alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                          34,135
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               16,036,517
<ALLOWANCES>                                 8,878,931
<INVENTORY>                                     40,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             7,574,200
<PP&E>                                         889,196
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,681,891
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,140,758
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        23,802
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,782,458
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,681,891
<SALES>                                      2,698,681
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,698,681
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,508,172
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              23,449
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (566,923)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (566,923)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (566,923)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.03)
        

</TABLE>
- All
            - Title
            - Author
            - Subject
            - Date
            - Full-Text

            -                              Explore                            ******                - Educational Resources
              - Archival Collections
              -                                      Themes                                    ******                  - Economic Data
                - Federal Reserve
                - View all 
              - Timelines 
            -                              Browse                            ******                - Titles
              - Authors
              - Subjects
              - Dates 
            -                              About                            ******                - About FRASER
              - FAQ
              - Contact Us
              -                                      FRASER API                                    ******                  - REST API
                - OAI-PMH 
            - Inside FRASER Blog

            - **

Home                 > Browse by Title > Recovery

              																	United States. Congressional Budget Office. 						*Recovery : How Fast and How Far?*,										September 1975,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/109,			accessed on September 5, 2024.						    

        - **FRASER**
        - About
        - FAQ
        - Legal and Privacy
        - FRASER API

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
§ 1.1256(e)-2 Special rules for syndicates. ( a ) *Allocation of losses.* For purposes of section 1256(e)(3), *syndicate* means any partnership or other entity (other than a corporation that is not an S corporation) if more than 35 percent of the losses of such entity during the taxable year are allocated to limited partners or limited entrepreneurs (within the meaning of section 461(k)(4)).
( b ) *Determination of loss amount.* For purposes of section 1256(e)(3), the amount of losses to be allocated under paragraph (a) of this section is calculated without regard to section 163(j).
( c ) *Example.* The following example illustrates the rules in this section: ( 1 ) *Facts.* Entity is an S corporation that is equally owned by individuals A and B. A provides all of the goods and services provided by Entity. B provided all of the capital for Entity but does not participate in Entity's business. For the current taxable year, Entity has gross receipts of $5,000,000, non-interest expenses of $4,500,000, and interest expense of $600,000.
( 2 ) *Analysis.* Under paragraph (b) of this section, Entity has a net loss of $100,000 ($5,000,000 minus $5,100,000) for the current taxable year. One half (50 percent) of this loss is allocated to B, a limited owner. Therefore, for the current taxable year, Entity is a syndicate within the meaning of section 1256(e)(3)(B).
( d ) *Applicability date.* This section applies to taxable years beginning on or after March 22, 2021. However, taxpayers and their related parties, within the meaning of sections 267(b) (determined without regard to section 267(c)(3)) and 707(b)(1), may choose to apply the rules in this section for a taxable year beginning after December 31, 2017, and before March 22, 2021, provided that those taxpayers and their related parties consistently apply all of the rules of this section to that taxable year and each subsequent taxable year.
[T.D. 9943, 86 FR 5540, Jan. 19, 2021]
Editorial Note on Part 862
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 862 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 862.3910 Tricyclic antidepressant drugs test system. ( a ) *Identification.* A tricyclic antidepressant drugs test system is a device intended to measure any of the tricyclic antidepressant drugs in serum. The tricyclic antidepressant drugs include imipramine, desipramine, amitriptyline, nortriptyline, protriptyline, and doxepin. Measurements obtained by this device are used in the diagnosis and treatment of chronic depression to ensure appropriate therapy.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (special controls). A tricyclic antidepressant drugs test system is not exempt if it is intended for any use other than employment or insurance testing or is intended for Federal drug testing programs. The device is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter subject to the limitations in § 862.9, provided the test system is intended for employment and insurance testing and includes a statement in the labeling that the device is intended solely for use in employment and insurance testing, and does not include devices intended for Federal drug testing programs (*e.g.,* programs run by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), the Department of Transportation (DOT), and the U.S. military).
[52 FR 16122, May 1, 1987, as amended at 84 FR 71799, Dec. 30, 2019]
427 A.2d 1232

#### Davis et ux., Appellants v. Earhardt et al.

Argued March 17, 1980.

Thomas K. Noonan, for appellant;

Charles F. Volz, Jr., for appellee.

Before PRICE, SPAETH and WATKINS, JJ.

