Mary Cesarini Vs America Case Analysis

The investigation brought about the dissolution of the firm. Mr. Lomanno became fearful that this investigation would expose his embezzlement scheme. He decided to seek legal advice and he contacted a criminal attorney. The matter was taken up with the office of the US Attorney. He confessed for all his wrong doings and was offered a plea bargain which had a condition that he file his returns for the year 1986, 1987, and 1988 which had not being filed. The income from embezzlement was reported as “other income” and was in tunes of $45,007 for 1987 and $15,005 for 1988. Because he did not want the petitioner to know about this, he prepared the returns alone and tried to hand them in unsigned. The officers saw the unsigned part and wanted it signed. He went ahead and forged the signature of the petitioner. The petitioner came to learn of her husband’s embezzlement in the year 1990 through a probation officer and through a letter received from IRS revenue agent. The couple divorced in 1991. Mrs. Lomanno petitioned to be exempted from the tax return payments. In this case, the petitioner filed a subject motion for attorney’s fees and litigation costs.

From the information that was provided, the income was derived from the business and this gross income is taxable pursuant to Code§1.61-3(a). He is subject to self-employment tax, since the total amount of income that will come through to his personal tax income of half of the self-employment tax liability.

Working under the assumption that Adrian is a cash basis taxpayer, one can refer to Treasury Regulation sec. 1451-1(a), which states that under the cash receipts and disbursements method of accounting, such an amount is includible in gross income when actually or constructively received.

Interest income received by a cash basis taxpayer is generally reported in the tax year it is received.

Thank you for coming to our offices and allowing us to review and discus your concerns regarding your tax questions. I have been assigned to reply to your questions and I have listed my recommendations below. After you both have reviewed these recommendations, please contact me so we can go over any additional questions you may have.

reduce her personal income. This amount is still unpaid on December 31, 2008. What are the tax

| Brun is required to file an amended return to report the additional $2,000 of income.

The case of U.S. v. Lopez (1995) was the case of a young man in 12th grade named Alfonso Lopez Jr. who brought a loaded gun to school and was arrested and charged under Texas law. The state charges were later dismissed and federal agents charged him because he violated the Gun Free School Zone Act of 1990. This acts states that it is unlawful for people to bring firearms to a place that "the individual knows, or has a reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone." He was charged by federal agents because he violated a federal criminal law, however this was also dismissed because it was unconstitutional. This was the big issue surrounding this case. The act was unconstitutional because the Supreme Court said congress went above its constitutional

John Smith’s earned income of $300,000 will reported as gross income either on Schedule c of the individual return or as gross income on the LLC return. As a result of the variance in the state laws as to whether or not a single person LLC can report on a business return is the reasons why it could be either reported on the Schedule C or LLC. Some states that do not allow the separate reporting see the LLC as meaning not to be reported separately from the individual.

By checking DHR, her significant other, Jeffery Leavy, received $6500.00 + UC $2537.00, total income of $9037.00. Per TRACS, his wage was verified thru his employer, Gedenberg Trucking, and for the UC was verified thru UC insurance system.

On June 1, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States held that a debtor may not void, or “strip off,” a wholly underwater second lien in Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceedings. In doing so, the Supreme Court reversed the Eleventh Circuit’s affirmation of a decision from the Middle District of Florida, which had granted the debtors' motions to void the underwater second liens.

The question is how should a $300,000 fee collected by John Smith after two years of work on a personal injury case with a $2,000,000 jury verdict in his clients favor, be reported for tax purposes.

Ninth Circuit Court holds that an employee has a reasonable expectation of privacy in their private office, because it is locked and not shared with others. This reasonable expectation of privacy extends to the contents of their office, including the employee’s company computer, located therein. As a result, the court held that the fourth amendment protects both the office and computer from warrantless searches by the government unless it obtains valid consent from either the defendant or one with common authority over the items searched, or proceeds on the authorization of one with apparent authority to give such valid consent. In this case, the Ninth Circuit holds that the government obtained valid consent from one with common authority over the items searched, when it received such consent from the employee’s employer. The employer had common authority over the employee’s office computer because it had a policy of, and regularly did, monitor employees’ computer usage of company machines, a policy of which its employees were made aware. The court accordingly denied defendant’s motion to suppress evidence found by the government during its warrantless search of defendant’s office computer. As a result, pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant was convicted of the receipt of obscene material based, in part, on evidence obtained during this search. The evidence obtained during this search, and by the company earlier, showed that defendant had viewed and had possession of

Likewise, mere possession of a vehicle cannot support an inference of knowledge regarding the presence of contraband, and it certainly cannot support the specific intent as to a conspiracy or otherwise for aiding and abetting. Indeed, “[i]t is axiomatic that more is required than mere knowledge of the purpose of a conspiracy. See, e.g., Direct Sales Co. v. United States, 319 U.S. 703, 711-13 (1943); United States v. Ceballos, 340 F.3d 115, 124 (2d Cir. 2003). What is more, such knowledge by itself, would not even establish aiding and abetting liability, which requires proof of the intent to contribute to the success of the underlying crime, see United States v. Reifler, 446 F.3d 65, 96 (2d Cir. 2006), let alone conspiracy. See

The sale did not occur in 2001 and JHH continued to use the specific identification method for its inventory for 2001 through 2007. But later it tried to amend the tax return for the corresponding years to correct an error of using the specific identification method and reverting back to LIFO inventory method, and requested a refund. After JHH received its refund, IRS sent a notice of deficiency for the years covered under amended returns. JHH filed a petition with the Tax Court.