Legal Opinion
Schikora v. State, Department of Revenue
Alaska Supreme Court
Decided August 25, 2000No. S-8972PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
BRYNER, Justice.
I. INTRODUCTION
Although Fred Schikora maintained his primary home in Alaska, work and leisure often took him outside Alaska. The Department of Revenue withheld his permanent fund dividends for 1992, 1993, and 1994 because the absences he reported exceeded those allowed under former AS 48.23.005(a), AS 48.23.095(8), and their implementing regulations. Schikora made timely appeals of those decisions, but a Senior Revenue Hearing Officer and the superior court upheld the department's decisions.
Scehikora appeals. The crux of his argument is that allowable absence rules…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1970
- Vlandis v. KlineSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Saenz v. RoeSupreme Court of the United States · 1999
- Tesoro Alaska Petroleum Co. v. Kenai Pipe Line Co.Alaska Supreme Court · 1987
- State v. EricksonAlaska Supreme Court · 1978
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Brandon v. Corrections Corp. of AmericaAlaska Supreme Court · 2001
- Heller v. State, Department of RevenueAlaska Supreme Court · 2013
- State, Department of Revenue v. AndradeAlaska Supreme Court · 2001
- Harrod v. State, Dept. of RevenueAlaska Supreme Court · 2011
- Jones v. State, Department of RevenueAlaska Supreme Court · 2019
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.