The order of June 25, 1979, is affirmed.
§ 1.1502-81T Alaska Native Corporations. ( a ) *General Rule.* The application of section 60(b)(5) of the Tax Reform Act of 1984 and section 1804(e)(4) of the Tax Reform Act of 1986 (relating to Native Corporations established under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1601 *et seq.*)) is limited to the use on a consolidated return of losses and credits of a Native Corporation, and of a corporation all of whose stock is owned directly by a Native Corporation, during any taxable year (beginning after the effective date of such sections and before 1992), or any part thereof, against the income and tax liability of a corporation affiliated with the Native Corporation. Thus, no other tax saving, tax benefit, or tax loss is intended to result from the application of section 60(b)(5) of the Tax Reform Act of 1984 and section 1804(e)(4) of the Tax Reform Act of 1986 to any person (whether or not such person is a member of an affiliated group of which a Native Corporation is the common parent). In particular, except as approved by the Secretary, no positive adjustment under § 1.1502-32(b) will be made with respect to the basis of stock of a corporation that is affiliated with a Native Corporation through application of section 60(b)(5) of the Tax Reform Act of 1984 and section 1804(e)(4) of the Tax Reform Act of 1986.
( b ) *Effective Dates.* This section applies to taxable years beginning after December 31, 1984.
[T.D. 8130, 52 FR 8448, Mar. 18, 1987, as amended by T.D. 8560, 59 FR 41675, Aug. 15, 1994]
No. K-533.

February 6, 1939

#### *Lamm Lumber Company.*

Gontract for purchase of timber on Indian Reservation; tribal contract; liability of the Government. Opinion 86 C. Cls. 171.

Dismissed on mandate of the Supreme Court reversing the ■decision of the Court of Claims. 87 C. Cls. 758; 305 U. S. 415.
39455.

#### HARROLD v. THE STATE.

Decided April 26, 1962

Rehearing denied May 3, 1962.

*854
      *Al Jennings,*for plaintiff in error.

*George D. Lawrence, Solicitor-General,*contra.

Jordan, Judge.

1. Special ground 1 of the amended motion for new trial, which contends that a confession was illegally obtained from the defendant at a time when the defendant had been denied his constitutional right to benefit of counsel, presents no question for determination, for it appears from the record that the defendant was represented by counsel on the trial of this case and that no attack was made upon the alleged “confession” at the time it was offered in evidence. The time to object to said evidence, and thus raise the question of the alleged denial of the defendant’s constitutional rights, was on the trial of the case and not for the first time in the motion for new trial. *Frashier v. State,*217 Ga. 593 (124 SE2d 279); *Harrold v. State,*105 Ga. App. 555 (125 SE2d 217). As stated in the *Harrold*case, supra, the situation presented here is distinguishable from that present in such cases as *Fair v. Balkcom,*216 Ga. 721 (119 SE2d 691), where a writ of habeas corpus was sought because the defendant was not represented by counsel at any time until after judgment.

2. The trial court did not err in admitting into evidence over objection the State’s exhibits numbered 28, 29 and 30, as contended in special grounds 2, 3, and 5. There was some evidence connecting these articles with the matter under investigation, and as stated in *Talbotton R. Co. v. Gibson,*106 Ga. 229, 236 (32 SE 151), “Evidence which is only indirectly relevant to the issue on trial, but which tends somewhat to illustrate it and to aid the jury in arriving at the truth of the matter, should be admitted.”

3. Special ground 5 contends that the trial court erred in refusing to allow the defendant to be sworn as a witness. While *855it is contended that various enumerated constitutional rights of the defendant were violated by the refusal to allow him to be sworn, no direct constitutional attack was made on *Code*§ 38-415 (See *Harrold v. State,*217 Ga. 612, 124 SE2d 73), and the record in this case discloses that the trial court accorded the defendant the right to have his counsel elicit his statement from him by examination in accordance with the recent decision of the United States Supreme Court in Ferguson v. Georgia, 365 U. S. 570 (81 SC 756, 5 LE2d 783). This ground is therefore without merit.

