Ad
related to: ohio irrebuttable presumption as nonresident filing certificate
Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Essentially, the rules were found to be too arbitrary (fixed dates chosen for no apparent reason) and irrebuttable (having no relation to individual medical conditions and with no way to make exceptions for good reason). [1] In the Court's opinion, Justice Stewart went on to explain:
U.S. State Nonresident Withholding Tax is a mandatory prepayment of tax of individuals or entities that are not resident in the state.A common example of this is the taxation of oil and natural gas royalty interest revenue.
Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961), was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision in which the Court ruled that the exclusionary rule, which prevents a prosecutor from using evidence that was obtained by violating the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, applies to states as well as the federal government.
The Substantial Presence Test (SPT) is a criterion used by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in the United States to determine whether an individual who is not a citizen or lawful permanent resident in the recent past qualifies as a "resident for tax purposes" or a "nonresident for tax purposes"; [1] [2] it is a form of physical presence test.
Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83 (1968), was a United States Supreme Court case holding that federal taxpayers have standing to seek relief from the courts for claims that federal tax money is being used for unconstitutional purposes in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
Such a presumption may legitimately arise from a rule of law or a procedural rule of the court or other adjudicating body which determines how the facts in the case are to be proved, and may be either rebuttable or irrebuttable. An irrebuttable presumption of fact may not be challenged by the defense, and the presumed fact is taken as having ...
Mutual Film Corporation v. Industrial Commission of Ohio, 236 U.S. 230 (1915), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court ruling by a 9–0 vote that the free speech protection of the Ohio Constitution, which was substantially similar to the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, did not extend to motion pictures.
Aptheker v. Secretary of State, 378 U.S. 500 (1964), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court on the right to travel and passport restrictions as they relate to Fifth Amendment due process rights and First Amendment free speech, freedom of assembly and freedom of association rights.