skip navigation


Search the opinions of the US Circuit Courts of Appeal

Search for:
use and, or, not -- and is default
* acts as wildcard, phrases in "double quotes"
This collection has many hidden limitations. To find out what you're really searching, see the disclaimer .

Did you mean income and tax or IRS?

Your query (income and tax) or irs returned 4784 results.

Your search has returned a large number of results. You might want to consider using additional terms to narrow it.

1000 THE BUBBLE ROOM V. US
933 OPINION/ORDER
Although these tips are paid by customers directly to employees. Federal law deems them to have been paid by the employer for purposes of FICA taxes. This puts employers in an awkward position: They are
933 OPINION/ORDER
Although these tips are paid by customers directly to employees. Federal law deems them to have been paid by the employer for purposes of FICA taxes. This puts employers in an awkward position: They are
906 OPINION/ORDER
This is the third appeal arising out of an effort by the Internal Revenue Service (
901 OPINION/ORDER
Harris and Schwentker were romantically involved. Owners who were loyal to him.
884 OPINION/ORDER
She thought that she was Cameron's common law wife but neither New York nor New Jersey. IRS contends it was entitled to the settlement funds by virtue of tax liens arising out of taxes assessed against Cameron and Freck on income attributable to Cameron for tax years 1978. That it was entitled to credit the payment first to interest and principal for the earliest years or in the manner most advantageous to the government. The district court concluded that Freck could not qualify for relief from the assessment under 26 U.S.C.A. § 6013(e)(1) (West Supp. 1994) as an innocent spouse because she was never married to Cameron. It then accepted IRS's argument that she was equitably estopped from asserting she was not liable for taxes on Cameron's income because of IRS's reliance on her innocent misrepresentation that Freck was Cameron's wife in giving him the benefit of the lower joint rates he was not entitled to as a single person during taxable years now closed. Freck contends the settlement funds were paid to IRS by her adversary's counsel without her knowledge and that she had no opportunity to tell IRS how to apply them.
872 OPINION/ORDER
This is an appeal from a decision of the United States Tax Court permitting the Internal Revenue Service (
870 OPINION/ORDER
Was denied. A. The relevant facts underlying this claim are undisputed and fully detailed in the district court's opinion. DRI's gross income from its electric utility business is a function of the electricity rates it charges its customers. Many public utilities have established similar reserve accounts to meet deferred income tax liability. They may have received similar compensation from the utility serving their new residence or business). The remittance was allocated on the basis of the 1991 customers' electricity use during the preceding 12 months. The issue here is whether DRI is entitled to invoke § 1341 to obtain from the government an additional $1.2 million deduction. It was determined that the taxpayer was not entitled to the income. His only option was to deduct the amount of that income in the year of repayment he could not recalculate his income for the year of receipt. § 1341 is designed to put the taxpayer in essentially the same position he would have been in had he never received the returned income.
857 OPINION/ORDER
Among other things.1 These family run ventures were sole proprietorships. Nick and Helen Kikalos (we will call them the taxpayers for shorthand) were no strangers to the IRS. The daily cash reconciliations were to include the amount of cash which was withdrawn from the business for whatever purpose. The 1997 audit was triggered in part when the Mercantile National Bank contacted the IRS to report unusual financial activity by Nick Kikalos.2 Kikalos had purchased thirty one cashier's checks from the Mercantile National Bank in 1997 in an amount totaling $809. Kikalos used cash and third party checks to purchase the checks. 1 2 We will refer to the four stores collectively as
850 DYE V. UNITED STATES

Was unable to attend oral argument. Because the record adequately established that a substantial portion of Dye's legal expenditures were capital in nature. We conclude that it was error to have granted summary judgment to the IRS. BACKGROUND This is an appeal from a grant of summary judgment. The following facts are uncontroverted or are considered in the light most favorable to Dye. All reasonable inferences from the factual record have been drawn in favor of Dye. During which time all such interest was applied to support securities transactions executed on the margin account. Rosenberger was employed by B.C. Dye was able to set off against gross income a total of only $13. This figure was later
846 UNITED STATES V. ADKINSON (10/26/1998, NO. 92-2872)

Defendants were convicted of various offenses. That there was insufficient evidence on all of these counts to support their convictions. Was transported interstate. The conviction must sustain.

There was. There were repeated references to certain record volumes at

846 UNITED STATES V. ADKINSON (10/26/1998, NO. 92-2872)

Defendants were convicted of various offenses. That there was insufficient evidence on all of these counts to support their convictions. Was transported interstate. The conviction must sustain.

There was. There were repeated references to certain record volumes at

840 THE TRAVELERS INSURANCE V. U.S.

Argued for defendant appellant.
833 CRNKOVICH LAWRENCE P. V. U.S.

With him on the brief were Loretta C. Final judgment was entered in favor of the Skinners after the United States chose not to contend that the Skinners had impliedly waived the requirement that the government assess them within the statutory period.

831 OPINION/ORDER
Whether those loans were effectively discharged. III (
830 OPINION/ORDER
As Co Trustee of the Marital Trust Created under the will of Willet H. As Co Trustees of the Marital Trust Created Under the Will of Willet H. We must consider whether the IRS was entitled to apply the
829 OPINION/ORDER
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > In re Ryan United States Court of Appeals. Contending that the IRS should have followed their directions about application of the tax overpayment. Alternatively that the court erred in determining that the IRS was required to comply with the Ryans' instructions about how to apply their overpayment. BACKGROUND

The facts in this case were stipulated by the parties in the bankruptcy court and are not in dispute. 1988 income tax liabilities were discharged under 11 U.S.C. 523. Which they conceded was nondischargeable.

829 OPINION/ORDER
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > In re Ryan United States Court of Appeals. Contending that the IRS should have followed their directions about application of the tax overpayment. Alternatively that the court erred in determining that the IRS was required to comply with the Ryans' instructions about how to apply their overpayment. BACKGROUND

The facts in this case were stipulated by the parties in the bankruptcy court and are not in dispute. 1988 income tax liabilities were discharged under 11 U.S.C. 523. Which they conceded was nondischargeable.

828 OPINION/ORDER
Contending that the IRS should have followed their directions about application of the tax overpayment. Alternatively that the court erred in determining that the IRS was required to comply with the Ryans' instructions about how to apply their overpayment. I. BACKGROUND The facts in this case were stipulated by the parties in the bankruptcy court and are not in dispute. 1988 income tax liabilities were discharged under 11 U.S.C. 523. Which they conceded was nondischargeable.1 With the ultimate goal of applying their overpayment to the tax liability that was not discharged. The Ryans argued that because their 1990 overpayment was a voluntary payment of taxes. The IRS was required to follow their instructions about how to allocate that payment. The government responded that the Ryans did not have the power to control the application of their 1990 overpayment. 1988 were discharged. A determination that is not challenged here. The court found that the IRS should have honored the Ryans' request to apply the 1990 tax year overpayment to their 1989 tax liability.
828 OPINION/ORDER
That they were ineligible to receive a credit for the full amount. Were entitled to a credit of only $423.1 Accordingly. The Singletons reported that their total 1987 tax liability was $160. They reported that they were entitled to a refund of the $30. 291 difference. 1 A general business credit is limited to the smaller of three figures: (1) the amount of the carryforward. The Internal Revenue Service (
828 DOYON, LIMITED V. U.S.

With him on the brief were Christopher M. With him on the brief were Loretta C. Limited (
824 OPINION/ORDER
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Dougherty's role in this scheme was both to assist Blanchard in avoiding his existing tax liability and to limit Secor's tax liability. Secor had never been employed by Berryman Chemicals but was instead employed by a local real estate company in Virginia. He and Secor would open a new account in Secor's name and have his commission payments from Berryman Chemicals deposited into the new account. Which was actually income that was earned by Blanchard. Despite Blanchard's protestations that his income was
819 OPINION/ORDER
Were on brief for appellee.


818 OPINION/ORDER
I. There is no dispute that the Kaffenbergers overpaid their tax liability for the years involved. Edward Kaffenberger was a partner in a partnership with his son. Edward was unable to obtain complete financial information about the partnership from his son. The Kaffenbergers filed their 1988 Form 1040 (which was due on October 15. Stating that they were due a refund of income taxes in the amount of $26. At the time the Form 4868 Automatic Extension Request was filed for 1990. The Form 1040 returns for tax years 1990 through 1992 were filed on March 14. Which are not in dispute. When the 1989 return was originally prepared by the IRS agent and signed by the Kaffenbergers. That claim was also denied as beyond the statute of limitations in a notice dated October 24. Refunds from 1994 through 1996 for the overpayments that were applied to the 1990 liability. An order that the 1990 taxes were paid in full. Based on the allegation that the suit was untimely filed. Based on the allegation that the administrative refund claims were untimely.
818 95-1437 -- U.S. V. CRADDOCK -- 05/01/1998

Craddock's bankruptcy estate relating to tax years 1979 1986.
817 OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: This case is about two taxpayers' Offer in Compromise (OIC). Which is a contract between a taxpayer and the Internal Revenue Service in which the IRS agrees to accept an amount different from what the taxpayer owes in taxes. The case is about whether the OIC permits the taxpayers to deduct amounts that they paid under a separate agreement that they had with the IRS. I. The taxpayers are Alan Begner and his wife. Item 2 on Form 656 was for the Begners' social security numbers. Item 5 was for the amounts the Begners offered to pay. Required the Begners to list the amounts that they were offering to pay in item 2. Minus (a) the Federal income tax paid for the year for which annual income is being computed. For the year in which such payment is made. (emphasis added).
815 OPINION/ORDER
Were on brief for appellee. Contending that Appellee Internal Revenue Service (
813 OPINION/ORDER
Have been audited by the Internal Revenue Service virtually. Every year since Richard Nixon was President. Kanter was a wellknown and accomplished tax and estate lawyer. Among Kanter's clients was the Pritzker family of Hyatt Corporation fame. Kanter was also an accomplished businessman. Was an expert on the subject of trusts and estate planning. His estate was subsequently substituted as the principal party to this litigation.
811 OPINION/ORDER
With him on the brief were George P. With her on the brief were Eileen J. Of counsel was Ellen Page Delsole. FleetBoston elected to have the overpayment for each of those two years credited to its tax account for the immediately succeeding year. The primary question before that court and before us on appeal is whether FleetBoston must pay interest on the full extent of the deficiencies in its 1984 and 1985 tax accounts or. Whether interest on those deficiencies is suspended to the extent of FleetBoston's overpayments residing in other tax years' accounts on which the government did not pay interest to FleetBoston. Which was filed on September 13. A taxpayer that reports an overpayment of its income tax may request a refund or elect to have the reported overpayment applied to its estimated tax for the following year. 26 U.S.C. § 6402(b). The subject of such an election is known as a
807 GRISWOLD V. UNITED STATES

