Talk:Revenue ruling

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. Jafeluv (talk) 22:34, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Revenue Ruling → Revenue ruling –

Per WP:MOSCAPS ("Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization") and WP:TITLE, this is a generic, common term, not a propriety or commercial term, so the article title should be downcased. Lowercase will match the formatting of related article titles. $Tony (talk)$ 11:43, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support per WP:MOSCAPS In ictu oculi (talk) 12:53, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Revenue ruling/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

==WP Tax Class==

Stub class because just one section.EECavazos 17:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

==WP Tax Priority==

Low priority because the article is not on a tax, but on a mechanism for facilitating the operation of tax collection. With expansion it could go higher because then it would show that traffic could be higher.EECavazos 17:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 22:34, 22 December 2011 (UTC). Substituted at 04:14, 30 April 2016 (UTC)