alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 1.1374-0 Table of contents.

This section lists the major paragraph headings for §§ 1.1374-1 through 1.1374-10.

## § 1.1374-1 General rules and definitions.

(a) Computation of tax.

(b) Anti-trafficking rules.

(c) Section 1374 attributes.

(d) Recognition period.

(e) Predecessor corporation.

## § 1.1374-2 Net recognized built-in gain.

(a) In general.

(b) Allocation rule.

(c) Recognized built-in gain carryover.

(d) Accounting methods.

(e) Example.

## § 1.1374-3 Net unrealized built-in gain.

(a) In general.

(b) Example.

## § 1.1374-4 Recognized built-in gain or loss.

(a) Sales and exchanges.

(1) In general.

(2) Oil and gas property.

(3) Examples.

(b) Accrual method rule.

(1) Income items.

(2) Deduction items.

(3) Examples.

(c) Section 267(a)(2) and 404(a)(5) deductions.

(1) Section 267(a)(2).

(2) Section 404(a)(5).

(3) Examples.

(d) Section 481(a) adjustments.

(1) In general.

(2) Examples.

(e) Section 995(b)(2) deemed distributions.

(f) Discharge of indebtedness and bad debts.

(g) Completion of contract.

(h) Installment method.

(1) In general.

(2) Limitation on amount subject to tax.

(3) Rollover rule.

(4) Use of losses and section 1374 attributes.

(5) Examples.

(i) Partnership interests.

(1) In general.

(2) Limitations.

(i) Partnership RBIG.

(ii) Partnership RBIL.

(3) Disposition of partnership interest.

(4) RBIG and RBIL limitations.

(i)-Sale of partnership interest.

(ii) Amounts of limitations.

(5) Small interest exception.

(i) In general.

(ii) Contributed assets.

(iii) Anti-abuse rule.

(6) Section 704(c) gain or loss.

(7) Disposition of distributed partnership asset.

(8) Examples.

## § 1.1374-5 Loss carryforwards.

(a) In general.

(b) Example.

## § 1.1374-6 Credits and credit carryforwards.

(a) In general.

(b) Limitations.

(c) Examples.

§ 1.1374-7 Inventory.

(a) Valuation.

(b) Identity of dispositions.

## § 1.1374-8 Section 1374(d)(8) transactions.

(a) In general.

(b) Effective date of section 1374(d)(8).

(c) Separate determination of tax.

(d) Taxable income limitation.

(e) Examples.

## § 1.1374-9 Anti-stuffing rule.

## § 1.1374-10 Effective date and additional rules.

(a) In general.

(b) Additional rules.

(1) Certain transfers to partnerships.

(2) Certain inventory dispositions.

(3) Certain contributions of built-in loss assets.

(4) Certain installment sales.

(i) In general.

(ii) Examples.

(c) Revocation and re-election of S corporation status.

(1) In general.

(2) Example.

[T.D. 8579, 59 FR 66463, Dec. 27, 1994, as amended by T.D. 9236, 70 FR 75731, Dec. 21, 2005]
Editorial Note on Part 882
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 882 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 882.1525 Tuning fork. ( a ) *Identification.* A tuning fork is a mechanical device which resonates at a given frequency and is used to diagnose hearing disorders and to test for vibratory sense.
( b ) *Classification.* Class I (general controls). The device is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter subject to the limitations in § 882.9. The device is also exempt from the current good manufacturing practice requirements of the quality system regulation in part 820 of this chapter, of this chapter, with the exception of § 820.180, with respect to general requirements concerning records, and § 820.198, with respect to complaint files.
[44 FR 51730, Sept. 4, 1979, as amended at 54 FR 25051, June 12, 1989; 66 FR 38807, July 25, 2001]
Editorial Note on Part 888
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 888 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 888.3780 Wrist joint polymer constrained prosthesis. ( a ) *Identification.* A wrist joint polymer constrained prosthesis is a device made of polyester-reinforced silicone elastomer intended to be implanted to replace a wrist joint. This generic type of device consists of a single flexible across-the-joint component that prevents dislocation in more than one anatomic plane.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II.
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 1350 OF CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE



I, James E. Winslow, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Home Products International, Inc., certify that:



|(1) | The Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 26, 2004 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Ace of 1934; and
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(2) | The information contained in the foregoing report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Home Products International, Inc.
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                    
|----------------------------------------------------
|/s/ JAMES E. WINSLOW                                
|James E. Winslow                                    
|Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|Dated: August 10, 2004                              



The foregoing certification is being
furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Home
Products International, Inc. and will be retained by Home Products International, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
(logo)Prudential

 

 

**PrudentialAsset Resources**

PGIMReal Estate Finance

2100Ross Avenue, Suite 2500, Dallas TX 75201

Tel214-777-4500

 

Abusiness of Prudential Financial, Inc.

