Sutherland v. United States
District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
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
- Consolidated Rail Corp. v. County of MonroeSpecial Court under the Regional Rail Reorganization Act · 1983
- Edison Electric Institute v. Interstate Commerce CommissionCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1985
3Cited by10 opinions
- Martin v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1988
- Carol M. Herbert and Henry W. Herbert v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1988
- Herbert v. United StatesDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1987
- Sutherland v. EggerCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1989
- Slattery v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1988
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.