William W. Boyd and Ruth G. Boyd v. United States

How courts have described this case

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

• where casino employee’s share of fees collected from patrons was not gain from wagers entered into by employee or casino, those funds are not \gain from wagering\ within the meaning of section 165(d)
• “If the [refund] claim on its 3 17-35814 face does not call for investigation of a question, the taxpayer may not later raise that question in a refund suit.”
• floor manager's share of table fees charged to poker players was not wagering income
• “If the refund claim does not meet the requirements of the [Internal Revenue] Code 11 and the regulations, the suit must be dismissed because filing pursuant to the rules is a 12 jurisdictional prerequisite.”
• “If the refund claim does not meet the requirements of the Code and 12 || the regulations, the suit must be dismissed because filing pursuant to the rules is a 13 || jurisdictional prerequisite”
• sec. 165(d) interpreted according to its \ordinary meaning\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).