period before the normal seeding time. Permits were to be granted only to exporters having firm orders from legitimate United States users of Canadian seed potatoes, and those exporters were 'to have included in any contract into which they might enter with a United States seed potato importer a clause in which the importer would give an assurance that the potatoes would not be diverted or reconsigned for table stock purposes.' Appendix, infra, 75 S.Ct. 331. The agreement terminated June 20, 1949.
'The action here is for breach of contract made between a Canadian exporter and Capps, the American importer, and specifically of a stipulation placed in that contract which the Court has held was for the benefit of the United States.
'The expression constituting that stipulation is that certified seed potatoes loaded on the S.S. Gangway are for planting in Florida and Georgia. Now, assuming that the Court is correct in holding that that stipulation is an agreement within the meaning of the Executive Treaty or an assurance, as it is called in the Executive Treaty, to the effect that the potatoes would not be diverted or reconsigned for table stock purposes—I say assuming that the Court is correct in holding that this provision is an assurance, there is no proof here sufficient to go to the jury that there has been such a diversion or reconsignment, or that there has been a lack of diligence or care on the part of this defendant to see to it that its assurance was carried out.
'In the first place, the only diversion or reconsignment was from the defendant to the Atlantic Commission Company. Now that was not a diversion or reconsignment for table stock purposes. Nor does it evidence any want of care on the part of the defendant to see that the assurance was kept, because the evidence shows that this defendant had from year to year sold to Atlantic, potatoes exclusively for seed purposes. The evidence does not justify or would not justify the jury in drawing a conclusion that it was a reckless abandonment by the defendant of its obligation to see to the use of these potatoes because the defendant had the right to rely upon its previous experiences.
The Court of Appeals disagreed with the District Court on the above points.3 However, it affirmed the judgment on the ground that the international agreement, which the contract between respondent and the exporter sought to carry out, was void. The court regarded it as not authorized by Congress and as contravening the provision for procedure through the Tariff Commission. The court also held that the suit must fail because no cause of action had been created by Congress for this type of injury. 204 F.2d 655, 658—661. We granted certiorari to determine whether the significant constitutional and statutory questions discussed by the Court of Appeals were necessary for the decision of the case and, if so, to give them consideration. 346 U.S. 884, 74 S.Ct. 135, 98 L.Ed. 389.
We have first examined the record in order to pass upon the preliminary questions on which the Court of Appeals disagreed with the trial court. See Walling v. General Industries Co., 330 U.S. 545, 547, 550, 67 S.Ct. 883, 885, 91 L.Ed. 1088; and see also, Story Parchment Co. v. Paterson Parchment Paper Co., 282 U.S. 555, 560, 567—568, 51 S.Ct. 248, 249, 252, 75 L.Ed. 544.
Respondent's alleged obligation is stated in its first telegram, which must be read in the light of the above-mentioned correspondence between the United States and Canada. That correspondence recognized that importations of Canadian seed potatoes, as well as of Canadian table stock potatoes, might displace eligible American potatoes in American commercial markets and thus might add to the burden of the American price-support program. The correspondence, nevertheless, did not seek to exclude Canadian seed potatoes. On the contrary, it provided for the continuance of shipments of seed potatoes to specified States in the United States, during a short period immediately prior to the normal seeding time. In addition, Canada agreed to require its exporters to secure assurance from each importer of Canadian seed potatoes that such potatoes would not be diverted or reconsigned for table stock purposes. In effect, this agreement stopped the regular Canadian-American trade in Canadian table stock potatoes, while preserving such trade in Canadian seed potatoes. There was no suggestion that each importer, during the short open season for Canadian seed potatoes, had to take any new or extraordinary affirmative steps to see to it that the ultimate purchasers never ate their seed potatoes, or that each American retailer of Canadian seed potatoes, in its usual course of business, segregated such potatoes from table stock potatoes in any manner not customary in the sale of seed potatoes.
