skip navigation
search

Search the opinions of the US Supreme Court

Search for:
All decisions
Only decisions since 1991
Only summaries of decisions
Only historic decisions
use and, or, not -- and is default
* acts as wildcard, phrases in "double quotes"

Did you mean estate or gift and tax?

Your query (estate or gift) and tax returned 22 results.

1000 UNITED STATES V. ESTATE OF ROMANII, 523 U.S. 517 (1998)
[Syllabus]
951 C.I.R. V. ESTATE OF HUBERT, 520 U.S. 93 (1997)
[Syllabus]
720 U.S. V. BROCKAMP, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF MCGILL, DECEASED, 519 U.S. 347 (1997)
[Syllabus]
1000
[Syllabus]
946 C.I.R. V. ESTATE OF HUBERT, 520 U.S. 93 (1997)
[Syllabus]
932 DRYE V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
Whether the interest of an heir in an estate constitutes 'property ' or a 'right to property' to which the federal tax lien attaches under 26 U.S.C 6321 even though the heir thereafter purports retroactively to disclaim the interest under state law.
825 UNITED STATES V. ESTATE OF ROMANII, 523 U.S. 517 (1998)
[Syllabus]
682
[Syllabus]
629 BALLARD V. COMMISSIONER
[Syllabus]
626 RALEIGH V. ILLINOIS DEPT. OF REVENUE
[Syllabus]
Should tax claims in bankruptcy be given the advantage of placing the burden of proof on an objecting trustee, in contrast to the rule applicable to the claims of other creditors?"
581 U.S. V. BROCKAMP, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF MCGILL, DECEASED, 519 U.S. 347 (1997)
[Syllabus]
542 LEVIN V. COMMERCE ENERGY, INC.
[Syllabus]
516 HIBBS V. WINN
[Syllabus]
499
[Syllabus]
449
[Syllabus]
424 MCINTYRE V. OHIO ELECTIONS COMM'N, 514 U.S. 334 (1995).
[Syllabus]
376 ROUSEY V. JACOWAY
[Syllabus]
376 RAYMOND B. YATES, M.D., P.C. PROFIT SHARINGPLAN V. HENDON
[Syllabus]
Whether the working owner of a business (here, the sole shareholder of a corporate employer) is precluded from being a "participant" under Section 3(7) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1002(7), in an ERISA plan?
345 EMPIRE HEALTHCHOICE ASSURANCE, INC. V. MCVEIGH
[Syllabus]
320
[Syllabus]
249 RIVET V. REGIONS BANK OF LA., 522 U.S. 470 (1998)
[Syllabus]
193
[Syllabus]
193
[Syllabus]
193
[Syllabus]
193 BROWN V. LEGAL FOUNDATION OF WASH.
[Syllabus]
Interest earned on client funds deposited in IOLTA accounts that is transferred to a different owner for a legitimate public use may constitute a per se taking requiring "just compensation" to the client under the Fifth Amendment; but because such compensation is measured by the owner's pecuniary interest, which is zero whenever Washington's IOLTA law is obeyed, there is no violation of the Just Compensation Clause here.