Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

Umbach v. C.I.R

357 F.3d 1108 (10th Cir. 2003)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
Umbach v. C.I.R

17 Citing cases

  1. Chandler v. C.I.R

    327 F. App'x 763 (10th Cir. 2009)   Cited 1 times
    Holding taxpayer was properly precluded from challenging liability at a CDP hearing when it had a prior opportunity to dispute liability and did not exercise it

    Having reviewed the affidavits, we agree with the parties that the appeal is timely. See Umbach v. Comm'r, 357 F.3d 1108, 1111 (10th Cir. 2003) (applying § 7502; holding postmarked date was filing date). Therefore, we exercise jurisdiction pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1).

  2. Mitchell v. C.I.R

    283 F. App'x 641 (10th Cir. 2008)   Cited 2 times

    When a document is mailed to the Tax Court, the postmark on the envelope is "deemed to be the date of delivery[.]" 26 U.S.C. § 7502(a)(1); see also Umbach v. Comm'r, 357 F.3d 1108, 1111 (10th Cir. 2003). Ninety days from the Tax Court's December 8, 2006, order and decision was March 8, 2007.

  3. Arnett v. C.I.R

    242 F. App'x 496 (10th Cir. 2007)   Cited 5 times

    Under the date-of-mailing provisions of 26 U.S.C. § 7502(a), however, the notice of appeal was timely. See Umbach v. CIR, 357 F.3d 1108, 1111 (10th Cir. 2003). Mr. Arnett offers no facts or evidence that call into question the impartiality of the tax court judge.

  4. Okagu v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

    No. 26792-21 (U.S.T.C. Dec. 6, 2022)

    Specking v. Commissioner, 117 T.C. 95, 101-102 (2001), aff'd sub nom Haessly v. Commissioner, 68 Fed.Appx. 44 (9th Cir. 2003), and aff'd sub. nom, Umbach v. Commissioner, 357 F.3d 1108 (10th Cir. 2003). Exclusions from gross income are construed narrowly, and a taxpayer must clearly establish his entitlement to any such exclusion.

  5. Domdom v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

    No. 18270-17S (U.S.T.C. Aug. 30, 2022)

    Umbach v. Commissioner, 357 F.3d 1108 (10th Cir. 2003); Eram v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2014-60. Exclusions from gross income are construed narrowly and a taxpayer must clearly establish his entitlement to any such exclusion. Eram, T.C. Memo. 2014-60.

  6. Morgan v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

    No. 20912-19S (U.S.T.C. Jun. 23, 2022)

    68 Fed.Appx. 44 (9th Cir. 2003), and Umbach v. Commissioner, 357 F.3d 1108 (10th Cir. 2003).

  7. Wood v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

    No. 23239-18 (U.S.T.C. Aug. 18, 2021)

    Haessly v. Commissioner, 68 Fed.Appx. 44 (9th Cir. 2003), and aff'd sub nom. Umbach v. Commissioner, 357 F.3d 1108 (10th Cir. 2003). Exclusions from gross income are construed narrowly, and a taxpayer must clearly establish her entitlement to any such exclusion.

  8. Weschenfelder v. Comm'r

    T.C. Memo. 2019-133 (U.S.T.C. Oct. 3, 2019)

    Haessly v. Commissioner, 68 F. App'x 44 (9th Cir. 2003), and aff'd sub nom. Umbach v. Commissioner, 357 F.3d 1108 (10th Cir. 2003). Exclusions from income are construed narrowly; taxpayers must bring themselves within the clear scope of the exclusion.

  9. Wentworth v. Comm'r

    T.C. Memo. 2018-194 (U.S.T.C. Nov. 20, 2018)

    Haessly v. Commissioner, 68 F. App'x 44 (9th Cir. 2003), and aff'd sub nom. Umbach v. Commissioner, 357 F.3d 1108 (10th Cir. 2003). Exclusions from gross income are construed narrowly, and a taxpayer must clearly establish his entitlement to any such exclusion.

  10. Leuenberger v. Comm'r

    T.C. Summary Opinion 2018-52 (U.S.T.C. Nov. 8, 2018)

    Specking v. Commissioner, 117 T.C. 95, 101-102 (2001), and aff'd sub nom. Umback v. Commissioner, 357 F.3d 1108 (10th Cir. 2003), aff'd sub nom. Haessly v. Commissioner, 68 F. App'x 44 (9th Cir. 2003).