LEBOVITZ

v.

UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By

• Honorable Ellis Gregory, Jr. v. Honorable John D. Ashcroft, 898 F.2d 598 (8th Cir. 1990)
  …, cl. 2. Thus, “to the extent that the [ADEA] conflict[s] with existing state mandatory retirement statutes, the Supremacy Clause dictates that federal law prevail.” Orzel v. City of Wauwatosa Fire Dep’t, 697 F. 2d 743, 752 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 992, 104 S.Ct. 484, 78 L.Ed.2d 680 (1983). For supremacy clause purposes, it makes no difference that here the mandatory retirement provision is found in the state constitution rather than in a state statute. Because, however, the tenure of state judges…
• Frantz v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue, 784 F.2d 119 (2d Cir. 1986)
  …Scherman v. Commissioner, 74 F. 2d 742 (2d Cir.1935) (allowing immediate deduction for loss relating to transfer of shares to employee of the corporation); Til-ford v. Commissioner, 75 T.C. 134 (1980), rev’d, 705 F. 2d 828 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 992, 104 S.Ct. 485, 78 L.Ed.2d 681 (1983) (capital loss allowed on stock transfer to employee); Downer v. Commissioner, 48 T.C. 86 (1967) (capital loss allowed on stock transfer to employee). The Tax Court ruled in favor of the Commissioner. Relying on…

  ← 1 / 2 →