4. The evidence in this case is sufficient to authorize the verdict and the general grounds and special ground 6, which is merely an elaboration of the general grounds, are without merit. The jury was fully authorized to find that certain incriminatory admissions' attributed to the defendant and introduced into evidence without objection were freely and voluntarily made, and there is no merit to the contention that the defendant’s conviction was based upon a “confession” illegally obtained from him.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Nichols, P. J., and Frankum, J., concur.*
§ 1.303-3 Application of other sections. ( a ) The sole effect of section 303 is to exempt from tax as a dividend a distribution to which such section is applicable when made in redemption of stock includible in a decedent's gross estate. Such section does not, however, in any other manner affect the principles set forth in sections 302 and 306. Thus, if stock of a corporation is owned equally by A, B, and the C Estate, and the corporation redeems one-half of the stock of each shareholder, the determination of whether the distributions to A and B are essentially equivalent to dividends shall be made without regard to the effect which section 303 may have upon the taxability of the distribution to the C Estate.
( b ) See section 304 relative to redemption of stock through the use of related corporations.
#### Charles E. Miller *v.*Frederick G. Reincke, Warden, Connecticut State Prison

Argued February 6

decided February 6, 1968

*Walter M. Pickett,*assistant state’s attorney, for the appellee (defendant).

*Arnold H. Klau,*special public defender, for the appellant (plaintiff).

The motion by the defendant to dismiss the appeal from the Superior Court in Hartford County is granted unless the plaintiff files his brief on or before March 15, 1968.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7997 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7997

 To amend the Trade Act of 1974 to provide for the automatic exclusion 
                   of China as a beneficiary country.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 15, 2024

 Mr. Dunn of Florida introduced the following bill; which was referred 
                   to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Trade Act of 1974 to provide for the automatic exclusion 
                   of China as a beneficiary country.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Safeguarding Trade Opportunities and 
Preventing China's Anti-Competitive Practices Act''.

SEC. 2. EXPANSION OF AUTOMATIC EXCLUSION.

    Section 502 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2462) is amended in 
subsection (b)(1) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
            ``(J) China.''.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 22-0644

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

CHRIS LANDON LOBERG,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including July 31, 2023, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

June 22 2023

06/22/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0644
#### § 1.182-2 Definition of “the business of farming.”

Under section 182, the election to deduct expenditures incurred in the clearing of land is applicable only to a taxpayer who is engaged in “the business of farming” during the taxable year. A taxpayer is engaged in the business of farming if he cultivates, operates, or manages a farm for gain or profit, either as owner or tenant. For purposes of section 182, a taxpayer who receives a rental (either in cash or in kind) which is based upon farm production is engaged in the business of farming. However, a taxpayer who receives a fixed rental (without reference to production) is engaged in the business of farming only if he participates to a material extent in the operation or management of the farm. A taxpayer engaged in forestry or the growing of timber is not thereby engaged in the business of farming. A person cultivating or operating a farm for recreation or pleasure rather than for profit is not engaged in the business of farming. For purposes of section 182 and this section, the term *farm* is used in its ordinary, accepted sense and includes stock, dairy, poultry, fish, fruit, and truck farms, and also plantations, ranches, ranges, and orchards. A fish farm is an area where fish are grown or raised, as opposed to merely caught or harvested; that is, an area where they are artificially fed, protected, cared for, etc. A taxpayer is engaged in “the business of farming” if he is a member of a partnership engaged in the business of farming. See § 1.702-1.

[T.D. 6794, 30 FR 790, Jan. 26, 1965]
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-84,404-01

EX PARTE JESUS CERVANDO LOPEZ, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 01-CR-00000305-D IN THE 103RD DISTRICT COURT

FROM CAMERON COUNTY 

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of the offense of

capital murder and sentenced to imprisonment for life. 

On December 16, 2015, an order designating issues was signed by the trial court. The habeas

record has been forwarded to this Court prematurely. We remand this application to the 103rd

District Court of Cameron County to allow the trial judge to complete an evidentiary investigation

and enter findings of fact and conclusions of law.

This application will be held in abeyance until the trial court has resolved the fact issues. The
issues shall be resolved within 90 days of this order. A supplemental transcript containing all

affidavits and interrogatories or the transcription of the court reporter’s notes from any hearing or

deposition, along with the trial court’s supplemental findings of fact and conclusions of law, shall

be forwarded to this Court within 120 days of the date of this order. Any extensions of time shall

be obtained from this Court. 