This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > Griswold v. Denied the taxpayer's claim for damages because the IRS's failure to file a certificate of release was neither knowing nor negligent. Several of the notices of federal tax lien were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="807"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug95/94-2496.opa.html">GRISWOLD V. UNITED STATES<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Griswold v. Denied the taxpayer's claim for damages because the IRS's failure to file a certificate of release was neither knowing nor negligent. Several of the notices of federal tax lien were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="806"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-1424_019.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> After their income tax return was reviewed. Taxpayers David and Lynette Kindred (collectively the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="802"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Jan2002/002149.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Appellants Anthony Gricco and Michael McCardell were convicted of conspiracy to defraud the United States. Anthony Gricco was the regional manager for private companies that contracted with the Philadelphia Parking Authority to operate the parking 2 facilities at the Philadelphia International Airport. Gricco was responsible for the general operation of the facilities. Was Gricco's chief assistant. A customer who had parked in the lot for a long period of time would have a real ticket reflecting a high parking fee. Flannery also disabled the fare displays on the ticket reading machines so that customers could not see that the parking fees that they were paying were higher than the fees recorded by the machines. More corrupt cashiers were enlisted. The rest was divided into four equal shares for Gricco. The cashiers waived their right to a jury trial and were convicted in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. Million were acquitted. The government submitted a sentencing memorandum asserting that the total amount stolen between 1990 and 1994 was $3.4 million and that the tax loss was $952. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="799"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-5014.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were George P. With him on the brief were Eileen J. Computervision Corporation ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="799"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/972683.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Before the bankruptcy petition was filed. Done all that was necessary to obtain its lien against the debtor's after acquired property. Determined as of the date the bankruptcy petition was filed. We affirm. 2 I Dwight Avis was placed in an involuntary Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding by a petition filed by his creditors on May 10. Under his will. Maureen was given a power of appointment to convey trust assets to the beneficiaries. Her own support and maintenance were administered by trustees. In Maureen's will. She exercised the power of appointment given to her by the Davis Weir trust by bequeathing whatever was left of the trust's assets to the beneficiaries. Because Avis' interest was contingent on (1) how the Davis Weir trust was administered. It was unclear to Avis what. The bankruptcy estate was closed on December 15. He timely moved to have the bankruptcy proceedings reopened in order to bring the inheritance within the estate pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 541(a)(5)(A). 819 of its claim was secured by a lien that it had obtained almost a year before Avis was placed 3 in bankruptcy. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="798"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-5002.html">STANLEY V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="797"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/982380.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The issue on appeal is whether. These five group members' product liability expenses are properly characterized as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="794"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTAwNjQtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-0064-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Assessed $62 million in additional taxes based on a finding that the foreign banks to which the income was allocated were not bona fide equity partners. J.) ruled that the banks were bona fide equity partners. For which the taxpayer was the tax matters partner. Was drastically reduced by huge depreciation deductions which the IRS would not recognize. The effects of the ostensible allocation of the majority of the partnership's income to the non taxpaying Dutch banks were to shelter most of the partnership's income from taxation and to redirect that income tax free to the taxpayer. What the Dutch banks were in fact to receive from the partnership was dictated by provisions of the partnership agreement calling for the reimbursement of their initial investment at an annual rate of return of 9.03587% (or. The banks' reimbursement at the agreed rate of return was formidably secured by a variety of contractual undertakings by the taxpayer and its parent GECC. The effect of the reallocation was to assign a far greater percentage of Castle Harbour's income to the taxpayer. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="787"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/981196.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Line 2 the crossreference is corrected to read </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="782"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions%5Cpub%5C03/03-20176-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Three issues are raised. First is the question whether federal courts have jurisdiction. To entertain the taxpayers' complaints that Notices of Final Partnership Administrative Adjustments (FPAAs) were untimely filed and cannot be the basis of assessments substantial against interest them. charged Second. We hold that the courts lacked jurisdiction over the statute of limitations issue and that § 6621(c) interest was improperly charged. The third issue was resolved by a recent decision of this court at odds with the trial courts' decisions. 336 F.3d 419 (5th Cir. 2003) (district courts have jurisdiction to resolve taxpayers' deficiency interest abatement requests under § 6404(e)). Weiner was a limited partner in Travertine Flame Associates ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="782"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Oct2004/Oct25/03-20176-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Three issues are raised. First is the question whether federal courts have jurisdiction. To entertain the taxpayers' complaints that Notices of Final Partnership Administrative Adjustments (FPAAs) were untimely filed and cannot be the basis of assessments substantial against interest them. charged Second. We hold that the courts lacked jurisdiction over the statute of limitations issue and that § 6621(c) interest was improperly charged. The third issue was resolved by a recent decision of this court at odds with the trial courts' decisions. 336 F.3d 419 (5th Cir. 2003) (district courts have jurisdiction to resolve taxpayers' deficiency interest abatement requests under § 6404(e)). Weiner was a limited partner in Travertine Flame Associates ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="782"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions%5Cpub%5C03/03-20174-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Three issues are raised. First is the question whether federal courts have jurisdiction. To entertain the taxpayers' complaints that Notices of Final Partnership Administrative Adjustments (FPAAs) were untimely filed and cannot be the basis of assessments substantial against interest them. charged Second. We hold that the courts lacked jurisdiction over the statute of limitations issue and that § 6621(c) interest was improperly charged. The third issue was resolved by a recent decision of this court at odds with the trial courts' decisions. 336 F.3d 419 (5th Cir. 2003) (district courts have jurisdiction to resolve taxpayers' deficiency interest abatement requests under § 6404(e)). Weiner was a limited partner in Travertine Flame Associates ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="782"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Oct2004/Oct25/03-20174-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Three issues are raised. First is the question whether federal courts have jurisdiction. To entertain the taxpayers' complaints that Notices of Final Partnership Administrative Adjustments (FPAAs) were untimely filed and cannot be the basis of assessments substantial against interest them. charged Second. We hold that the courts lacked jurisdiction over the statute of limitations issue and that § 6621(c) interest was improperly charged. The third issue was resolved by a recent decision of this court at odds with the trial courts' decisions. 336 F.3d 419 (5th Cir. 2003) (district courts have jurisdiction to resolve taxpayers' deficiency interest abatement requests under § 6404(e)). Weiner was a limited partner in Travertine Flame Associates ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="781"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/02/98-2201.htm">98-2201 -- MANN V. U.S. -- 02/18/2000<BR></A><BR> We have jurisdiction by virtue of 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="781"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/07/95-1437.htm">95-1437 -- INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE V. CRADDOCK -- 07/28/1998<BR></A><BR> The original opinion is withdrawn. This opinion is ordered substituted for the original opinion filed in this case. <p> The Internal Revenue Service ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="778"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Nov1994/94a0895p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> These deemed facts were critical to the outcome because they not only furnished the predicate for use by the Internal Revenue Service ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="775"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/00/00-2966.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which is. The Reynolds asserted that these letters were binding admissions by the IRS. The Tax Court upheld a 20% accuracy related penalty because it found that some of the remaining errors were the result of negligence. Reynolds graduated from law school and was promoted to a supervisory position. The IRS commenced an investigation of Reynolds springing from concerns that he may have been conducting his private law practice during his workday at the IRS. The investigation was officially terminated in 1995. Which is the time period relevant to this dispute. These efforts were limited to a few real estate closings and related activities. Are currently before us on appeal. Schedule C is used to calculate a profit or loss from a sole proprietorship e.g. Schedule A is used to itemize various personal expenses that are deductible under federal law. Schedule E is used to state supplemental income or loss from various other activities e.g. Schedule F is used to state a profit or loss from farming activity. 3 2 Neither party in this case provides an intelligible summary of precisely which automobile and travel deductions are now on appeal nor do they give us the total amount of the claimed deductions. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="773"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/11/023106P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. This tax refund case is before us for the second time. That issue is not before us in this second appeal. The facts regarding the refunds are set out in detail in our first opinion. We will repeat them here only as necessary to explain our decision today. Alliant Energy Corporation is the successor in interest to IES Industries. We will refer to the taxpayer as IES. That court agreed with the IRS's conclusion that the ADR trades were sham transactions. That is. That they were not shams. They agreed that IES should have judgment (1) for a refund of $26. The parties were unable to agree to judgment for tax year 1992. The IRS asserted that it was entitled to those equitable defenses notwithstanding that the applicable statute of limitations would preclude the IRS from assessing and collecting any taxes for years 1991 and 1992. IES claims that the District Court's decision is contrary to the mandate of this Court. Our only comment on offset was in a footnote. Sought an offset against any overpayment of taxes by IES (that is. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="773"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200612308.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Dismissed counts one through eight of the counterclaim on the basis that it did not have subject matter jurisdiction to entertain them. Ryals argues that summary judgment was improvidently granted because the applicable statute of limitations had expired prior to the Government's suit. Ryals had not shown he had overpaid any tax and was not entitled to exemption from levy. Ryals was liable for deficiencies in income tax and statutory additions for the 1977 and 1978 tax years. Notices of the assessment and demand for payment were issued to Mr. Statutory additions and interest assessed was $526. The first offer in compromise was presented on August 18. The offer in compromise was presented on a form that provided that the statute of limitations on an assessment would be suspended during the period that the offer was pending and for one year thereafter. The offer was finally rejected on January 25. The second offer was finally rejected on March 12. Each offer in compromise was submitted to the IRS on Form 656. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="772"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200707/05-5139b.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Stephen M. Renner was on the brief for amici curiae No FEAR Coalition. With him on the brief were Jeffrey A. Chief Judge: Marrita Murphy brought this suit to recover income taxes she paid on the compensatory damages for emotional distress and loss of reputation she was awarded in an administrative action she brought against her former employer. Her award should have been excluded from her gross income because it was compensation received </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="771"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTUwMDVfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-5005_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Affirming bankruptcy court order rejecting debtor's objection to appellee's claim based on a timely tax assessment that was erroneously abated and was reinstated after expiration of the statute of limitations period applicable to the initial imposition of the assessment. Ruling that the Internal Revenue Service ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="769"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200708/06-1034a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Joel V. With him on the brief was Bridget M. The interest income is susceptible to tax in both the United States and the foreign state. Where the relevant tax rate in the U.S. was 50% and in the foreign country was 25% with a 10% refund. Were the foreign rate 50% with no refund. Thus the two countries are on a see saw: When one country's tax revenue goes up. Or rather this iteration of this case (for it is the third time we have heard an appeal from the Tax Court concerning the same transaction). Is a peculiar elaboration of these simple principles.1 During the 1970s and early 1980s. In an The previous iterations of this case are. Becoming a middleman on the old loans (paying the creditors what was owed to them from the original borrowers and in turn receiving payments from the original borrowers) and. This appeal is about the U.S. tax treatment of that $139. We will refer to appellant as PNC even when speaking of the Riggs I through V period. 