Talk:Gregory v. Helvering
Appearance
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Untitled
[edit]This is not a severe cleanup job, it just needs to be wikified. --Eastlaw 08:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Has been wikified and also had facts of case corrected to match those stated in the SCOTUS opinion -- PG
Assessment comment
[edit]The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Gregory v. Helvering/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
==WP Tax Class==
Start class because few references are made and it looks like a law school case brief.EECavazos 19:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC) ==WP Tax Priority== Low priority because the article is on the case itself rather than the law. An article on the law would say something like, Business purpose test.EECavazos 19:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC) |
Last edited at 19:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 16:45, 29 April 2016 (UTC)