Filed: January 27, 2016

Do not publish
#### State of Connecticut *v.*Russell M. Whitney

The motions by the defendant filed on April 2, 1968, and on April 11, 1968, for a further extension of time to file his brief in the appeal from the Superior Court in Fairfield County having been con*654sidered, it is ordered that the March 5, 1968, order of this court is modified to the extent that the defendant’s appeal is dismissed unless the defendant files his brief on or before April 22, 1968.

Decided April 16, 1968

*John, D. Sailing,*in support of the motions.
427 A.2d 1208

#### Commonwealth v. Hawkins, Appellant.

Submitted June 29, 1979.

Súber W. Lewis, for appellant;

Kenneth Biehn, District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Before CERCONE, P. J., and WIEAND and LOUIK, JJ.*

*

Judge Donald E. Wieand is sitting by special designation. Judge Maurice Louik, of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, is sitting by designation.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.
#### § 1.1016-1 Adjustments to basis; scope of section.

Section 1016 and §§ 1.1016-2 to 1.1016-10, inclusive, contain the rules relating to the adjustments to be made to the basis of property to determine the adjusted basis as defined in section 1011. However, if the property was acquired from a decedent before his death, see § 1.1014-6 for adjustments on account of certain deductions allowed the taxpayer for the period between the date of acquisition of the property and the date of death of the decedent. If an election has been made under the Retirement-Straight Line Adjustment Act of 1958 (26 U.S.C. 1016 note), see § 1.9001-1 for special rules for determining adjusted basis in the case of a taxpayer who has changed from the retirement to the straight-line method of computing depreciation allowances.
31269.

#### CLAYTON v. STEVE-CATHEY, INC.

Decided February 27, 1962

Rehearing denied March 19,1962.

*Abraham J. Walcoff,*for plaintiff in error.

*Gambrell, Harlan, Russell, Moye & Richardson, Edward W. Killorin, James C. Hill,*contra.

Jordan, Judge.

This case being controlled by *Clayton v. Steve-Cathey, Inc.,*ante, the judgment of the trial court granting a summary judgment in favor of the defendant is

*Reversed.*

*Nichols, P. J., and Frankum, J., concur.*
HeinOnline -- 49 Fed. Reg. 2448 1984HeinOnline -- 49 Fed. Reg. 2449 1984HeinOnline -- 49 Fed. Reg. 2450 1984HeinOnline -- 49 Fed. Reg. 2451 1984HeinOnline -- 49 Fed. Reg. 2452 1984HeinOnline -- 49 Fed. Reg. 2453 1984HeinOnline -- 49 Fed. Reg. 2454 1984HeinOnline -- 49 Fed. Reg. 2455 1984HeinOnline -- 49 Fed. Reg. 2456 1984
II

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. J. RES. 84

Designating the week of June 1, 1993, through June 7, 1993, as a ‘‘Week

for the National Observance of the Fiftieth Anniversary of World War II’’.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

APRIL 21 (legislative day, APRIL 19), 1993

Mr. DOLE introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice and

referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

JOINT RESOLUTION

Designating the week of June 1, 1993, through June 7,

1993, as a ‘‘Week for the National Observance of the

Fiftieth Anniversary of World War II’’.

Whereas the brave men and women of the United States

made tremendous sacrifices during World War II to save

the world from tyranny and aggression;

Whereas the winds of freedom and democracy sweeping the

globe today spring from the principles for which over four

hundred thousand Americans gave their lives in World

War II;

Whereas World War II and the events that led up to that war

must be understood in order that we may better understand our own times, and more fully appreciate the reasons why eternal vigilance against any form of tyranny

is so important;
2

•SJ 84 IS

Whereas the World War II era, as reflected in its family life,

industry, and entertainment, was a unique period in

American history, and epitomized our Nation’s philosophy of hard work, courage, and tenacity in the face of

adversity;

Whereas, between 1991 and 1995, over nine million United

States veterans of World War II will be holding reunions

and conferences and otherwise commemorating the fiftieth anniversary of various events relating to World War

II; and

Whereas June 4, 1993, marks the anniversary of the beginning of the Battle of Midway, and June 6, 1993, marks

the anniversary of D-Day: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That the week of June 1, 1993, through June 7, 1993,

4 is designated as a ‘‘Week for the National Observance of

5 the Fiftieth Anniversary of World War II’’, and the Presi6 dent is authorized and requested to issue a proclamation

7 calling on the people of the United States to observe the

8 week with appropriate ceremonies and activities.

Æ