Eugene J Gibilaro natlawreview.com - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from natlawreview.com Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.
Eugene Gibilaro is a Partner at Blank Rome's Tampa office. Eugene focuses his practice on tax controversy and transactions primarily in the areas of state and local income and franchise tax, sales and use tax, and unclaimed property.
Declaring that "I think the next President's got to be stronger and smarter than this one," on Tuesday's Imus in the Morning, MSNBC's Chris Matthews went on a tirade for over two minutes against President Bush and those around him who filled his intellectual vacuum. Don Imus pleaded: "Did you plan on taking a breath at any point?""It's all ideology with this crowd. All they care about is ideology,” Matthews fretted as he charged: “The President bought it hook, line and sinker.” Matthews delivered insults as he asserted that Bush “trusts the intellectuals, the guys he knew at school. You know, they're a bunch of pencil-necks and now he buys completely their ideology because he didn't have one of his own coming in. That was his problem. I don't know what Bush stood for except 'I'm a cool guy and Gore isn't.'” The Hardball host yearned: “I hope the next election isn't a problem of who goes to
To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
While state taxing agencies generally take the high road, it is important to remember that when they do not, the courts can require them to do so.
In
Wisconsin Department of Revenue v. Deere and Company, No. 2020AP726, 2021 Wisc. App. LEXIS 74 (Wis. Ct. App. Feb. 25, 2021), the Wisconsin Court of Appeals held that Deere and Company (“Deere”) was permitted a dividends-received deduction for distributions received from a Luxembourg limited partnership that was treated as a corporation for federal tax purposes. What makes this case particularly significant is that, in doing so, the court ruled that the Department of Revenue (“Department”) was prohibited from arguing otherwise because such an argument was contrary to the Department’s then-existing published guidance.