Legal Opinion

Marshall v. Commonwealth

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided January 3, 2012PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION BY

Judge BROBSON.

“The hardest thing in the world to understand is the income tax.” These words by Albert Einstein ring particularly true in this case. On its face, the Pennsylvania personal income tax (PIT) seems simple enough. Residents and nonresidents are obligated to remit a tax on each dollar of income at a rate of 3.07%.2 For residents, that percentage applies to all income received in a taxable year. For nonresidents, the percentage applies only to income from sources within the Commonwealth. As this case illustrates, however, particular circumstances can morph a relatively…

2Cases cited50 opinions

  1. Kulko v. Superior Court of Cal., City and County of San FranciscoSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
  2. Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. BradySupreme Court of the United States · 1977
  3. Martin v. Occupational Safety & Health Review CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
  4. Crane v. CommissionerSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
  5. Quill Corp. v. North Dakota Ex Rel. HeitkampSupreme Court of the United States · 1992

45 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Wirth v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2014
  2. R.J. Marshall, Jr. v. Com Com. v. R.J. Marshall, Jr.Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2018
  3. Marshall v. CommonwealthCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2012
  4. RB Alden Corp. v. CommonwealthCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2016
  5. C.S. & C.L. Andrews v. Com Com. v. C.S. & C.L. AndrewsCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2018

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API