The undisputed evidence showed that the entire shipment to Jacksonville was made in containers with markings and tags identifying the potatoes as 'Canadian No. 1 seed potatoes.' There was no showing that this identification was separated from the potatoes at any point short of the ultimate offering of some of the potatoes at retail. There was, in short, no evidence that any of the potatoes were at any time reconsigned or otherwise treated except as had been customary in prior commercial dealings in seed potatoes.
At Jacksonville the entire shipment was invoiced by respondent to the Atlantic Commission Company as 'Canada No. 1 Seed Potatoes.' Most of the 10,000 sacks (which, at the time of their delivery to that company in Jacksonville, were resold by it to respondent) were invoiced by respondent to other customers in a like manner.4 The Atlantic Commission Company, in turn, invoiced to its purchasers, in the same manner, the sacks which it received from respondent. Of them, 13,627 sacks were invoiced by the Commission Company to its parent company, the Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, at three points in Florida and one in Georgia, but 1,641 sacks were invoiced to points in Alabama. The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company primarily sold foodstuffs but also dealt in vegetables for planting purposes, such as seed potatoes, onion sets and cabbage sets. It sold seed potatoes not only to home gardeners but to planters of small commercial acreages. The Commission Company invoiced the remaining 24,926 sacks to over 30 separate dealers in Florida and Georgia, but invoiced 2,309 to points in Alabama. All of the consignees were dealers in vegetables and groceries, and the primary volume of their trade was in articles for food. But there was testimony that some of these dealers customarily handled seed potatoes for planting purposes and there was no evidence that any of them did not. Respondent previously had sold seed potatoes to the Atlantic Commission Company and that company had used channels of distribution comparable to those used in this instance. There was no evidence of the reconsignment of any of these seed potatoes for table stock, or of the diversion of any of them from the commercial channels theretofore usually used for sales of seed potatoes in this area during the planting season. Exception has not been taken to the States designated or to the times when the sales were to be made.
The evidence also did not support the suggestion that some of these potatoes were unsuitable for planting in the areas designated. It was not enough that one witness said that only 20% of the original shipment consisted of potatoes belonging to the three most popular varieties grown in Florida in that year.
There was no evidence of bad faith, neglect or carelessness on the part of respondent in performing its contractual obligations. There was no evidence of any intent of respondent that the potatoes be sold for table use. It freely acknowledged the existence of the international agreement and declared its purpose to cooperate with it.
It was conceded that these potatoes were specially suited for use as seed but also that they were of high-grade edible quality. There was, however, no evidence that any substantial part of these potatoes ultimately was eaten. The most that appeared was that ten pounds of the seed potatoes were sold by a grocery in St. Augustine, Florida, to two women who appeared to be housewives buying for home use. There was also evidence that a few potatoes, probably from the shipment, were sold to customers of the same type by a Jacksonville store and by an A & P market in Atlanta, Georgia.
In sum, all that respondent did was to sell seed potatoes, labeled as seed potatoes, in seeding time to concerns which normally dealt in seed potatoes. Under these circumstances, the District Court was not clearly in error in making the findings it did or in directing the verdict for respondent on the ground that no breach of contract was shown. Walling v. General Industries Co., 330 U.S. 545, 67 S.Ct. 883, 91 L.Ed. 1088.
In view of the foregoing, there is no occasion for us to consider the other questions discussed by the Court of Appeals. The decision in this case does not rest upon them.
'1. Include Irish potatoes in the list of commodities for which an export permit is required under the provisions of the Export and Import Permits Act.
'2. Withhold export permits for the movement of table stock potatoes to the United States proper, excluding Alaska.
'(a) Export permits will be issued to Canadian exporters for shipments to specified States in the United States and such permits will only be granted within the structure of a specific schedule. The schedule is designed to direct the shipment of Canadian certified seed potatoes into those States where there is a legitimate demand for certified seed potatoes and only during a short period immediately prior to the normal seeding time. A draft of this schedule is now being jointly prepared by Canadian and United States officials.
'(b) Export permits would only be granted to Canadian exporters who could give evidence that they had firm orders from legitimate United States users of Canadian seed potatoes. Canadian exporters would also be required to have included in any contract into which they might enter with a United States seed potato importer a clause in which the importer would give an assurance that the potatoes would not be diverted or reconsigned for table stock purposes.
