top of page

Group

Public·248 members
James Ealy
James Ealy

Ls Land Issue 32 Thumbelina | Added By Request


On July 25, 2011, the IRS issued Notice 2011-70 expanding the amount of time to request equitable relief. The amount of time to request equitable relief depends on whether you are seeking relief from a balance due, seeking a credit or refund, or both:




Ls Land Issue 32 Thumbelina | added by request



Per Rev. Proc. 2003-19, the non-requesting spouse has the right to appeal the preliminary determination to grant partial or full relief to the requesting spouse when the preliminary determination letter is issued April 1, 2003 or later. However, the non-requesting spouse may not petition the Tax Court from the final determination letter. If relief is denied in part or in full, and the requesting spouse petitions the U.S. Tax Court, the non-requesting spouse, by law, will be given the opportunity to become a party in that proceeding.


For claims where a preliminary determination was issued prior to April 1, 2003, the non-requesting spouse had no appeal rights when the preliminary determination letter granted relief in part or in full to the requesting spouse. If relief was denied and the requesting spouse petitioned the U.S. Tax Court, the non-requesting spouse, by law, was given the opportunity to be a party in that proceeding.


1. Who can file a request with the Bureau of Motor Vehicles to suspend the license or instruction permit of a minor? 2. The illegal transportation of liquor by a minor carries a minimum suspension of how many days? 3. How many classes of driver's license are issued in Maine? 4. What are demerit points? 5. Name the violations of traffic laws which, upon conviction, carry automatic 90 day suspensions.


Use this form to certify correction of an OATH/ECB Violation issued by the Department of Buildings. To submit a Certificate of Correction request, use an eFiling account to log into DOB NOW at www.nyc.gov/dobnow and select the BIS Options portal. See the April 2020 Service Notice or Certificate of Correction Request User Guide.


Used to request a determination (formerly known as reconsideration, pre-consideration, or interpretation) for all issues non-zoning related, for a job or planned job, from the Department. Upon submission, the Department will review the request and issue a decision.Note: All non-zoning Determination requests must be submitted using the CCD1. The Department no longer reviews Determination requests submitted on the Pre-Consideration and Reconsideration Application (BC1) or Additional Information (AI1) forms.CCD1 Form - Rev. 1/23CCD1 Instructions


Used to request a zoning determination (formerly known as reconsideration, pre-consideration, or interpretation), for a job or planned job, from the Department. Upon submission, Department staff will review the request and issue a decision.Note: All zoning-related Determination requests must be submitted using the ZRD1. The Department no longer reviews Determination requests submitted on the Pre-Consideration and Reconsideration Application (BC1) or Additional Information (AI1) forms.ZRD1 Form - Rev. 1/18ZRD1 Instructions


The OP133 allows an applicant to request a review for the removal of the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) Wetlands flag(s) on the BISweb Property Profile Overview. The form must be completed by a registered design professional or a licensed land surveyor and must contain a copy of the applicable NYS DEC Wetlands map(s) annotated to clearly identify the subject premises and demonstrate that the entire tax lot is outside any mapped zone or associated adjacent area.OP133 Form - Rev. 7/09OP133 Instructions


In 1989, the Supreme Court issued a landmark FOIA decision in United States Department of Justice v. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, (20) which for the past fifteen years has governed all privacy-protection decisionmaking under the Act. The Reporters Committee case involved FOIA requests from members of the news media for access to any criminal history records -- known as "rap sheets" -- maintained by the FBI regarding certain persons alleged to have been involved in organized crime and improper dealings with a corrupt Congressman. (21) In holding "rap sheets" entitled to protection under Exemption 7(C), the Supreme Court set forth five guiding principles that govern the process by which determinations are made under both Exemptions 6 and 7(C) alike:


