Introduction
The case of Sabina Loving, et al. v. Internal Revenue Service, et al. was originally filed on March 13, 2012 by three independent tax preparers. Sabina Loving of Chicago, IL; John Gambino of Hoboken, NJ; and Elmer Kilian of Eagle, WI. alleged that the IRS had over-stepped its authority when they required tax preparers be licensed. According to Kimberly Stanley J.D., LL.M., “about 40 percent of paid return preparers are attorneys, CPAs, or enrolled agents, the remaining 60 percent have no professional credential or license at all” (Stanley, “Loving v. IRS and Tax Return Preparer Regulations”). Many of these preparers have been in business for decades and had a legitimate dispute against the certification requirements. In 2012, the
…show more content…
Commissioner
The IRS sensibly decided against a Supreme Court review of the decision; however, in June 2014, they announced that they would introduce a voluntary program to regulate independent tax return preparers. In lieu of instituting a mandatory program the IRS created a voluntary program, called the Annual Filing Season Program, which would provide a preparer with a record of completion each year upon showing that they have registered with the IRS and completed the required continuing education; furthermore, the record of completion is effective for one calendar year.
Moreover, to receive a record of completion from the IRS, the independent preparer must agree to accept the duties and restrictions relating to practice before the IRS in subpart B and section 10.51 of Treasury Department Circular No. 230. Rev. Proc. 2014-42 § 4.05(4). The voluntary program does not bind return preparers to all of Circular 230. Subpart B of Circular 230 describes noncontroversial ethical duties and responsibilities applicable to anyone who represents a taxpayer before the IRS, such as the duty to provide information promptly when requested, the duty not to charge an unconscionable fee, and rules regarding conflicts of interests and solicitation of
In 1989, plaintiff Joseph Benning was cited for a violation of § 1256 for operating a motorcycle without wearing approved headgear in Caledonia County, Vermont. The statue states that “No person may operate or ride upon a motorcycle upon a highway unless he wears upon his head protective headgear reflectorized in part and of a type approved by the commissioner.1 The headgear shall be equipped with either a neck or chin strap.1” The County State’s Attorney dismissed the citation because he deemed the statue vague and unable to establish the elements necessary to prosecute the crime.1 However, the plaintiffs filed suit against the state, seeking to have § 1256 declared unconstitutional.
Do you know that notifying your fellow Americans of their constitutional rights was a Federal crime? Well it was during World War One (WWI). In the case Schenck v. the United States, schenck tried to remind his fellow Americans of their constitutional rights and also let them know that the draft was being used as a form of militarized slavery. This case contained men who his right was taken away after he tried to get the military draftees to fight against the draft. However Congress took his right of speech away when it was arrested and convicted of violating the Espionage Act of 1917. This was the time the WWI one had broken out, the government need men to fight. They were short staffed for that to work and they need man to fight this war so the military started selecting citizen randomly to draft. Schenck fought against this draft saying this in a way it was like slavery.
Facts about the case: using marked money, police officers made an undercover heroin purchase from a third person. When the money was taken from the officers, the respondent entered “mom Santana’s” house and came out with the heroin. Officers then arrested the respondent and then returned to Santana’s house where they identified themselves as police officers and then went into the house after Santana, she fled into the house from the porch. After obtaining, the officers then told her to empty her pockets. Once doing so they discovered some of the marked money. The search was done without a warrantless. Did the search violate her 4th amendment? (United States v. Santana. (n.d.)).
Clear and Danger was evaluated in the First Amendment and guarantees the right of Freedom of Speech. I have two scenarios regarding clear and danger, the first scenario is Debs v United States. In this case Debs v United States, Debs felt that socialism is the answer; however, Deb’s was prosecuted for the remarks that he made. In addition, the speech that Deb gave wasn’t as harsh as made by others, for example, George McGovern made a remark about the Viet Nam War during his 1972 presidential bid which was very harsh. This process was done by using its weak form of the clear-and-present-danger test and Deb’s ended up being sentenced to a ten year sentence. In this case Deb’s couldn’t speak everything on his mind that he wanted which was a violation
Last weekend, while attending Lexington, KY’s Southland Christian Church, I received an invitation to attend a “Poor Man’s After-Tax Dinner.” Located on a 115-acre plot that occupies a stretch of the rapidly disappearing farmland between Lexington and Jessamine County, Southland will host the gala, which includes a catered meal and a performance by the Dale Adams Band. On the church’s website, an announcement for the event asks, “Did you have to pay when you filed taxes? This month’s Gathering is designed to help you to forget your IRS woes.”[1] The After-Tax Dinner will minister to those still reeling from the April 15th deadline, and, with any luck, it will foster solidarity among Southland’s flock, the majority of whom are members of the tax bracket whose wallets ache most severely after just having rendered unto Caesar the money that belongs to him.
This assignment will cover a fictitious name of Mary Cooper a woman accused of harboring a fugitive, and illegal stolen equipment. The police attempted an illegal search and seizure in her home without a search warrant. This violates her Fourth Amendment rights. Cooper held that the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures require the exclusion of evidence found though an illegal search by state and local police officers, extending to the state a rule that previously applied onto to federal law enforcement.
