43.
a. Stange v. United States , 282 U.S. 270, 51 S. Ct. 145, 75 L. Ed. 335, 1931 U.S. LEXIS 2, 71 Ct. Cl. 778, 1931-1 C.B. 414, 9 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 598, 1931 P.H. P391, 2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) P638 (1931) Yellow Triangle
b. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES January 5, 1931, Decided
c. 282 U.S. 277 p.281
51 S. Ct. 148 p.150
75 L. Ed. 339 p.342c.
d. Louisiana-Pacific Corp. v. Dep't of Revenue 26 P.3d 422, 2001 Alas. LEXIS 54 (Alaska 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1 |
26 P.3d 422 p.429 | |
44.
a. Hintze v. IRS , 879 F.2d 121, 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 9989, 64 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5206, 89-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) P9451 (4th Cir. Va. 1989) Red stop sign shape.
b. 12,4
c. JUDGES: Phillips and Wilkinson, Circuit Judges, and Butzner, Senior Circuit Judge. OPINION BY: PHILLIPS
d. CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF CALIFORNIA, PETITIONER v. UNITED STATES AND FRANK S. ZOLIN, 506 US 9
“We recognize that several Courts of Appeals have accepted the Government's argument in IRS enforcement proceedings, 8 but the force of that line of authority is matched [*16] by a similar array of decisions reaching a contrary conclusion in proceedings enforcing Federal Trade Commission (FTC) discovery requests. 9”

45.
a. OPINION BY: ROBERTS
Reason: “JUDGES: Roberts, C. J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court”
b. United States Court of Federal Claims Tax Court heard the appeal PRIOR HISTORY | 1. | | Hinck v. United States, 64 Fed. Cl. 71, 2005 U.S. Claims LEXIS 27, 95 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 873, 2005-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) P50270 (2005) | | 2. | | Affirmed by: | | | | Hinck v. United States, 446 F.3d 1307, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 11067, 97 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 2336 (Fed. Cir. 2006) | | 3. | | Writ of certiorari granted: | | | | Hinck v. United States, 549 U.S. 1162, 127 S. Ct. 1055, 166 L. Ed. 2d 797, 2007 U.S. LEXIS 1009, 75 U.S.L.W. 3366 (2007) | | 4. | | Motion granted by: | | | | Hinck v. United States, 549 U.S. 1263, 127 S. Ct. 1507, 167 L. Ed. 2d 226, 2007 U.S. LEXIS 2838, 75 U.S.L.W. 3473 (2007) |
c. Hinck v. United States , 550 U.S. 501, 127 S. Ct. 2011, 167 L. Ed. 2d 888, 2007 U.S. LEXIS 6081, 75 U.S.L.W. 4352, 20 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 279, 99 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 2814, 2007-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) P50496 (2007)
Green diamond with a “+” in the center
d. Code section 6404 April 23, 2007, Argued May 21, 2007, Decided

46. a. Red stop sign shape
b. PRIOR HISTORY: [***1] Appeal from a supplemental judgment, Comley, J., rendered in an action of foreclosure in the Superior Court in Hartford County, determining that the liens of the city of New Britain for taxes and water rates due from the named defendant are entitled to priority over the liens of the United States for taxes owed by that defendant.
c. 26 U.S.C.S. §§ 3670-3672 31 U.S.C.S. § 191
d.

57.
a. 26 T.C. No. 396, 26 T.C. No. 49
b. Standard Federal Tax Reporter (2012),16,753.707,Corporate Reorganizations: Substantially All the Property: Equity, but not shares, transferred
A Louisiana corporation owned 50 percent of the stock of a Mississippi corporation. The net assets of both corporations were transferred to a new Louisiana corporation for all its stock. The old Louisiana corporation transferred its equity in the Mississippi corporation's assets, but retained the physical shares. The new Louisiana company's stock was distributed to the shareholders of the old corporations and the latter were dissolved. Whether or not there was a consolidation under Louisiana law, there was a "C" reorganization. The old corporation transferred substantially all its assets.
W.H. George, 26 TC 396, Dec. 21,762 (Acq.).
c. 1939 Code Sec. 112(g)(1)(C)—similar to 1954 Code Sec. 368(a)(1)(C)]
d. Rev. Rul. 78-47, 1978-1 CB 113,Rev. Rul. REVRUL78-47,Internal Revenue Service,(Jan. 1, 1978)
The question in the instant case is whether Y transferred “substantially all” of its assets to X as required by section 368(a)(1)(C) of the Code, since Y's