4 First. PNC's loans to the Central Bank were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="765"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/7507E48D65E7D658882572480052439C/$file/0570658.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1) and affirm the Tax Court's decision upholding the negligence penalty. I. The Hansens were partners in a total of six cattle breeding and tax shelter partnerships promoted and run by Walter J. A. Hoyt Partnerships DSBS87 C was one of over one hundred cattle and sheepbreeding partnerships that Hoyt organized. Hoyt was a licensed enrolled agent qualified to represent taxpayers before the IRS. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="764"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B74A91989E827F4F88256FCF000360F0/$file/0373853.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Interest if the Adjustments were valid. That some of the Adjustments were invalid because the IRS filed them untimely. That insofar as the Adjustments were valid. The partnerships were entitled to certain theft loss deductions on the adjusted The United States Tax Court. Goldberg. 2 The partnerships are River City Ranches #1 Ltd. Holding that the Adjustments were all valid and that the partnerships were entitled to no theft loss deductions. The Tax Court held that the asserted losses were not thefts from the partnerships and. Even if they were. The partnerships argue that the trial of the case was flawed on three procedural points: that the Tax Court improperly denied the partnerships discovery pertinent to the years for which theft loss deductions could be claimed. The partnerships argue that the Tax Court erred in holding that the asserted theft losses were not thefts from the partnerships but were only thefts from the individual partners. The partnerships and the IRS agree that the Tax Court erred in holding that it does not have jurisdiction to make factual findings concerning the validity of impositions of additional interest on back taxes owed by the individual partners. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="762"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/00a0140p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This case requires us to decide whether an affiliated group of corporations filing a consolidated federal income tax return is entitled to a 10 year carryback for certain </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="761"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA2LTE1MzktY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/06-1539-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We hold that the purpose of the summons is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="760"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/50ED5D88FD07F49C8825707A007D8401/$file/0310548.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm the convictions in all respects and remand on sentencing pursuant to United States v. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY The government brought Smith and Bates1 to trial for Smith and Bates were tried as co defendants with another alleged participant in the conspiracy. Wadsworth was acquitted by the jury. 1 13076 UNITED STATES v. Probably certain personal items were not exempt. Numerous clients testified at trial how defendants (usually Smith2) advised them that they did not have to pay taxes once they paid the defendants to establish a UBO. Bates told Denby and her husband that no taxes need be paid on </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="760"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-5128.html">THE WESTERN COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> With him on the brief were <u>Eileen J. <span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>the case is remanded.</p> <span style='font size:12.0pt. Are exempt from taxation.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>These tax exempt uses qualify the purchaser of diesel fuel to recover those fuel taxes in the form of a refund under 26 U.S.C. § 6427(l) or in the form of a tax credit under 26 U.S.C. § 34(a).<span class=MsoFootnoteReference><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class=MsoNormal style='text indent:.5in. Cox that the amount was a fraud penalty.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>   </span>The IRS record of this inquiry furth </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="759"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-5055.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were Thomas D. With her on the brief were Eileen J. This is the second time this case has come before this court. The Federal National Mortgage Association ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="757"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/06569880059B9A0888256E280083210B/$file/0256792.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The threshold issue is whether we have jurisdiction to hear this appeal. Because we find that our resolution of the central question on appeal will materially aid the bankruptcy court in reaching its disposition on remand and serve the interest of judicial efficiency. We will reach the merits of the appeal. We agree with the district court that the bankruptcy court erred in rejecting the IRS's claims for unreported nonbusiness income and overstated business deductions after finding that the IRS's method of computing Olshan's unreported business income was flawed. We find that the undisputed evidence in the record will enable the bankruptcy court to compute the amounts of unreported business income. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Olshan was convicted of insurance fraud in 1996. R. Todd Neilson was appointed trustee. Neilson then brought this adversary proceeding for a judicial determination of Olshan's tax liabilities for the 1991 and 1992 tax years.1 He alleged that the IRS's claims were overstated. That the lien was invalid. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="754"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0370p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Tax Court held that neither the transfer of the property from LOF to LOF Glass nor the change in ownership of LOF Glass was a disposition of Section 38 property under 26 U.S.C. § 47. I. The facts are not disputed. Petitioner was engaged in the fluid power and plastics businesses and the manufacture of glass. The glass business was referred to as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="754"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/aug95/94-5106.html">SCHUSTERMAN V. UNITED STATES<BR></A><BR> That the prevailing market interest rate in September 1980 was eleven and one half percent. That is. 551 which is $3. Taxpayers and the United States stipulated </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="753"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199902/98-3080b.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were David G. With them on the brief were Laura S. Owen moved in the district court to dismiss an indictment charging tax evasion and related crimes on the ground that the indictment was beyond the prosecutorial jurisdiction of Independent Counsel Kenneth W. It gave Indepen dent Counsel Starr jurisdiction to investigate whether any individuals or entities have committed a violation of any federal criminal law. Who are reasonably believed to have committed a violation of any federal criminal law arising out of such matters. Including persons or entities who have engaged in an unlawful conspiracy or who have aided or abetted any federal offense. The Special Division ordered that the Independent Counsel have prosecutorial jurisdiction to fully investigate and prose cute the subject matter with respect to which the Attor ney General requested the appointment of independent counsel. These grants of authority were under 28 U.S.C. s 593(b)(1). Secret Service records indicate that James Riady had made several visits to the White House in the days before the payment to Hubbell was made. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="753"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/03-5173.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the brief were Eileen J. Pacific Gas and Electric Company and PG&E Corporation (collectively </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="753"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/05/953173P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> (2) excluding the debtors' answers to in (1) holding that certain presumptions were insufficient to rebut the interrogatories. The debtors are farmers. under Chapter 12. They had filed a voluntary petition in bankruptcy One of their major creditors was the Farmers Home According to the debtors. In January 1993 the debtors filed a second Chapter 12 petition. petition is at issue in the present case. 305.07 in liabilities. creditor was the FmHA. The debtors stated that they had filed their tax returns as ordered The government filed an objection and argued that its and that the tax returns showed that they did not owe any federal income taxes at that time. proof of claim was entitled to a presumption of validity and that the debtors had </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="752"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Oct2001/001802.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="752"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/06/962792P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Claiming that the material was not within the scope of the IRS's authority. That in any event it was not relevant to the audit. I. BACKGROUND Norwest is a large bank holding corporation that has more than 300 subsidiaries in the financial services industry. A. The Tax Director Program Tax Director is a group of related programs developed by Andersen that a corporation can use to calculate federal and state tax liability and prepare and print tax returns. The entered figures are assigned certain codes that instruct the program how they are to be classified for tax purposes. Figures to be identified as gross rents are assigned the number </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="751"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-5002.html">UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> Argued for plaintiff appellant.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="748"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTQ0NDMtYWcucGRm/04-4443-ag.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The brothers were the only members of the partnership. The issue is whether the fair market value of the artwork upon which the estate tax was calculated also constitutes the cost basis of the property for income tax purposes when it was later sold. The taxpayers do not challenge the accuracy of the method used to calculate the fair market value of the works of art upon which the estate tax was calculated. The Ninth Circuit held that the value of the artwork owned by Sidney Janis at his death was a question of fact and that (1) the valuation of $14.5 million placed upon it by the Tax Court was not clearly erroneous and (2) the Janises were obligated by </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="747"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-5003.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="746"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/01/976084P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The filing was precipitated by the Internal Revenue Service's (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="744"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Apr1996/96a1297p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Bachner was employed as a laboratory technician by the Westinghouse Electric Corporation. The withheld taxes were not refunded. Each of the claims included the statement </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="743"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/12/026024P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The IRS determined that the Harkers were liable for income tax deficiencies and statutory additions to tax for 1985 through 1987. Found that Harker filed it </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="743"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0075p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This is an appeal from the United States Tax Court's decision upholding the Commissioner's determination that Mr. Mortensen is liable for a section 6662(a) negligence penalty of $784 for the taxable year 1991. The Hoyt Partnerships have generated litigation across the country. Commissioner Page 2 assessment was erroneous or that Mortensen did what a reasonably prudent person would have done under the circumstances. I. The history of these partnerships is complex. Courts have described the partnerships in varying degrees of detail. Hoyt's father was a prominent breeder of Shorthorn cattle and in the late 1960s began promoting cattle breeding partnerships. Hoyt acted as the tax matters partner on each of the partnerships that were subject to the Tax Equity & Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982. Hoyt was also the general partner and was responsible for the preparation of the tax returns for each partnership and he typically signed and filed each return. Was prepared and signed by Hoyt. Hoyt was also a licensed enrolled agent. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="743"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/07/053054P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The balance of Taxpayers' tax liability for year 2000 was $210. Revenue Officer Robert Dallas notified Taxpayers by letter that their OIC had been reviewed and rejected because the IRS </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="738"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1173.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief for appellants. Although we agree with the district court that summary judgment for the taxpayer was appropriate. Factual Background Factual Background The material facts are not in dispute. The IRS has three years from the date a return is filed to make an assessment of liability. 26 U.S.C. 6501. If the IRS discovers that an assessment </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="737"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Nov2001/002901.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. At issue in this case is the interpretation of a Closing Agreement between the Internal Revenue Service ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="736"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-2073.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Robinson & Cole were on brief for appellant. Were on brief for appellee. Eagan argues that because the contributions were taxable when made. Therefore he is due a refund. If Eagan's argument is accepted. He would have the best of both worlds: the ability to avoid tax on most of the original contributions and on the subsequent withdrawals. After correction is barred by the statute of limitations. Eagan was a life insurance agent. Are often called </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="736"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/658714DBA9DA5B2088256E5A00707A2F/$file/9955692.