Tax
Given the background of merger law against which the rules were set, historical tax overpayments and underpayments of companies composed of merged entities can be considered as a single amount, so long as no amounts are offset which were incurred by two companies which both had a distinct existence at the time of the payments.
(Reminder, as always, quick paraphrase of court on matter of public concern -- don't rely.)
WELLS FARGO & COMPANY v. US
Since 2011. An occasional commonplacing of the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal.
Neither an authoritative statement of the law nor legal advice. Quick work.
Showing posts with label Tax. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Tax. Show all posts
Ninth Circuit: MK Hillside Partners v. CIR
Tax, Estoppel
Provision in statute giving tax court authority to consider a relevant statute of limitations for individual members of a partnership empowers the court to rule that the statute of limitations has not run at the partnership level.
No judicial estoppel, as the positions aren't inconsistent.
MK Hillside Partners v. CIR
Tenth Circuit: Cropper v. CIR
Tax, Administraive
Although an irregularity in the postal forms prevented a presumption of receipt upon mailing, an agency appeal holding that the totality of the evidence indicated mailing was not an abuse of discretion, and since the statute imposes an affirmative duty on the recipient to challenge the mailing, the loss of the presumption of receipt does not prevent the levy.
Cropper v. CIR
Although an irregularity in the postal forms prevented a presumption of receipt upon mailing, an agency appeal holding that the totality of the evidence indicated mailing was not an abuse of discretion, and since the statute imposes an affirmative duty on the recipient to challenge the mailing, the loss of the presumption of receipt does not prevent the levy.
Cropper v. CIR
Seventh Circuit: USA v. Titan International, Incorporated
Tax
Federal government can subpoena business records from a previous year that have already been the target of inspection in prior tax years, so long as the second subpoena is not for the purposes of reopening the audit of the previous year's returns.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2016/D02-01/C:14-3789:J:Sykes:aut:T:fnOp:N:1695969:S:0
Federal government can subpoena business records from a previous year that have already been the target of inspection in prior tax years, so long as the second subpoena is not for the purposes of reopening the audit of the previous year's returns.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2016/D02-01/C:14-3789:J:Sykes:aut:T:fnOp:N:1695969:S:0
Seventh Circuit: Estate of Harold Stuller v. USA
FRE, Tax
Barring of horse breeder's testimony under Daubert upheld, as offered to prove that the farm was intended to be run successfully, and the breeder had no knowledge of farm financing.
Poor record-keeping, extensive losses, and tax benefits accrued in horse breeding operation run by Steak & Shake franchisees sufficient for finding that the operation was not run for a profit.
Insufficient nexus of cause and timing to justify finding of untimely tax return.
Denial of corporate deduction for S corporation does not justify amendment of personal return to remove income. Or something like that.
Equitable adjustment claim forfeited.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2016/D01-26/C:15-1545:J:Shah:aut:T:fnOp:N:1693035:S:0
Barring of horse breeder's testimony under Daubert upheld, as offered to prove that the farm was intended to be run successfully, and the breeder had no knowledge of farm financing.
Poor record-keeping, extensive losses, and tax benefits accrued in horse breeding operation run by Steak & Shake franchisees sufficient for finding that the operation was not run for a profit.
Insufficient nexus of cause and timing to justify finding of untimely tax return.
Denial of corporate deduction for S corporation does not justify amendment of personal return to remove income. Or something like that.
Equitable adjustment claim forfeited.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2016/D01-26/C:15-1545:J:Shah:aut:T:fnOp:N:1693035:S:0
Ninth Circuit: Allen Davis v. USA
Tax
Closing agreements sound in contract, and therefore do not bar subsequent assessments to the contrary, as the tax authority is a direct exercise of statutory authority. The disparity provides a basis for challenge according to the usual means.
All members of a partnership are not parties to a settlement agreement with the Tax Partner of a partnership, so the relevant statute of limitations runs from the entry of stipulated judgment.
https://d3bsvxk93brmko.cloudfront.net/datastore/opinions/2016/01/25/13-16458.pdf
Closing agreements sound in contract, and therefore do not bar subsequent assessments to the contrary, as the tax authority is a direct exercise of statutory authority. The disparity provides a basis for challenge according to the usual means.