 

WellsFargo Bank, National Association

CommercialMortgage Servicing

MACD1086

550South Tryon Street, 14th Floor

Charlotte,North Carolina 28202

Attention:Asset Manager

 

RE:         **WFCM 2015-SG1**

Period: **January 1, 2019 to December 31, 2019(the “Reporting Period”)**

 

**AnnualCompliance Statement**

 

 

I,Joni Brown-Haas, in my capacity as President and Managing Director ofPrudential Asset Resources, Inc. (the “Company”) hereby certify with regard tothe Company’s role as Sub-Servicer under the Sub-Servicing Agreement, (the“Agreement”) dated as of August 1, 2015, pertaining to the above-referencedcertificates, that:

 

(i)      areview of the activities of the Company under the Agreement during the periodnoted above, and of the performance of the Company under the Agreement duringthe relevant period has been made under my supervision, and

 

(ii)    to thebest of my knowledge, based on such review, the Company has fulfilled all itsobligations under the Agreement throughout the relevant period, and

 

(iii)   to the best of myknowledge, based on such review, the Company has fulfilled its obligationsunder its sub-servicing agreement in all material respects, and

 

(iv)    the Company hasmaintained an effective internal control system over the servicing of mortgageloans including the Loans serviced by the Company, and

 

(v)    theCompany has not received any notice regarding qualification, or challenging thestatus of the Lower Tier REMIC or the Upper Tier REMIC as a REMIC, from the IRSor any other governmental agency or body.

 

 

Effectiveas of February 21, 2020

 

/s/Joni Brown-Haas

JoniBrown-Haas

Presidentand Managing Director

PrudentialAsset Resources, Inc.
#### City of Philadelphia v. Munday

*Norman R. Bradley,*for Anthony I. Munday, petitioner.

*Maurice M. Green,*for Norman M. Rosengarten, petitioner.

May 28, 1952.

Alessandroni, J.,

Petitioner, Anthony I. Munday, is an heir of the deceased owner, Daniel J. Munday. Norman M. Rosengarten is the assignee of a mortgage on the premises. The land involved is undeveloped, located in the Fiftieth ward in the City of Philadelphia, Pa.

The land was sold on March 5, 1951, by the Sheriff of Philadelphia. The deed was acknowledged by the sheriff on April 16, 1951. On April 4, 1952, Rosengarten filed a petition for a rule to show cause why he should not be allowed to redeem the premises. On April 16, 1952, Anthony I. Munday petitioned for a similar rule. Both petitioners rely on the language of the Act of May 16, 1923, P. L. 207, sec. 32, 53 PS §2052, which provides the procedure for redemption of property sold at sheriff’s sale.

The statute provides, inter alia:

> “If both owner and creditor desire to redeem, the owner shall have the right so to do only in case he pays the creditor’s claim in full.”

*345Rosengarten construes this to mean that in order to redeem the property after it has been sold, and when a creditor also desires to redeem, the owner must, as a condition precedent to exercising the right, pay the creditor in full.

We do not so read and interpret the section. The statute states further:

> “Any person entitled to redeem may present his petition to the proper court, setting forth the facts, and his readiness to pay the redemption money;”.

Thus, it is clear that “redemption money” means not only the other charges listed in the body of the section of the statute, not here cited, but includes the creditor’s claim. The statute does not require that the petition must set forth, where both owner and creditor are interested in redeeming, an averment that the owner has paid the creditor’s claim in full. All the statute indicates is an averment of “his readiness to pay.”

There is another factor in this interpretation, namely, the equities of the parties. Clearly the equity is in favor of the owner or those who claim through him. The creditor has no complaint; he will be paid in any event. “The privilege of redemption has always been liberally construed in Pennsylvania. . .”: Philadelphia v. Schaefer et al., 269 Pa. 550, 552.