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Chelalas are citizens of France who permanently reside in the Congo and are the sole ultimate shareholders of Lidas. Although the IRS was apparently notified a number of times that the Congo was the Chelalas' </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="736"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/05/981317P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Brooks contends that the evidence adduced at trial was insufficient to support his conviction. In not granting his motion to dismiss on grounds that the § 7201 counts for tax evasion were duplicitous. These documents stated that although Brooks was a private citizen of the State of Missouri. He was not a citizen of the United States. He was not required to file a federal tax return and pay federal income taxes. He was exempt from filing a return for the year 1994. The property records in Jackson County did not show any interest Brooks may have had in any property or trust in Missouri.3 Brooks testified at trial in support of his defense. That he was very ill at the time that he took these actions. One of which was Pidlin Acres. 4 3 Following a three day trial. 405 06 (8th Cir. 1979) ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="736"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3F4B8C5C35AAF35A882569EA00621DD7/$file/9955692.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Chelalas are citizens of France who permanently reside in the Congo and are the sole ultimate shareholders of Lidas. Although the IRS was apparently notified a number of times that the Congo was the Chelalas' </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="735"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200613946.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Arguing that there was insufficient evidence to convict him of the attempt at obstruction and that the jury received erroneous or misleading instructions. Dean was earning over $100. Claiming that he was exempt from federal income tax withholding for 1997. Dean filed a credit application that stated his yearly income was $150. Dean filed another credit application that stated his yearly income was $144. He reported his income as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="735"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A1BC4AC7A3CC2CE58825728900823407/$file/0455838.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: We are asked to determine whether and if so. Under what circumstances a criminal defendant's retirement benefits are available as a source of funds to compensate crime victims. Underlying each statute is a weighty policy determination: MVRA rests on the recognition that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="734"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Sept2001/996020.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We are asked to determine whether certain costs incurred by banks for marketing. Researching and originating loans are deductible as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="734"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-1516.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Pree was indicted by a grand jury for one count of failing to file a tax return for the tax year 1994. The mandate of the court is stayed pending the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Pree was convicted of filing false returns for tax years 1995 and 1996. To present a coherent background of the circumstances upon which those convictions are based. Pree was a nurse and held a real estate license. Pree signed a lease that was assigned to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="734"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May2000/996020.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We are asked to determine whether certain costs incurred by banks for marketing. Researching and originating loans are deductible as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="733"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/10/01-5133.htm">01-5133 -- U.S. V. BOTEFUHR -- 10/31/2002<BR></A><BR> The Appellants are precluded from litigating the value of the Hondo stock in the present action. 184 F.3d at 1179. <p> Less than two years after the sale and over four years before Davenport and Vestal were to commence paying their promissory notes. Her last will and testament were admitted to probate in Tulsa. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="730"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-1941_011.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The question presented by this appeal is whether a debtor may obtain a discharge in bankruptcy from a tax debt owed to the Internal Revenue Service if he failed to file a return until after the IRS assessed the tax that he owed. Which was of course too late. The government argues that he was not entitled to a discharge. Section 523(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Bankruptcy Code forbids the discharge of federal income tax liability with respect to which a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="730"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/05/96-3243.htm">96-3243 -- CROSS V. U.S. -- 05/19/1998<BR></A><BR> Reasoning that even though the IRS was unable to produce the Form 870 AD. Dechant to obtain the required signatures and return the form within ten days. <p> A Form 870 AD is an IRS document that is used when the IRS and the taxpayer have reached an agreement as to the additional amount owed by the taxpayer or the amount of overassessment by the IRS.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="729"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Nov1995/95a1197p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. FACTUAL & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND This matter is before the court on an appeal by taxpayers in a suit involving claims for income tax adjustments and refunds. The facts are not in dispute. 000 shares were not registered under the Securities Act of 1933. So their sale to the public was restricted. While this examination was pending. 788.05 against the Kosses for 1974.[fn1] The deficiency was attributable to the IRS placing the fair market value of the 22. Which they computed was the amount due after application of the carryback loss. It reasoned that the complaint was barred by the statute of limitations in 26 U.S.C. § 6511 and could not be salvaged by the mitigation sections at 26 U.S.C. §§ 1311 14. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1291 and exercise plenary review. Limitations on Jurisdiction The United States </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="727"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/98opinions/98-5053.html">OLSON STEPHEN S V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> With him on the brief was Teresa J. With him on the brief were Loretta C. Circuit Judge.<p> This is a consolidated appeal from four summary judgments of the United States Court of Federal Claims. Penalties were improperly assessed simply because the Internal Revenue Service (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="727"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/982053.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Waterman ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="727"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/98opinions/98-5031.html">DANA CORPORATION V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> With him on the brief were Robert P. With him on the brief were Loretta C. The appeal was orally argued on October 5. To recalculate its federal income taxes using the accrual method of accounting was an abuse of the Commissioner's discretion under I.R.C. 446(b) (1984). Is what must determine the deductibility of the interest payments actually made by Leverage Leasing on its loans. What is authorized by Congress cannot be within the Commissioner's discretion to deny. <p> As to the government's cross appeal. The right of offset was unlimited and. In most years Dana was allowed to deduct the retainer fee as an ordinary business expense. The annual retainer fee was applied toward non deductible fees for legal services involving a capital acquisition under a provision of the retainer agreement requiring such offset. The 1984 retainer fee is not deductible as an ordinary and necessary business expense. <p> Accordingly. Reversing both judgments.<p> BACKGROUND<p> Dana is an Ohio corporation engaged. Reporting earnings and expenses on a calendar year basis. <p> Two issues are presented for our review. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="726"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200406/03-5019a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="725"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/09/02-1114.htm">02-1114 -- SORRENTINO V. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE -- 09/14/2004<BR></A><BR> The taxpayer's timely filing of such claim with the IRS is a jurisdictional prerequisite to maintaining a . Rebuttable presumption the communication was . The Sorrentinos are . Is supported by the March 1 signature date on the photocopied return the IRS . Statements of proper mailing in a deposition and affidavit were uncorroborated. Holding </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="725"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/971856.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Robert Scrimgeour1 brought suit in the district court alleging wrongful disclosure of tax returns in violation of I.R.C. § 7431 (West Supp. 1998)2 and viola(Text continued on page 4) 1 Several entities in which Robert Scrimgeour held an interest were also plaintiffs in the suit: Bayview Farm. 000 for each act of unauthorized inspection or disclosure of a return or return information with respect to which such defendant is found liable. Plus (ii) in the case of a willful inspection or disclosure or an inspection or disclosure which is the result of gross negligence. Because the court determined that the IRS's release of the information was neither willful nor grossly negligent. None of which are relevant here. 3 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="718"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/04/95-9008.htm">95-9008 -- ABC RENTALS OF SAN ANTONIO INC. V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE -- 04/14/1998<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judges. <p ><hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="718"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-5118.html">FISHER V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="716"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/022417.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: The question in this case is whether delinquent personal income tax filings. A debtor in bankruptcy is permitted to discharge personal income tax liabilities. Because the debtor's eventual submissions were neither honest nor reasonable attempts to comply with the tax laws. I. The basic facts in this case are not in dispute. Filing tax statements </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="715"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar95/93-6820.opa.html">HAAS V. IRS<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Haas v. When the debtor intentionally fails to pay taxes for which he or she properly filed tax returns and acknowledges are owed to the Internal Revenue Service ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="715"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar95/93-6820.opa.html">HAAS V. IRS<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Haas v. When the debtor intentionally fails to pay taxes for which he or she properly filed tax returns and acknowledges are owed to the Internal Revenue Service ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="714"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/04/04-1051.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The question presented by this appeal is whether a claim by the Internal Revenue Service to recover an erroneous refund is dischargeable in bankruptcy even if as a consequence of the refund the debtor underpaid his taxes. It is dischargeable. What was assessed was a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="714"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-2251.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> LLP</SPAN> were on brief for appellant.</SPAN></P> <BR WP= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="710"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0085p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> (2) the IRS's summons was overbroad in that it sought documents not relevant to the investigation of Johnson. Even if we were to affirm the district court's decision. A protective order should be imposed upon any proprietary materials that Monumental is required to provide to the IRS. These arrangements are often used to disguise tax avoidance schemes. Marien believed that the same types of life insurance products provided by Monumental to Johnson were involved in the case of Neonatology Associates. The Tax Court held that the contributions made by two professional medical corporations into an employee benefits program were disguised taxable dividends and not deductible expenses by the employer. 299 F.3d at 231 33. Employers are not generally prohibited from funding term life insurance policies for their employees and deducting the premiums paid as business expenses. In which the employees are generally the owners. Employers are disguising investments that accumulate cash value as deductible benefit plan expenses. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="710"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jan1997/97a1495p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We are presented with two decisions of the district court dated May 18. We are asked to decide whether the district court erred in determining that the bankruptcy court was not authorized to compel the Internal Revenue Service to reallocate tax payments first to trust fund taxes. We will affirm the decisions of the district court. I. We feel compelled to set forth the facts in detail because these bankruptcy cases are so heavily fact intensive. KBS is a Pennsylvania corporation formed for the sole purpose of acquiring and operating a modular home manufacturing business. Were its sole owners. That payment was not accompanied by a quarterly return. 468 were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="710"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-1877.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> UNUM Corporation and UNUM Life Insurance Company of America were on brief for appellant. Were on brief for appellee. Whether the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="709"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/03/052466P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Jefferson Smurfit Corporation (Smurfit) brought this refund action against the United States claiming that a deficiency assessment by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) for tax year 1989 was barred by res judicata. Smurfit's motion was granted. The Tax Court issued its brief decision based on the stipulation of the parties which simply ordered: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="708"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/03/043600P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Robinette was found to be in default of an offer in compromise. This opinion is filed by the remaining members of the panel pursuant to 8th Circuit Rule 47E. 1 I. Was $989. Robinette also was responsible for a liability of $102. Among these conditions was a promise that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="703"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Nov1997/97a1744p.htm">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> INTRODUCTION <br wp= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="701"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-5154.html">JAMES G. ROBINSON V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> Argued for plaintiffs appellants.