Another institution that played a role in creating a racial divide was the Supreme Court. In one court decision, in the case of Johnson v. McIntosh, the court ruled that Native Americans did not own the land they lived on unless they had bought it or received special agreement from Congress. In the case of Sunol v. Hepburn, the courts ruled that Christian Natives could not keep the land grants that were given to them by other governments.
Vicki Voisin, CLAS, P. N. (1998, December 14). Issues Related to Licensure and Governmental Regulations of Paralegals. Issues Related to Licensure. Retrieved April 17, 2011, from www.nala.org/licissues.htm
Richard and Mildred Loving were prosecuted on charges of violating the Virginia state’s ban on interracial marriages, the 1924 Racial Integrity Act. The Loving’s violated Virginia law when the couple got married in Washington D.C., June 1958. The couple returns to their home in Central Point, Virginia. In the early morning hours of July 11, 1958, the Loving’s were awakened by local county sheriff and deputies, acting on an anonymous tip, burst into their bedroom. “Who is this woman you’re sleeping with?” Mrs. Loving answered “I’m his wife.” Richard Loving pointed to the marriage certificate on the wall. The sheriff responded, “That’s no good here.” In the initial proceedings presiding Judge Leon M. Bazile, is credit with saying “[a]lmighty God created the races white, black, yellow, Malay, and red, and he placed them on separate continents,” the judge attests, “[t]he fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix”(Sheppard 1). Upon the initial trail the Loving’s were sentence to one-year each, Bazile agreed to suspend their prison sentences if they would leave the state for 25 years. So the Loving’s opted to live in Washington D.C. only 90 miles from their rural hometown. After five years of sneaking back to Central Pointe, Mildred wrote to Attorney General Bobby Kennedy asking for help. Kennedy referred her to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which assigned Bernard S. Cohen and Philip J. Hirschkop to the case. The Loving’s sought review of a judgment from the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia which held that Virginia Code sections 20-58 and 20-59, which were adopted by to prevent marriages between persons solely on the basis of racial classification, did not violate t...
In colonial America, the court structure was quite different from that of their mother country, Great Britain. The system was a triangle of overlapping courts and common law. Common law was largely influenced by the moral code from the King James Version of the Bible, also known as moral law. In effect, these early American societies were theocratic and autocratic containing religious leaders, as well as magistrates. Sometimes these men were even one and the same. The criminal acts in colonial America were actually very similar to the crime prevalent in our society today. However, certain infractions were taken more seriously. Through the documents provided, we get a look at different crimes and their subsequent punishments in colonial
Stuart v. Nappi was class lawsuit Stuart’s mother filed against school personnel and the Danbury Board of Education because she claimed that her daughter was not receiving the rights granted in the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA). Kathy Stuart was a student at Danbury High School in Connecticut with serious emotional, behavior, and academic difficulties. She was suppose to be in special education classes, but for some reason she hardly ever attended them. Kathy was involved in a school-wide disturbance. As a result of her complicity in these disturbances, she received a ten-day disciplinary suspension and was scheduled to appear at a disciplinary hearing. The Superintendent of Danbury Schools recommended to the Danbury Board of Education
Miller, Roger LeRoy., Meinzinger, Mary. Paralegal Today: The Legal Team At Work. Clifton Park, NY : Delmar Cengage Learning, 2010. Print
Miscegenation: Noun; Marriage, cohabitation, or sexual relations between two members of two separate races. Most commonly used in reference to relations between African Americans and Caucasian Americans (blacks and whites.) In 1960’s nearly 4 out of every 225 marriages was interracial. This was frowned upon in the early to mid 1900’s and this is what two people, Mildred Jeter and Richard Loving had to face. Racial indifference or a racial supremacy has been an issue in America as long as it has existed. It began with the Native Americans on this soil we thrive on today. The whites of the time pushed the Natives of what land they could and fooled them off of the rest of it. They took their children, and tried to conform them into a race they were not, and never would be. From there on, our nation grew larger and more independent. In 1619, 127 years after North America had been discovered, a Dutch man traded his cargo of Africans for food. This gave our nation its first group of “servants.” The uproar of slavery did not start until the 1680’s as far as the records show.
On July 11, 1958 a couple of hours after midnight, Richard Loving a white man and Mildred Loving an African American woman were awakened to the presence of three officers in their bedroom. One of the three officers demanded from Richard to identify the woman next to him. Mildred, full of fear, told the officers that she was his wife, while Richard pointed to the marriage license on the wall. The couple was then charged and later found guilty in violation of the state's anti-miscegenation statute.
The paralegal profession developed as legal secretaries assumed additional duties to help attorneys with their workload. The paralegal performs legal tasks under the supervision of an attorney that maximizes attorneys' productivity and cost efficiency in the delivery of legal services. Paralegals work in many different types of law firms, corporations or government agencies in many areas of law (Hollingshead). All duties performed by a paralegal are under the supervision of an attorney who is responsible for the paralegal’s conduct. In fact, the American Bar Association Standing Committee on Paralegals define paralegals or legal assistants [used synonymously] as a person qualified by education, training or work experiences, who is employed or retained by a lawyer, law office, corporation, government agency, or other entity who performs specific delegated legal substantive work for which a lawyer is responsible (ABA). In class, we learne...