Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board Vs. James Andrew Weaver

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the taxpayer was not entitled to deduct consulting fees where there were no written agreements, no documentation providing how the management fees were calculated, and billing invoices containing almost no details
• stating that the court must interpret the term “successor in interest” in light of the purpose of the underlying code provision
• holding that the taxpayer was not entitled to deduct consulting fees where there was no written contract, no evidence regarding how the fees were determined, almost no detail in the billing invoices, and indications that the parties were not dealing at arm’s length
• no deduction for consulting fees where no evidence of how fees are determined, no written contract, no detailed invoices, and no evidence of what might warrant consulting fees
• no deduction for consulting fees where no evidence of how fees are determined, no written contract, no detailed invoices, and no evidence of what might warrant consulting fees
• no deduction for consulting fees where no evidence of how fees are determined, no written contract, no detailed invoices, and no evidence of what might warrant consulting fees

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).