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>With him on the brief were <u>Samuel M. Argued for defendant appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>With him on the brief was <u>Richard Farber</u>. A provision that addresses deductions for employers who use property transfers (other than money) to compensate employees.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>That statute provides that the amount of the employer s deduction is equal to the amount included in the employee s gross income as a result of the transfer.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>The issue presented to us is whether the amount of the employer s deduction is the value of the transferred property that is includible in the employee s gross income as a matter of law or only the amount that is actually included in the employee s gross income.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>The Court of Federal Claims held that the amount of the employer s deduction under section 83(h) is limited to the value of the transferred property that is actually included in the employee s gross income. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="700"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-5063.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Defendant appellant Michael Don Greene was convicted by a jury of the two counts against him: Count One charged evasion of payment of taxes in violation of 26 U.S.C. 7201. Defendant was sentenced to 60 months on Count One and 10 months on Count Two. He also was fined $250. Defendant now appeals his convictions and sentence. (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. He was released from prison on supervised release in early 1998. Which were described by the name of the bank. The account number and the balance as of (1) The allegations were later narrowed to cover only the years 1990 and 1991. The fourth omitted asset was described as a note in the amount of $85. We will provide only a general description of Defendant's conduct as it was established at trial. The allegations of Count Two concerning bank accounts and their respective balances on the date of the Defendant's submission of the false Form 433 A were proven through one IRS special agent's testimony that bank records. The records showed that one of the three accounts was in the name of Defendant Greene doing business as Delta Trading Group. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="700"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/01/00-9003.htm">00-9003 -- OLPIN V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE -- 01/25/2001<BR></A><BR> The relevant facts are undisputed and we review the Tax Court's grant and denial of summary judgment <em>de novo.</em> <em>Tele Communications. The fundamental legal question we answer is whether. Olpin to sign his otherwise valid and processed tax return after he was notified of his inadvertent omission. Background facts and proceedings <p> The following facts are taken from unchallenged affidavits filed by Mr. . Olpin) were legally married throughout 1995 and were divorced in September 1996 after fifteen years of marriage. They are not tax protesters. The Olpins failed to sign the return before it was filed in October. Olpin testified that their failure to sign was inadvertent. Both of the Olpins testified that their intention in 1996 was to file a valid joint federal income tax return. Olpin testified that the IRS also informed her that its claim for deficiency was based in part on Mr. The IRS reversed its original processing of the Olpins' joint 1995 tax form to state that it was not a valid return for lack of the Olpins' signatures. <p> In May 1999 the Commissioner issued a notice of deficiency to Mr. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="699"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-6387.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Whose sole purpose is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="698"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021413.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> To enforce the principle that `no one is above the law'. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="697"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jun2000/996015.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Although BDC's suit to recover this money was filed after the expiration of the nine month time limitation period. There are two distinct questions: Can the time limitation in section 6532(c) be equitably tolled and. BDC argues that its restitution interest in Wolckenhauer's pension and retirement benefits is superior to the IRS's tax liability interest. Because we conclude that the time limitation in section 6532(c) is a jurisdictional bar that cannot be equitably tolled. We will remand the case to the District Court with instructions to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.2 I. FACTS The relevant facts in this case are undisputed by the parties. Wolkenhauer was indicted for conspiracy (one count). We need not reach the question of whether the time limitation in section 6532(c) should be equitably tolled or whether BDC's restitution interest in Wolckenhauer's pension and retirement benefits is superior to the IRS's tax liability interest. Were we. BDC's restitution interest is superior to the government's tax liability interest. 3. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="697"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1398.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Niazmand is appealing certain adverse rulings by the Tax Court. Which were years in which Niazmand had neither filed tax returns nor paid any income tax. Which he sought to have carried back to years in which he had paid income taxes. Sought adjudication of two other issues: whether he was entitled to refunds for the 1975 78 tax years. What the amount and nature was of a loss he had incurred in 1979. Evidence on those issues was presented at trial. Since the IRS had not determined that there were any deficiencies in tax paid for those years. The court essentially said that the only question properly before it was whether Niazmand owed the IRS any income tax for the years 1979 83 and 1985 86. The court said that it was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="694"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0077p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The United States instituted an adversary proceeding against Gardner in the bankruptcy court by filing a complaint seeking a determination that his unpaid tax liabilities for 1990 and 1991 were excepted from discharge in bankruptcy under § 523(a)(1)(C) of the Code. The bankruptcy court determined the liabilities were excepted from discharge under that provision because appellant had willfully attempted to evade or defeat those liabilities. He was a partner in the law firm of Gardner. Gardner assured Thomas he was working on several cases that could settle within the following months for which his personal fees would be sufficient to satisfy the tax obligations. Except now one bank account reflected a zero balance and the other disclosed that it was overdrawn. Debtor also testified that he was aware of his obligation to pay his 1990 and 1991 federal income taxes. That he could have used some of the income he earned between 1990 and 1996 to pay those taxes. Thomas also testified that he would not have considered debtor's original offer in compromise to be bona fide had he known. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="694"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/aug97/95-4130.wpd.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court determined that a large payment made by the Talbots to the IRS for unpaid income taxes was improper because it was made outside of the confirmed plan of reorganization (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="692"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/feb2003/01-17249.opn.html">BALLARD V. COMMISSIONER (2/13/2003, NO. 01-17249<BR></A><BR> Petitioners Appellants have been assessed tax deficiencies (including penalties against Ballard) totaling $1. (2) that the evidence adduced at trial is insufficient to support the Tax Court's findings. We find that the application of Rule 183 did not violate Petitioners Appellants' due process rights and that the evidence is sufficient to support the Tax Court's finding that Ballard received and fraudulently failed to report income.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="692"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/992473.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: We are presented with the question under the Tax Code of whether the mailing by the Internal Revenue Service ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="692"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200117249.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Petitioners Appellants have been assessed tax deficiencies (including penalties against Ballard) totaling $1. (2) that the evidence adduced at trial is insufficient to support the Tax Court's 1 Mary B. Ballard is a participant in this dispute solely as a result of having filed joint tax returns with her spouse Claude M. All references will be to Claude M. We find that the application of Rule 183 did not violate Petitioners Appellants' due process rights and that the evidence is sufficient to support the Tax Court's finding that Ballard received and fraudulently failed to report income. Both Ballard and Lisle worked in Prudential's real estate department which was divided into two divisions: equity operations and mortgage operations. Prudential was one of the largest owners of commercial real estate in the United States. Their offices were located next to one another. Arrangements were made to buy Ballard's and Lisle's influence.2 For 2 Referred to as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="692"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//feb2003/01-17249.opn.html">BALLARD V. COMMISSIONER (2/13/2003, NO. 01-17249<BR></A><BR> Petitioners Appellants have been assessed tax deficiencies (including penalties against Ballard) totaling $1. (2) that the evidence adduced at trial is insufficient to support the Tax Court's findings. We find that the application of Rule 183 did not violate Petitioners Appellants' due process rights and that the evidence is sufficient to support the Tax Court's finding that Ballard received and fraudulently failed to report income.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="691"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-1165.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291. Arguing that (1) the summonses should be quashed because there were no </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="691"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1277.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is corrected as follows: On page 18. Were on brief. Dwyer & Collora were on joint brief. Pulling in one direction is the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) which. Is intent on learning the identity of persons who pay large legal fees in cash. Pulling in the opposite direction is a consortium consisting of two lawyers and three bar associations (appearing as amici curiae) which. Is intent on safeguarding the identity of clients who pay in cash. Each of the forms was essentially complete except for the name of the client. The respondents advised the IRS that they were withholding the client's identity on the basis of ethical obligations. They asseverated that the IRS's alleged investigation of the lawyers was merely a pretext disguising its real objective learning more about the client and that the government therefore should be required to follow the statutory procedure for issuing summonses affecting unidentified third parties.1 See I.R.C. 7609(f). That the respondents had failed to show either that the supposed investigation of the law firm was a sham or that an improper motive tainted the summonses. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="691"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Nov1997/97a1744p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. INTRODUCTION This is an appeal from a twelve count indictment charging the defendant. Gollapudi was charged with failing to account for and pay over to the Internal Revenue Service federal income taxes. Gollapudi was indicted for filing a false personal income tax return. S 7202 is barred by the three year statute of limitations of S 6531. (2) that because the responses on the 1040 he filed were truthful he cannot be found guilty of filing a false statement under S 7206(1). Who were paid by checks drawn from the company's corporate checking account. Although the checks indicated that federal income taxes and Federal Insurance Contributions Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="690"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200006/99-5089a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the brief were Jonathan S. Silverschotz were on the brief of appellees State of California and Califor nia Franchise Tax Board. We conclude that the dismissal was proper under Rule 12(b) essentially for the reasons set forth in the district court's opinion of January 29. Gardner's tax returns and tax information within the Internal Revenue Service was permissible under the tax administration exception to the nondisclosure requirements of 26 U.S.C. s 6103 (1994 and Supp. Gardner's exclusive remedy for the disclosures of his tax records is under the Internal Revenue Code. His employment was terminated for alleged failures to comply with federal and state tax laws. We summarize the background to his contentions that the disclo sure of his tax returns and tax information violated federal law and that he is entitled to relief under the Privacy Act as well as the Internal Revenue Code. Suspected as early as 1992 that he was not in full compliance with federal and state tax laws. They commenced disciplinary proceedings and his employment was terminated November 26. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="690"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0289p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Appeals the district court's order enforcing an Internal Revenue Service (IRS) administrative summons demanding production of two memoranda that Yum argues are protected by work product privilege. The IRS is conducting an investigation of Yum's tax liability for fiscal years 1997. It produced a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="689"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-1169.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Spalding</U> were on brief for petitioner.</FONT> <P><FONT FACE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="686"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/FCD5B0E9FD2E964688256DA2005A70D6/$file/0215618.