*Order*

And now, to wit, May 28, 1952, petitioner Norman M. Rosengarten’s rule to show cause why the premises should not be conveyed to him on payment of the redemption money is discharged; petitioner Anthony I. Munday’s rule to show cause why he should not be permitted to redeem the property is made absolute, provided, that Anthony I. Munday makes settlement for same in compliance with the Act of 1923, P. L. 207, sec. 32, 53 PS §2052, on or before June 6, 1952.
# C_2015065EN.01003501.xml

| 23.2.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 65/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.2.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/35

---

Action brought on 19 November 2014 — ANKO v Commission

(Case T-768/14)

(2015/C 065/49)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ANKO Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias (Athens, Greece) (represented by: V. Christianos, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | declare that the sum of EUR 3 77  733,93, which the Commission paid to the applicant in respect of the POCEMON project, constitutes eligible costs and that accordingly the applicant is under no obligation to repay that sum as unduly paid; and |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the sum of EUR 3 77  733,93, which the Commission paid to the applicant in respect of the POCEMON project, constitutes eligible costs and that accordingly the applicant is under no obligation to repay that sum as unduly paid; and

| — | order the Commission to pay the applicant’s legal costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the applicant’s legal costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

This action concerns the liability of the Commission under the agreement No 216088 for the performance of the project ‘Point Of CarE MONitoring and Diagnostics for Autoimmune Diseases’ (POCEMON), under Article 272 TFEU. In particular, the applicant maintains that, although it performed its contractual obligations, the Commission, contrary to the terms of that agreement, the principle of good faith, the prohibition of abuse of rights and the principle of proportionality, sought the recovery of sums paid to ΑΝΚΟ as not being eligible costs.

For that reason, the applicant maintains, first, that the Commission relies on wholly unfounded and in any event unproven grounds in order to reject almost all the costs incurred by ANKO as being ineligible and to seek the repayment of the sum paid to ΑΝΚΟ in respect of the POCEMON project. The applicant maintains, second, that the Commission, in rejecting 98,68 % of the contribution it is obliged to pay, because that allegedly did not correspond to eligible costs, which the applicant incurred for the requirements of the project, infringes the principles of the prohibition of abuse of rights and of proportionality.

---
Editorial Note on Part 872
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 872 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 872.6475 Heat source for bleaching teeth. ( a ) *Identification.* A heat source for bleaching teeth is an AC-powered device that consists of a light or an electric heater intended to apply heat to a tooth after it is treated with a bleaching agent.
( b ) *Classification.* Class I (general controls). The device is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter subject to the limitations in § 872.9.
[55 FR 48439, Nov. 20, 1990, as amended at 59 FR 63009, Dec. 7, 1994; 66 FR 38799, July 25, 2001]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0000814576
<NAME>                        PAINEWEBBER R&D PARTNERS II, L.P.

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                 SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                             6,998
<SECURITIES>                                     110,697
<RECEIVABLES>                                  1,752,565
<ALLOWANCES>                                           0
<INVENTORY>                                            0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               1,870,260
<PP&E>                                                 0
<DEPRECIATION>                                         0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1,870,260
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            116,078
<BONDS>                                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<COMMON>                                               0
<OTHER-SE>                                     1,754,182
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1,870,260
<SALES>                                                0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               1,463,982
<CGS>                                                  0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                          0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  91,189
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                1,372,793
<INCOME-TAX>                                           0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                    0
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                   1,372,793
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          0


</TABLE>
#### McGEHEE HATCHERY *v.*Rebecca Colvin REED et al

5-5049

450 S. W. 2d 5

Opinion delivered February 16, 1970

*Drew ér Holloway,*for appellant.

*Bridges, Young, Matthews if Davis,*for appellees.

Conley Byrd, Justice.

This action was commenced in the trial court by appellee Rebecca Colvin Reed against appellee Mrs. Robert Wardrip for injuries sustained when the automobile in which Mrs. Reed was riding was struck from the rear by an automobile driven by Mrs. Wardrip. Appellant McGehee Hatchery was brought into the action by Mrs. Wardrip upon an allegation that McGehee Hatchery caused a tire and wheel to come loose from a truck driven by McGehee Hatchery’s employee in such manner as to cause Mrs. Wardrip momentarily to lose control of her car, to fear for the safety of herself and others in her vehicle, and to run into the rear of the vehicle in which plaintiff was riding. The jury returned a verdict for Mrs. Reed and against both Mrs. Wardrip and Mc-Gehee Hatchery. By its verdict the jury found that *105McGehee Hatchery was jointly liable with Mrs. Ward-rip and responsible for 50% of the negligence. For reversal McGehee Hatchery contends that the trial court erred in overruling its motion for a directed verdict.