All members of a partnership are not parties to a settlement agreement with the Tax Partner of a partnership, so the relevant statute of limitations runs from the entry of stipulated judgment.
https://d3bsvxk93brmko.cloudfront.net/datastore/opinions/2016/01/25/13-16458.pdf
Eleventh Circuit: USA v. Harvey Zitron
Tax, FrCrimP
No error in joining tax crimes with fraud crimes in the indictment, as prejudice was speculative.
Comment elicited on cross about hypothetical silence of deft didn't violate 5A, shift burdens.
Where deft has in the past opened credit accounts for family, doing so with unlawful intent suffices for statutory bar on knowingly opening the account with unlawful authority.
No plain error in court's determining amount of fraud based on scope of fraud versus funds deposited by deft.
Leadership enhancement upheld.
http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201410009.pdf
No error in joining tax crimes with fraud crimes in the indictment, as prejudice was speculative.
Comment elicited on cross about hypothetical silence of deft didn't violate 5A, shift burdens.
Where deft has in the past opened credit accounts for family, doing so with unlawful intent suffices for statutory bar on knowingly opening the account with unlawful authority.
No plain error in court's determining amount of fraud based on scope of fraud versus funds deposited by deft.
Leadership enhancement upheld.
http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201410009.pdf
Eighth Circuit: United States v. Peter Giambalvo
Tax, Statute of Limitations, FRE
Parenthetical inclusion of offense in statute did not incorporate the statute of limitations for the offense.
Testimony as to impact of tax-avoidance book properly excluded, as subjective reliance of the deft is the sole criterion.
Statements on direct by gov't expert did not open the door to testimony about the general lack of a tax obligation, as the actual amount objectively due is immaterial to the subjective belief in the falsity of a tax filing.
The fact that a zero-income 1040 filing is possibly not a tax return as a matter of law doesn't bar a prosecution for filing a false form.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/16/01/151136P.pdf
Parenthetical inclusion of offense in statute did not incorporate the statute of limitations for the offense.
Testimony as to impact of tax-avoidance book properly excluded, as subjective reliance of the deft is the sole criterion.
Statements on direct by gov't expert did not open the door to testimony about the general lack of a tax obligation, as the actual amount objectively due is immaterial to the subjective belief in the falsity of a tax filing.
The fact that a zero-income 1040 filing is possibly not a tax return as a matter of law doesn't bar a prosecution for filing a false form.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/16/01/151136P.pdf
Fourth Circuit: Route 231, LLC, John Carr v. Commissioner of IRS
Tax.
Fixed terms of sale and value received preclude a court from dispelling the presumption that the transfer of development tax credits to partnership was a sale.
Original factual representation of relevant tax year cannot be arbitrarily changed after recateogorization of transfer.
Year of transfer correctly determined.
http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/141983.P.pdf
Fixed terms of sale and value received preclude a court from dispelling the presumption that the transfer of development tax credits to partnership was a sale.
Original factual representation of relevant tax year cannot be arbitrarily changed after recateogorization of transfer.
Year of transfer correctly determined.
http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/141983.P.pdf
Eleventh Circuit: USA v. Demarco Doxie
Sentencing
No error in court's declining to group tax counts with fraud counts for purposes of sentencing.
Typo at 9.
http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201511161.pdf
No error in court's declining to group tax counts with fraud counts for purposes of sentencing.
Typo at 9.
http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201511161.pdf
Ninth Circuit: Jacquelynn Dorrance v. USA
Tax.
Stock acquired by policyholders upon demutualization of a life-insurance company is taxable, as premiums paid were solely for the defined benefit, and not an accrual of value.
Dissent: Value was accrued beyond the level of anticipated benefit prior to the IPO.
https://d3bsvxk93brmko.cloudfront.net/datastore/opinions/2015/12/30/13-16548.pdf
Stock acquired by policyholders upon demutualization of a life-insurance company is taxable, as premiums paid were solely for the defined benefit, and not an accrual of value.
Dissent: Value was accrued beyond the level of anticipated benefit prior to the IPO.
https://d3bsvxk93brmko.cloudfront.net/datastore/opinions/2015/12/30/13-16548.pdf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)