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: The question in this case is whether an IRS claim for delinquent taxes secured outside of bankruptcy by a lien on a debtor's interest in an ERISA qualified pension plan is secured in bankruptcy </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="685"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/20412228970C35F288256C76007C64F5/$file/0155953.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: On slip opinion page 11556. Wright is distinguishable because. No assessment was made against the individual partners. Although an action against the partnership would have been timely. The only relevant question in Wright was whether the statute of limitations applicable to the partners should be tolled while the limitations period was tolled with respect to the partnership. Judges Kleinfeld and Graber have voted to deny the petition for rehearing en banc. The petition for rehearing and petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED. The United States Internal Revenue Service (IRS) filed proofs of claim against Debtors for unpaid employment taxes assessed against a partnership in which Debtors were general partners. The IRS's claims were properly disallowed because (1) the IRS cannot collect a partnership's tax deficiency directly from the partners without first making individualized assessments against the partners or obtaining judgments against the partners holding them jointly and severally liable for the partnership's tax debts. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="684"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200608/05-5139a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs was Stephen M. Dunham was on the brief for amicus curiae No Fear Coalition in support of appellant. With him on the brief were Kenneth L. Chief Judge: Marrita Murphy brought this suit to recover income taxes she paid on the compensatory damages for emotional distress and loss of reputation she was awarded in an adminstrative action she brought against her former employer. Her award should have been excluded from her gross income because it was compensation received </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="683"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/June2003/022001.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I The facts in this case are undisputed. A federal search warrant was issued. It was executed at the Lamplughs' house on May 25. Numerous financial documents and firearms were seized during the search. Lamplugh was represented by Robert Sanders. Four days before the trial was scheduled to begin and four and a half years after the IRS and BATF searched the Lamplughs' house pursuant to a warrant. The Government was unaware of the existence of the box of documents during the presentation of its evidence on November 2 and 3. Lamplugh stated that federal tax returns were not filed in 1991 and 1992 because he did not receive any income during those years. This credit application was obtained 5 from the Commonwealth Bank in response to a Government subpoena. Immediately after court was called to order on the third day of trial. The defense intended to use the contents of the box to cross examine the revenue agent who was to be the Government's final witness. He also testified that included in the disclosed documents were what appeared to be partial or completed copies of federal. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="683"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-5065.html">GLENWOOD V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="683"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/11/00-9003.htm">00-9003 -- OLPIN V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE -- 11/05/2001<BR></A><BR> The relevant facts are undisputed. The issue is whether Mr. Background Facts and Proceedings</strong> <p> The following facts are taken from unchallenged affidavits filed by Mr. Olpin </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="681"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/974523.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> No. 97 4523 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. The following facts are established. Zamzam was a general medical practitioner and general surgeon in Grundy. Zamzam was the sole shareholder of the Corporation and a corporate employee. Was also an employee of the Corporation. This audit was later expanded to include their individual federal income tax returns for the years 1990 and 1991. The PC Account was funded with money from the PMM Account. Zamzam falsely represented to Agent Baker that all of the Corporation's income was recorded in the daily receipts journal and deposited into the Corporate Account. She also failed to disclose that some of the Corporation's income was deposited into the PMM Account. The Zamzams falsely represented to Agent Baker that all of the deposits made to the PMM Account that were not reported as taxable income were either derived from certificates of deposit that were cashed when maturing. Or money that was withdrawn and redeposited. Zamzam also falsely represented that all corporate income was recorded in the daily receipts journal and directly deposited into the Corporate Account. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="681"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200005/99-5097a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> May were on the briefs. Were on the brief. Levin and Janet LaRue were on the brief for amici curiae Landmark Legal Founda tion and Family Research Council Ayesha N. Henderson were on the brief for amici curiae Americans United for Separation of Church and State and People for the American Way Foundation. (3) it was the victim of selective prosecution in violation of the Fifth Amendment. Because these objections are without merit. Contribu tions to such organizations are also deductible from the donating taxpayer's taxable income. Although most organizations seeking tax exempt status are required to apply to the Internal Revenue Service ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="679"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/sept96/95-9008.wpd.html">ABC RENTALS OF SAN ANTONIO V. COMMISSIONER<BR></A><BR> The Tax Court held that appellants' rent to own inventory was not properly depreciable under the income forecast method. Provided other conditions are met. If the taxpayers can establish that the income forecast method is a reasonable and consistent method under 167(b)(4) and that it complies with the limitations of 167(b)(4) and (c). This method of depreciation is available to them. The income forecast method as limited by 167(b)(4) and (c) is a reasonable and consistent method for depreciating the taxpayers' inventory. Background At issue are depreciation deductions claimed by two rent to own companies on their inventory of rental units for the tax years ending December 31. (ABC) was a subchapter C corporation for its fiscal year ended May 31. Was a subchapter S corporation thereafter. Parsons was ABC's sole shareholder. (Guaranteed) was a subchapter S corporation and Parsons and Diana L. Peters were shareholders in Guaranteed. The initial lease term on a rental unit was between twelve and twenty one months. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199812/98-5105a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs was Amber Wong Hsu. With him on the brief were Loretta C. An organization is not operated exclusively for exempt purposes if it is an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1938.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Johnson is a certified public accountant and regulation. Lyon are married and reside in New to Mr. Which was lower than the rate applied to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="676"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/01/952110P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This is an appeal from the en banc decision by the United States Tax Court (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="676"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/BE4F0A06563FEDED882572F2007B0C02/$file/0475716.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The sentencing court's finding should have precluded relitigation of the fraud issue before the tax court. Even if relitigation is not precluded. We hold that he is entitled to deduct certain bona fide business expenses. The first provided for a base offense level of ten </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="675"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-5041.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="674"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan96/94-6551.opa.html">COGGIN V. COMMISSIONER<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Coggin v. Holding that Coggin's attempted termination of his agreements to extend the limitations period was ineffective. Reasoning that the incorrectly addressed termination notices were ineffective. Was timely. We will affirm the decision of the Tax Court.<p> This court has jurisdiction to review the final order of the Tax Court pursuant to 26 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="674"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan96/94-6551.opa.html">COGGIN V. COMMISSIONER<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Coggin v. Holding that Coggin's attempted termination of his agreements to extend the limitations period was ineffective. Reasoning that the incorrectly addressed termination notices were ineffective. Was timely. We will affirm the decision of the Tax Court.<p> This court has jurisdiction to review the final order of the Tax Court pursuant to 26 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="674"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Jan2003/012132.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The District Court correctly held that the Bankruptcy Court did not have jurisdiction over Pransky's adversary proceeding as it pertains to those tax years. Pransky did not file tax returns by the applicable due dates because he was under a criminal investigation at that time and feared that by providing certain information on the tax returns he might waive his Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate himself. His counsel advised him instead to remit money to the IRS 2 in an amount that would exceed any tax liability he might have. With letters directing that the money was to be applied to any income tax liability that he might have for those years. There is no dispute over this characterization. We will refer to the requests for credits made on Pransky's 1984 and 1985 tax return forms as the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="673"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/994722.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The opinion is filed by a quorum of the panel. 28 U.S.C. § 46(d). Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Were charged in a superseding indictment with one count of conspiracy to defraud and impede the IRS in its collection of revenue. The deposits were made in three accounts. The individual deposits were for no more than $5. They were behind on loan payments. The mortgagee on their house was considering foreclosure. The Leaks were under a five year bankruptcy plan to pay off their debts by 1991. When the structured cash deposits were made. A figure that was considerably short of the $206. Prior to the cash deposits the Leaks did not have any significant source of legal nontaxable income. He told the agents that the cash deposited in 1991 was a loan from his corporation. Leak claimed that TKC's cash was stored in safes in his house because he </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="673"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1564OPN.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> LLP</SPAN> were on brief. Were on brief. Were sent tax deficiency notices by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) on April 24. The legal fees were paid and then deducted by the corporation. Were not counted as income by Guarino. Petitioners argue that the criminal conduct was so related to the operation of the corporation that the legal fees were a deductible corporate expense and properly not included in Guarino's gross income. Finding that the criminal charges were not sufficiently related to the operation of the corporation. We affirm the ruling of the tax court.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="672"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06b0010n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The precedential effect of this decision is limited to the case and parties pursuant to 6th Cir. Which was filed after confirmation of the Debtors' chapter 13 plan. The bankruptcy court's decision is AFFIRMED. The majority of which were not raised before or decided by the bankruptcy court. This Panel will not consider </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="672"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-5141.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 2004 order. (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. The homestead deed to Miller Bruner stated that the grant was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="671"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6CE52AF74642714888256E22007187E3/$file/0235599.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Concluding that the federal defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We hold that Bivens relief is unavailable for challenges to IRS partnership tax assessment and collection activities. I1 Hoyt was a well known sheep and cattle breeder in Burns. Each partner was expected to benefit from the partnership in two ways. Which the partners were able to claim as a tax deduction. In later years the partnerships were expected to produce a profit as each partnership liquidated the livestock that it had been assigned. Hoyt was accredited by the IRS as an enrolled agent. Because the plaintiffs' claims were dismissed on a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). Hoyt was also the tax matters partner ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1EE0CE62ED2CD4DB88256ABE005BB8E4/$file/0070293.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This case is before us on appeal from a judgment of the Tax Court. The Commissioner contends that equitable recoupment is not available on the facts of this case. Was named the executor and residuary beneficiary of his estate. The Willits stock was valued at $485 per share and the Savings stock at $181.50 per share. The executor was authorized to sell a certain portion of this stock (500 shares of Willits stock and 2800 shares of Savings stock) in order to pay applicable estate taxes. The declared value of the stock was used as a basis for determining the gain from their sale.1 Consistent with this statutory requirement. 000) was reported as a capital gain on the estate tax return. March was also required to use the stock value declared on the estate tax return for the purpose of determining her capital gain from the sale. The basis of this deficiency was the Commissioner's conclusion that the Willits and Savings stocks were worth substantially more than the estate declared. The Tax Court concluded that the Willits Stock was worth $626 per share and the Savings Stock was worth $276 per share. