Legal Opinion

Sutherland v. United States

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania

Decided March 26, 1987No. Civ. A. 83-1352PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

McCUNE, Senior District Judge.

We consider the parties’ cross motions for judgment on the pleadings. 1 The sixth amended complaint is now at issue. Five have been dismissed without prejudice.

At issue is whether the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) may tax a lump sum incentive payment given to terminated employees of the Consolidated Rail Corporation (Conrail) pursuant to 45 U.S.C. § 797a as ordinary income within the calendar year it is re ceived, and whether this court or the Special Court, as set forth in 45 U.S.C. § 1105, has the proper jurisdiction to decide this case.

For the reasons…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Consolidated Rail Corp. v. County of MonroeSpecial Court under the Regional Rail Reorganization Act · 1983
  2. Edison Electric Institute v. Interstate Commerce CommissionCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1985

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Martin v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1988
  2. Carol M. Herbert and Henry W. Herbert v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1988
  3. Herbert v. United StatesDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1987
  4. Sutherland v. EggerCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1989
  5. Slattery v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1988

5 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