'(c) The Canadian Government would survey the supply of Canadian certified seed potatoes by class and consider the possibility of giving precedence to the export of Foundation and Foundation A classes of certified seed.
'(d) The names and addresses of the consignees entered on the export permit would be compiled periodically and this information would be forwarded to the United States Government.
'In instituting a system which has the effect of restricting exports of Canadian potatoes to the United States, the Canadian Government recognizes a responsibility to the Canadian commercial grower in certain surplus potato areas and is prepared to guarantee a minimum return on gradable potatoes for which the grower cannot find a sales outlet. Although the details of such a programme have not been finalized, it is anticipated that the Canadian Government will announce, at approximately the same time as potatoes are placed under export control, a floor price will be effective April 1st, 1949 for certain carlot shipping areas in the East. To implement this programme the Canadian Government would inspect the potato holdings of commercial growers in Prince Edward Island, and several counties of New Brunswick, on or after April 1st and would undertake to pay a fixed price for every hundred pounds of Canada No. 1 potatoes found in the bins. It is not anticipated that any actual payment would be made at that time and it would be understood that if any of the potatoes examined were subsequently sold or used for seed purposes the owner would forfeit any claim for assistance on such potatoes. In other words, the Canadian Government would make no payment on potatoes which move into export trade, or which are used for seed purposes.
'a) The United States Government will not hereafter impose any quantitative limitations or fees on Canadian potatoes of the 1948 crop exported to the United States under the system of regulating the movement of potatoes from Canada to the United States outlined herein.
'If the United States Government in its replying note accepts the Canadian proposals and gives to the Canadian Government the assurances required, as outlined above, this note and the reply thereto will constitute an agreement on this subject.
'Accept, Sir, the renewed assurances of my highest consideration.
'The Government of the United States appreciates the assurance of the Government of Canada contained in your note no. 538 of November 23, 1948, that the Government of Canada is prepared, contingent upon the receipt of certain assurances from the Government of the United States, to establish the controls outlined therein over the exportation of potatoes from Canada to the United States.
'In view of the adverse effect which unrestricted imports of Canadian potatoes would have on the potato programs of the United States and the fact that it is anticipated that the Canadian proposal will substantially reduce the quantity of potatoes which would otherwise be imported into the United States, and in the interest of international trade between the United States and Canada and other considerations, the United States Government assures the Canadian Government that it will not hereafter impose any quantitative limitations or fees on Canadian potatoes of the 1948 crop imported into the United States under the system or regulating the movement of potatoes to the United States outlined in the Canadian proposal.
'The Government of the United States also wishes to inform the Canadian Government with respect to that Government's proposal to guarantee a floor price to certain commercial growers in the Maritime Provinces, that in the opinion of the Treasury Department, the operation of such a proposal as outlined by the Canadian Government would not be considered as a payment or bestowal, directly or indirectly, of any bounty or grant upon the manufacture, production, or export of the potatoes concerned and no countervailing duty would, therefore, be levied, under the provisions of Section 303, Tariff Act of 1930, as a result of such operation of the proposal on potatoes imported from Canada.
'The United States Government agrees that your note under reference, together with this reply, will constitute an agreement on this subject.
'Accept, Excellency, the renewed assurances of my highest consideration.
Treaties and Other International Acts Series 1896, Department of State, Publication 3474.
'Less 10,000 Sax Canada No. 1 Seed Potatoes @ $3.65 f.o.b.' These 10,000 sacks were immediately resold by the Atlantic Commission Company to respondent. Of them, 8,730 were invoiced by respondent on the same day as 'Canada No. 1 Seed Potatoes' in seven lots to four separate dealers in Florida and Georgia, at prices between $3.75 and $4 per cwt. There was no evidence as to the disposition of the remaining 1,270 sacks.
'We have little difficulty in seeing in the evidence breach of contract on the part of defendant and damage resulting to the United States from the breach.' 204 F.2d at page 658.