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0789n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We vacate the court's ruling that the refund was Crane's sole The Honorable Milton I. I Sarah Crane and Angus MacPhail were married in 1983. The couple's 1996 tax liability was determined by December 31. $87.00 was attributable to MacPhail alone. Crane and MacPhail's joint income taxes were paid in full by Stanbery. Because it was Stanbery's practice to make the following year's estimated first quarterly payment when filing for a due date extension. 000 check was drawn on Stanbery. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-5040.html">WILLIAM K. VANCANAGAN V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> Of counsel was <u>Edward A. With her on the brief were <u>Loretta . ) with their application was a ". The effect of that ruling was to invalidate as untimely their claim that they had overpaid their taxes. Which was the extended date for that return. Bovey died and his personal representative was substituted as a plaintiff appellant. 000 remittance in April 1990 was a ". Were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/586083C2CA11725088256E5A00707CA4/$file/0070293.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This case is before us on appeal from a judgment of the Tax Court. The Commissioner contends that equitable recoupment is not available on the facts of this case. Was named the executor and residuary beneficiary of his estate. The Willits stock was valued at $485 per share and the Savings stock at $181.50 per share. The executor was authorized to sell a certain portion of this stock (500 shares of Willits stock and 2800 shares of Savings stock) in order to pay applicable estate taxes. The declared value of the stock was used as a basis for determining the gain from their sale.1 Consistent with this statutory requirement. 000) was reported as a capital gain on the estate tax return. March was also required to use the stock value declared on the estate tax return for the purpose of determining her capital gain from the sale. The basis of this deficiency was the Commissioner's conclusion that the Willits and Savings stocks were worth substantially more than the estate declared. The Tax Court concluded that the Willits Stock was worth $626 per share and the Savings Stock was worth $276 per share. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="669"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Mar2001/995609.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Both of whom were limousine drivers for Atlantic. (2) there was a lack of substantial evidence in support of the Board's backpay award. Atlantic contends that Jenkins failed to mitigate his damages because he was unavailable for work during the seven months between his termination and his reinstatement. Because we find both that the Board's reliance on the evidence adduced was 2 proper. That there was substantial evidence to support the Board's findings regarding both backpay and mitigation. We will deny the petition for review and enforce the order of the Board. As will ef fectuate the policies of [the Act]. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="667"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199801/97-5010a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Lehrfeld were on the briefs. Were on the brief. The district court granted summary judgment for the IRS on the ground that the material sought was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="666"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/7090965863F018808825705B004F67A1/$file/0435028.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 1346(a)(1). Although the levied upon funds were removed from the Steads' account. If in fact they were ever transferred from the bank. Is not disclosed by the record. The funds were not returned to the Steads. The IRS does not have any record of receiving the funds from First Interstate Bank or Wells Fargo Bank. For reasons that are unclear from the record. Neither the Steads nor the IRS appears to have attempted to recover the missing funds from First Interstate Bank or Wells Fargo Bank. The Steads' tax dispute was resolved to the satisfaction of the IRS. 1996 was remitted to the IRS. Even though the tax was assessed against a third party. 529 (1995). 2 Certain types of property are statutorily exempted from a § 6321 tax lien pursuant to I.R.C. § 6323. 1 STEAD v. Banks are subject to special rules and must wait twenty one days before relinquishing levied upon funds. A bank has only two defenses: 1) the levied upon property is not in its possession. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="666"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200615333.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Jacobs's federal income tax debt is dischargeable in bankruptcy and that Mr. We have jurisdiction over Mr. Sitting by designation. 28 U.S.C. § 158(d)(1) provides: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="666"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-5099.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the brief was Sallie W. With her on the brief were Eileen J. Of counsel was Marion E. 1 Section 6404(a) of the Internal Revenue Code provides as follows: (a) General rule The Secretary is authorized to abate the unpaid portion of the assessment of any tax or any liability in respect thereof. Which (1) is excessive in amount. Or (B) any payment of any tax described in section 6212(a) to the extent that any delay in such payment is attributable to such an officer or employee being dilatory in performing a ministerial act. Those changes to § 6404(e)(1) were effective for interest accruing with respect to deficiencies (2) is assessed after the expiration of the period of limitation properly applicable thereto. Or (3) is erroneously or illegally assessed. 05 5099 2 or payments for tax years beginning after July 30. 2 which provides for review of abatement determinations made by the IRS in the Tax Court as follows: The Tax Court shall have jurisdiction over any action brought by a taxpayer who meets the requirements referred to in section 7430(c)(4)(A)(ii) to determine whether the Secretary's failure to abate interest under this section was an abuse of discretion. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="665"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-1078.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> P.C.</U> were on brief. Were on brief. BACKGROUND</STRONG></FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="665"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1871EA3FD22B816A88256C0F0056939F/$file/0155953.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The United States Internal Revenue Service (IRS) filed proofs of claim against Debtors for unpaid employment taxes assessed against a partnership in which Debtors were general partners. The IRS's claims were properly disallowed because (1) the IRS cannot collect a partnership's tax deficiency directly from the partners without first making individualized assessments against the partners or obtaining judgments against the partners holding them jointly and severally liable for the partnership's tax debts. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Debtors were general partners of Marina Cabrillo Partners (the Partnership). The IRS argues that its timely assessment of taxes against the Partnership allows it to collect taxes directly from the individual partners even though no separate assessment of tax liability was made against them. Only if the levy is made or the proceeding begun (1) within 10 years after the assessment of the tax[.]. So long as the IRS brings an action to collect the taxes within three years after the taxpayer's return was filed. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="665"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0F544DF4D17F586A88256F8D0011D74B/$file/0210545.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Trevino sought and was denied a new trial in the district court. Making three arguments: (1) the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury that her good faith belief that her tax returns were proper was a complete defense to the charges against her. In his office found versions of Trevino's 1991 and 1992 tax returns which were different than the returns filed with the IRS for those years. Trevino was eventually charged with conspiracy to defraud the United States for her 1989. TREVINO Archuleta was charged with falsifying tax returns on behalf of his clients. He pleaded guilty and his potential sentence of 35 months was reduced to 21 months. This was demonstrated at trial in part by comparing monthly </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="665"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0ECE2A14C52810438825705F0055E797/$file/0210545.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Are withdrawn and replaced by the amended opinion and amended partially dissenting opinion filed concurrently with this order. The petition for panel rehearing and petition for rehearing en banc are denied. Trevino sought and was denied a new trial in the district court. She was sentenced to ten months in prison. Making three arguments: (1) the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury that her good faith belief that her tax returns were proper was a complete defense to the charges against her. In his office found versions of Trevino's 1991 and 1992 tax returns which were different than the returns filed with the IRS for those years. Trevino was eventually charged with conspiracy to defraud the United States for her 1989. Archuleta was charged with falsifying tax returns on behalf of his clients. TREVINO 10691 35 months was reduced to 21 months. This was demonstrated at trial in part by comparing monthly </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="665"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug2000/99-10679.opn.html">DAVENPORT RECYCLING ASSOCIATES V. COMM'R OF INTERNAL REVENUE (8/2/2000, NO. 99-10679)<BR></A><BR> Denying them leave to file a motion to vacate the assessment of tax liability arising from a partnership in which they were limited partners.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="665"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug2000/99-10679.opn.html">DAVENPORT RECYCLING ASSOCIATES V. COMM'R OF INTERNAL REVENUE (8/2/2000, NO. 99-10679)<BR></A><BR> Denying them leave to file a motion to vacate the assessment of tax liability arising from a partnership in which they were limited partners.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="665"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/02/01-2125.htm">01-2125 -- KLINE V. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE -- 02/08/2002<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Debtor Karen Marie Kline appeals the district court's order affirming the bankruptcy court's approval of the Internal Revenue Service's (IRS) proof of claim. Appellee's proof of claim was valid until such time as Appellant filed tax returns. <p> R. The IRS states the only issue to be decided by this court is simply whether the federal income tax laws apply to Ms. The implication of that statement is that Ms. Kline is what was once designated by the IRS as an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="663"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0AA36F206389D1FE88256EAF00543118/$file/0310158.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Who were found guilty of two counts of tax evasion. Rutherford failure to testify at trial were inadmissible under Fed. They also assert that the jury was prejudiced because a large number of IRS and government agents sat directly behind the prosecution table throughout the trial and glared at the jurors. The Rutherfords assert that the district court improperly restricted the scope of the evidentiary hearing and impeded their ability to make a prima facie showing that the jurors were adversely influenced by the government agents' conduct. Is that the district court erred in finding that they must prove that the agents </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="663"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-3059.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> They argue that the obstruction offense was neither properly charged in the indictment nor sufficiently proven at trial basically. That the obstruction charge was included by the government as an afterthought. Find that the indictment provided sufficient notice of the conduct for which Fassnacht and Malanga were being 2 Nos. 02 3059 & 02 3060 charged and that the government presented sufficient evidence at trial for a rational jury to have found the defendants guilty of obstruction of justice. HISTORY Donald Newell and Vincent Malanga were partners and each fifty percent shareholders in the Chicago based investment firm of LaSalle Portfolio Management. Was the sole LPM. Ltd. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="663"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/oct97/96-9002.wpd.html">JEPPSEN V. COMMISSIONER<BR></A><BR> On the grounds that it was reasonably foreseeable by the end of 1987 that Jeppsen would recover the stolen money. When Jeppsen was awarded almost $1. The tax court agreed with the IRS that Jeppsen was not entitled to the theft loss deduction claimed on his 1987 tax return. BACKGROUND The facts of the present case are largely undisputed. Who knew that Jeppsen was not experienced or sophisticated in securities investments. Barker then invested much of the money in this account in certain </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="663"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1997/10/96-9002.htm">96-9002 -- JEPPSEN V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE -- 10/31/1997<BR></A><BR> On the grounds that it was reasonably foreseeable by the end of 1987 that Jeppsen would recover the stolen money. When Jeppsen was awarded almost $1. The tax court agreed with the IRS that Jeppsen was not entitled to the theft loss deduction claimed on his 1987 tax return. We affirm. <p> <center><strong>BACKGROUND</strong></center> <p> The facts of the present case are largely undisputed. Who knew that Jeppsen was not experienced or sophisticated in securities investments. Barker then invested much of the money in this account in certain </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="661"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/09/032883P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. Metro was a Minnesota corporation that provided waste disposal services to commercial customers in the Minneapolis St. William Butler was the founder of the company and its Chief Executive Officer and majority shareholder during the relevant time. Butler was the sole shareholder until McGraw bought 49 percent of Butler's Metro shares in June 1988. He supervised the accounting department and was personally responsible for maintaining the general ledger and preparing the balance sheets. McGraw was aware that Metro's tax returns for the three year period did not include any gross receipts for the subcontracting work it performed for Poor Richards. The receipts were properly deductible from income by Metro as salary paid to Butler or business expenses of 2 Metro. Despite their contention that the cash was used for Butler's salary and Metro business expenses. The amount of each transaction was always less than $10. McGraw was aware that Metro's tax returns for the 1988 and 1989 tax years overstated the amount of deductions for subcontracting expenses. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="661"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Jan2003/014424.