CTA Case No. 579 (Decision)
~ HILIPPI 0 J APPEAl ... - "'-A lU t �� � � � - -.. ---� n a f , � � .). � � � t �� . ). 363
.. ��������������������� t IX �������� �� ��������������������������� t�x ����������������~�������������������� ������������ �� � - 0 C! ... 1 ;� � + y f l !!)5 (p ' � .n�� Sa,it,. l ~t 0 Ci t y �� 0 s y c f ~2, 26 �
l ' � ��� ~ .. .., ... e 1 1 th 1 X r �tu nc �� a l d y P"l: .r. � t G. } u ~ . , rr .1 i 3, T. e ) �hi � 1� ' 19;,.);. ( � . s ., n. , � � �t, 19~~ . � t. - � t z�� ). tn f for ,. eu �;;) 1...1 x�::-._i � tl ~ � t ~ �l 11'-f.: . h . � .!J..r..." ... n � > c t ua (�� ..t i Jl "' �! ~r: 1n~ -- j p 7, l , ). l 1 s. :r Ltl ~.- !t. l . � 1: Vf. fvr ~ 1� frl d t>, I th r l .,. v�. ~. ~ ~ 11~ � f� 1. C! �tot . 1 p t - f o. .} 0 p � 365
�t ..\. � v � 4� t" s s 11 h fh c 1� � t..~ 1 . � � t ., "' rdcn l ..~" ... � � � c � t." � ' � .il U . ., 366
� � � ;'t r.o t f r �p � t c- t t ' 1 1 cf 1 t -� 367
368
� t T t .. �J 0 �� II �� � �� 1 369
� .t. . � � ��:9 � "" Z: �� o. v . !i tid 6~ Pb!l. 16 cl ar n c � evtdtlnc. .. ( oyet<t v., t..�� M-li$S on ... � ff h V COUli� SS!Ol :r � y ~� tf � 7 {2 } 749; ':. . � ;) '�� 27'"< ( <Jo; doy 1 Fa~a_nia co., 1 :v ) \lld $ lC- pr 0 ... t c n 'll:' o. w llt 1� "' n ~ 11 ' lr ... .I. ~n� ne ft it cruet�� , i.t i'11JS�t b '�t'th "'irJt ntt: >in 'stat � of mine" , se pt b of by �1r ct drn.t... $ J.!)1 � on th Z8 a. � 11 . .f au :.: 1 ii nt o f., co:n.l , ub t J'l::.t l in � � I nttal total . d ttnc,. m_; ( ?) .~.nt n � n l o er te: n of d c nt.tal In ruotm�t ~ L., ~ r.uo$tant al in r t th to ... per t , 1nc ir' ; n one tax y �r l lt r . frnud � � . 370 .. �. � '�tf �' I
� l t I . ~ t B$(1 1 oo r tat ' not h t � on t it on c'f: (i c lltc: o_� of t + ''I. � �llt::�S ).J 19... f f tt t1 r. t r pond J a 'tel l c J.Q tor �ollact!. ., iJnd r r ... � li Cb l t!O > tr� t~� ll. � � � ~ ...., ' i{O it-e � i' o� 1.-J.~l J nuar 7t4�.- � - ttl d be for thi Court n ~ tob ';t2, 19- � ~Qfi t .. $ n:~ 1 y ft- In h d� 0 .,.... C:U; "'"'; ly, t t , h" of' tn r �t � � r- t p y to t -.. -�nt t." � 371
�.. � t p t tton � ... '. � � 37 2
More in CTA Decisions
- MINDANAO SANITARIUM AND HOSPITAL INC., v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE(CTA Case No. 9783)
- CTA Case No. 6 (Decision)(CTA Case No. 6)
- CTA Case No. 2141 (Decision)(CTA Case No. 2141)
- METROPOLITAN RESOURCES CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE(CTA Case No. EB 464)
- COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. SATURN HOLDINGS CORPORATION(CTA Case No. EB 1747)
- UNITED COCONUT PLANTERS BANK v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE(CTA Case No. 7164)
- CTA Case No. 2524 (Decision)(CTA Case No. 2524)
- CTA Case No. 790 (Decision)(CTA Case No. 790)
Want an analysis of this document?
Ask ASG Legal AI to summarize it, compare it with other rulings, or explain how it applies to your situation — it researches from this same library.