The record shows that Mrs. Reed put on her proof first. Following the testimony of Mrs. Reed, the driver of the vehicle in which she was riding and the investigating officer, McGehee Hatchery moved for a directed verdict. Thereafter Mrs. Wardrip put on her proof and McGehee Hatchery put on its proof and the matter was submitted to the jury without a further request for a directed verdict. The record as abstracted does not show a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.

In *Arthur Murray, Inc.*v. *Parris,*243 Ark. 441, 420 S. W. 2d 518 (1967), and *Granite Mountain Rest Home*v. *Schwarz, Adm’r.,*236 Ark. 46, 364 S. W. 2d 306 (1963), we held that where one introduces proof after the trial court has denied a motion for a directed verdict, he waives any error committed by the court in failing to grant a directed verdict. Under these authorities McGehee Hatchery is not in the position to urge that the court erred in failing to direct a verdict in its favor.

The judgment is affirmed.
Exhibit 10.10

                              SAFARI ASSOCIATES, INC.

                        64 Edson Street, Amsterdam, NY 12010
                        Voice 518-842-6500  Fax 518-842-6657

                                 February 24, 2003

U.S. Manufacturing And Assembling Company, Inc.
8 E. Heritage Drive
Harriman, NY 10926

Attn: Michael Altro, President

Dear Mr. Altro:

Because of unanticipated delays caused by engineering problems
experienced in modifying the spring and sprinkler head system of the
Flame Tame and the necessity of developing a new electrical system
for the Flame Tame, we have agreed to modify the Agreement dated
January 9, 2003 to the extent that you are to commence production on
or before July 1, 2003 rather than on March 1, 2003 as set forth in
said Agreement.

All other terms, conditions and provisions of the Agreement dated
January 9, 2003 are to remain in full force and effect without
modification.

If this letter correctly sets forth our understanding, execute the
duplicate original and return same to our office.


                                       Sincerely,

                                      /s/  Morton Berger
                                      Morton Berger
                                      President

Agreed and consented to the day and year
First above written.

U.S. Manufacturing And Assembling Company, Inc.

/s/  Michael Altro
Michael Altro, President
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

 

**18 U.S.C. SECTION1350,**

 

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

 

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report ofEbix, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30,2004, as amended by Amendment No.1 thereto filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (as so amended the “Report”), I, RobinRaina, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1. The Report fully complieswith the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934; and

 

2. The information contained inthe Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| By:                      | /s/ Robin  Raina |   |
|--------------------------|------------------|--------|
|                     |             |
| Name:                    | Robin Raina      |   |
|                     |             |
| Chief  Executive Officer |             |
|                     |             |
| May 20, 2005             |             |
|                          |                  |        |  |

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                  JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                    JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                           13,791,443
<SECURITIES>                                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       610,620
<ALLOWANCES>                                         17,000
<INVENTORY>                                       7,964,027
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 23,404,194
<PP&E>                                           11,600,846
<DEPRECIATION>                                    4,290,145
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   36,297,083
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             5,498,117
<BONDS>                                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                               0
<COMMON>                                            332,759
<OTHER-SE>                                        8,316,207
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     36,297,083
<SALES>                                           1,468,115
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  1,468,115
<CGS>                                             3,867,059
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     3,867,059
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 14,211,690
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  945,558
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (18,398,170)
<INCOME-TAX>                                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (18,398,170)
<DISCONTINUED>                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (18,398,170)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                          (.56)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          (.56)
        


</TABLE>
§ 1.1015-3 Gift or transfer in trust before January 1, 1921. ( a ) In the case of property acquired by gift or transfer in trust before January 1, 1921, the basis of such property is the fair market value thereof at the time of the gift or at the time of the transfer in trust.
( b ) The principles stated in paragraph (b) of § 1.1015-1 concerning the uniform basis are applicable in determining the basis of property where more than one person acquires an interest in property by gift or transfer in trust before January 1, 1921. In addition, if an interest in such property was acquired from a decedent and the property had not been sold, exchanged, or otherwise disposed of before the death of the donor, the rules prescribed in section 1014 and the regulations thereunder are applicable in determining the basis of such property in the hands of the taxpayer.