Most recently, the Supreme Court did not at all concern itself with any issue of "secondary effects" or "derivative privacy interest" in Favish. (43) Rather, a unanimous Court in Favish readily found that the surviving family members of former Deputy White House Counsel Vincent Foster had a protectible privacy interest in his death-scene photographs, based in part on the family's fears of "intense scrutiny by the media." (44) In doing so, the Court did not view a privacy interest based on "limit[ing] attempts to exploit pictures of the family member's remains for public purposes" as in any way too attenuated to qualify as a protectible privacy interest in the first place. (45) This means that any consideration of potential privacy invasions must include both what the requester might do with the information at hand and also what any other requester, or ultimate recipient, might do with it as well. (46)


Additionally, if the information at issue is particularly well known or is widely available within the public domain, there generally is no expectation of privacy. (55) Nor does an individual have any expectation of privacy with respect to information that he himself has made public. (56) On the other hand, if the information in question was at some time or place available to the public, but now is "hard-to-obtain information," the individual to whom it pertains may have a privacy interest in maintaining its "practical obscurity." (57) Similarly, the mere fact that some of the information may be known to some members of the public does not negate the individual's privacy interest in preventing further dissemination to the public at large. (58) For example, the Supreme Court in Favish did not diminish its estimation of "the weighty privacy interests involved" just because Vincent Foster's death occurred on national parkland and thus was "in public." (59) And one court has found that the subject of a photograph introduced into the court record "retained at least some privacy interest in preventing the further dissemination of the photographic image" when "[t]he photocopy in the Court record was of such poor quality as to severely limit its dissemination." (60)


Accordingly, a request made for the purpose of obtaining "impeachment evidence, such as that required to be produced pursuant to Brady v. Maryland" does not further the public interest; (134) nor does a request made in order to obtain or supplement discovery in a private lawsuit serve the public interest. (135) In fact, one court has observed that if the requester truly had a great need for the records for purposes of litigation, he or she should seek them in that forum, where it would be possible to provide them under an appropriate protective order. (136)


Because of this split in the circuits, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in the Fifth Circuit case and finally resolved this issue in 1994. (156) The Court decisively reiterated the principles laid down in Reporters Committee and said the fact that it was looking at Exemption 6 rather than Exemption 7(C) in this case was "of little import"; the two exemptions differ in the "magnitude of the public interest that is required," not in the "identification of the relevant public interest." (157) The Court concluded that "because all FOIA requestors have an equal, and equally qualified, right to information, the fact that [FOIA requesters] are seeking to vindicate the policies behind the Labor Statute is irrelevant to the FOIA analysis." (158) The only relevant public interest under the FOIA remains, as set forth in Reporters Committee, "'the citizens' right to be informed about what their government is up to.'" (159)


The Supreme Court expressly declined in Ray to decide whether a public interest that stems not from the documents themselves but rather from a "derivative use" to which the documents could be put could ever be weighed in the balancing process against a privacy interest. (186) Subsequently, however, several lower courts faced the "derivative use" issue and ordered the release of names and home addresses of private individuals in certain contexts despite the fact that the public benefit to be derived from release of the information depended upon the requesters' use of the lists to question those individuals concerning the government's diligence in performing its duties. These courts have found a "derivative use" public interest in a list of individuals who sold land to the Fish and Wildlife Service, which could be used to contact the individuals to determine how the agency acquires property throughout the United States; (187) a list of Haitian nationals returned to Haiti, which could be used for follow-up interviews with the Haitians to learn "whether the INS is fulfilling its duties not to turn away Haitians who may have valid claims for political asylum"; (188) a list of citizens who reported wolf sightings, which could be used to monitor the Fish and Wildlife Service's enforcement of the Endangered Species Act; (189) the names of agents involved in the management and supervision of the FBI's 1972 investigation of John Lennon, which could be used to help determine whether the investigation was politically motivated; (190) the name and address of an individual who wrote a letter complaining about an immigration assistance company, which could be used to determine whether the INS acted upon the complaint; (191) and the names and addresses of individuals who received property seized under federal law, which could enable the public to assess the government's exercise of its power to seize and dispose of property. (192)


About

Welcome to the group! You can connect with other members, ge...

Members

  • Lawrence Gonzalez
    Lawrence Gonzalez
  • Hưng Thịnh Xây Dựng
    Hưng Thịnh Xây Dựng
  • McMichael Don B.
    McMichael Don B.
bottom of page