Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
However, a real property within the United States and a real property outside the United States would not be like-kind properties. Generally, "like kind" in terms of real estate, means any property that is classified real estate in any of the 50 U.S. states or Washington, D.C., and in some cases, the U.S. Virgin Islands.
A lump-sum tax is a special way of taxation, based on a fixed amount, rather than on the real circumstance of the taxed entity. [1] In this, the entity cannot do anything to change their liability. [2] In contrast with a per unit tax, lump-sum tax does not increase in size as the output increases. [3]
Annaleine “Anne” Reynolds snapped up some vacant land in Hawaii for about $22,500 at an auction back in 2018. ... Commercial real estate has beaten the stock market for 25 years — but only ...
A tax on the unimproved aspects of land tends to be a progressive tax, since the wealthier one is, the more land one tends to own and the poor typically do not own any land at all. Lump-sum taxes are not politically expedient because they sometimes require a complete overhaul of the tax system.
The rule against perpetuities serves a number of purposes. First, English courts have long recognized that allowing owners to attach long-lasting contingencies to their property harms the ability of future generations to freely buy and sell the property, since few people would be willing to buy property that had unresolved issues regarding its ownership hanging over it.
For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to reach us
The Land Court of the State of Hawaiʻi (originally, the Court of Land Registration in the former U.S. Territory of Hawaii) has exclusive jurisdiction in the Hawaiʻi State Judiciary over cases involving registered land titles. [1] The Land Court system of land registration was created by statute in 1903 as a Torrens system of land titles. [2]
Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff, 467 U.S. 229 (1984), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that a state could use eminent domain to take land that was overwhelmingly concentrated in the hands of private landowners and redistribute it to the wider population of private residents.