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Are brothers who owned and operated a construction business. The purpose of which was to file false personal income tax returns and to aid and assist certain of their employees and subcontractors in doing the same. Although there are other Gambone defendants in this case. We sometimes refer to Jack and Tony exclusively as the Gambones as they are the only appellants. The first and most common method was to pay the employees </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="661"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-5100.html">TRANSPAC DRILLING V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="661"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-9000.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 872 imposed by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="660"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Nov1994/94a0890p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will reverse the district court's order. We will remand the case to the district court for the proceedings we outline in this opinion. Which was the post petition portion of the fourth quarter wages it withheld for payment to the City of Farrell. The city contends that Begier held that a trust is created for the benefit of the taxing authority whenever an employer withholds a portion of an employee's wages as income taxes. Agreeing with the bankruptcy court that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="660"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/10/976010P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Eugene Janssen was elected president and treasurer. Eunice Janssen was elected secretary. Was elected vice president. In order to establish that REJ was effectively the alter ego of the Janssens. As well as to foreclose the federal tax liens on property formerly owned by the Janssens but which was subsequently titled in REJ. the United States Bankruptcy Code. That REJ is the alter ego of the debtors. Further sought a determination that the IRS claim was both valid and wholly secured by the federal tax lien which attached to all property and rights to property held by the debtors in their own name and in the name of REJ. 26 U.S.C. § 6323(b)(1). avoid any They asserted that Section 545(2) of the Bankruptcy statutory lien that is Code not enforceable at the voids Code permits a trustee. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="660"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/04/031603P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The judgment of the district court is affirmed. We held it was not appropriate under Missouri law. The issue before the court was the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="660"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/08/042623P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was properly issued and did not violate Norwood's Fourth or Fifth Amendment rights. The program was designed to bring taxpayers who had used offshore accounts to hide income into compliance with federal tax law while gathering information about the promoters of such offshore schemes. Taxpayers already under audit when OVCI began were ineligible for participation in the program. The government's petition was 2 accompanied by two affidavits. Agent Ensrud declared that his investigation of Norwood's tax returns was prompted by information garnered through OVCI. Indicating that Norwood had used his Leadenhall cards there in 2000 to purchase furniture that was delivered to his home address. That Norwood had not shown that the summons was issued for an improper purpose. He asserts this was error because the IRS had no legitimate purpose in seeking the information requested by the summons. The summons was unreasonably broad in violation of the Fourth Amendment. He contends that the district court should have granted him discovery regarding the IRS's institutional posture in the investigation. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="658"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/07/971913P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This is a tax refund dispute. Ida Raye Chernin is a party to this action only because joint federal tax returns were filed by the couple during the year in question. 2 1 that refunds are due for taxes paid on income reported in 1982 on two alternative grounds: either because (1) in 1982. The United States maintains that if the taxpayer is entitled to a refund for funds transferred to secure an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="658"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/02/02-61057.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. For recoverable costs incurred by Petitioners in this appeal and those that they will incur in proceedings in the Tax Court on remand. That there is no disagreement on the operative facts underlying this case. The Owens loan was one of a number that the FDIC acquired from that failed bank. Which loan was one that was managed for the FDIC by AMRESCO. 2 In 1994. 1994 as the date of cancellation of the Owens loan and listed the total amount for which the loan was canceled. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="654"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july96/95-2744.opa.html">BILZERIAN V. UNITED STATES<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Bilzerian v. Plaintiffs were assessed an additional $156. The government contends this refund was issued erroneously as a result of a computer error. Before a judgment was returned in the section 7405 suit. Steffen appeals.<p> <i>Discussion</i><p> <p> Steffen filed suit under 26 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="654"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july96/95-2744.opa.html">BILZERIAN V. UNITED STATES<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Bilzerian v. Plaintiffs were assessed an additional $156. The government contends this refund was issued erroneously as a result of a computer error. Before a judgment was returned in the section 7405 suit. Steffen appeals.<p> <i>Discussion</i><p> <p> Steffen filed suit under 26 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="653"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-3914.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The IRS received information suggesting that BDO was promoting potentially abusive tax shelters without complying with the registration and listing requirements for organizers and sellers of tax shelters. As well as any </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="653"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcU1VNXDA1LTUzMDFfc28ucGRm/05-5301_so.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="653"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-3914B.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The IRS received information suggesting that BDO was promoting potentially abusive tax shelters without complying with the registration and listing requirements for organizers and sellers of tax shelters. As well as any </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-5171.html">VENTAS, INC. V. U. S.<BR></A><BR> Argued for defendant <span class=SpellE>appellee</span>.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>With him on the brief were <u>Eileen J. Attorney.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>Of counsel was <u>Steven W. Inc. ( <span class=SpellE>Ventas</span> ) is a real estate company that owns and leases hospitals. Page break after:avoid'>I.</p> <p class=MsoBodyText2>The pertinent facts are not in dispute.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>For the tax years at issue. <span class=SpellE>Ventas</span> was entitled to a targeted jobs tax credit against its regular income tax liability under section 51 of the Internal Revenue Code ( IRC or Code ).<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span><u>See</u> 26 U.S.C. § 51(a) (1990).<a style='mso footnote id:ftn1' href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="650"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0359p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Government has not challenged the district court's determination that Scripps is entitled to statutory interest because the $3.5 million Scripps tendered to the Internal Revenue Service ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="649"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/07/01-9009.htm">01-9009 -- KATZ V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE -- 07/07/2003<BR></A><BR> Aron Katz (Taxpayer) was a partner in a number of partnerships that suffered substantial losses during a year in which he filed for bankruptcy. The question before us is whether the Commissioner of Internal Revenue can challenge that allocation in a proceeding involving only the Taxpayer. We hold that a partnership level proceeding is necessary. <ol> <li><strong>Background</strong></li> </ol> <p> Taxpayer's partnerships did not do well in 1990. Although he could have elected to bifurcate his 1990 tax year into two short years. The remaining partnerships of which Taxpayer was a member did not distinguish between pre petition and post petition items in the K 1 forms they prepared. Are not subject to the federal income tax. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="649"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/5EF0EE97A0F2EDF9882571D100537B38/$file/0474624.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Janis ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="649"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/01opinions/01-5231a.html">TAX ANALYSTS V. IRS<BR></A><BR> Dobrovir argued the cause for appellant/cross appellee.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1997/11/96-1513.htm">96-1513 -- U.S. V. WINCHELL -- 11/03/1997<BR></A><BR> That the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction on the six counts related to that section. He contends that the evidence was insufficient to establish that he acted corruptly within the meaning of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="647"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/68847E7B23D5F17688256BBA0080EE95/$file/0010561.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3742 and 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm. 000 in income by participating in a scheme whereby cars were permitted to cross into the United States from Mexico without subjecting them to routine inspection. An indictment charging the two tax offenses was returned on August 18. The first Pretrial Motion was filed on June 8. A seventh motion to continue the trial was granted in order to ensure the continuity of government counsel. Veronica was employed as a medical assistant. His starting salary was approximately $20. Which he elected to have directly deposited into his bank account. Many of these items were paid for in cash. Defendant told Pablo that Defendant was getting low and asked </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="647"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/ea50059bc5df2783882569520074e699/68847e7b23d5f17688256bba0080ee95/$FILE/0010561.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3742 and 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm. 000 in income by participating in a scheme whereby cars were permitted to cross into the United States from Mexico without subjecting them to routine inspection. An indictment charging the two tax offenses was returned on August 18. The first Pretrial Motion was filed on June 8. A seventh motion to continue the trial was granted in order to ensure the continuity of government counsel. Veronica was employed as a medical assistant. His starting salary was approximately $20. Which he elected to have directly deposited into his bank account. Many of these items were paid for in cash. Defendant told Pablo that Defendant was getting low and asked </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="646"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/06/001882P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> When two taxpayers claim a tax benefit to which only one is entitled. Before final judgment was entered in Linda's favor. Concluding that the Commissioner's litigation position was substantially justified. The earned income credit ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="646"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=06-3127_021.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Luke reviewed the documents that Greve gave her and noted that some of the documents appeared to have been altered and that she did not have No. 06 3127 3 all of Greve's account information. Who agreed that the case </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="646"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/06/001221P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 2 appeals from the order of the District Court granting the United States summary judgment on IES's claim for tax refunds to which IES contends it is entitled as a result of securities trades that the court held to be sham transactions. That IES is entitled to deduct fifteen years' worth of environmental cleanup cost assessments in the tax year in which the amount of the liability was determined. Will affirm if the record shows no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The material facts are undisputed. The question of law before us is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="646"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-4160.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Wade was convicted of seven charges relating to tax evasion and bankruptcy fraud. He was sentenced to 100 months in prison. Were charged in a nine count indictment. The Wades were accused of conspiring to hide ownership of the complexes not only to conceal income and evade tax. Counts 2 5 charged the Wades with evasion of (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <hr> assessment for tax years 1997 99 and evasion of payment for 1982 84 in violation of 26 U.S.C. 7201 and 18 U.S.C. 2. Wade was convicted on all charges against him. The parties are familiar with the facts. We will describe only the facts crucial to our decision on each alleged error. This letter advised that there was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="646"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/052460p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> She argues that the evidence at trial coupled with the jury instructions constructively amended the indictment returned against her on which she was tried. She contends that there was at trial. In these two contentions Daraio asserts that the government's proofs may have led the jury to convict her of unlawful conduct the indictment did not charge. Daraio contends that by reason of any of these errors she is entitled to an outright reversal of her conviction or at least a new trial. We will affirm. 2 II. The prosecutor in in limine proceedings filed and served a notice that the government would seek to introduce evidence of Daraio's prior tax non compliance as demonstrated by her personal tax records and tax records from several corporations with which she was involved pursuant to Rule 404(b). We do not detail the evidence inasmuch as Daraio does not contend that the evidence supporting the verdict was inadequate. 3 3 2 1 included the following items: (1) Payroll tax records for Joseph Daraio. Reasoning that evidence of past conduct is relevant when. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="645"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200206/01-5231a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs was Cornish F. With him on the briefs were Roscoe C. Circuit Judge: Several cases over the last two decades have required this court to consider whether records and documents of the Internal Revenue Service ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="644"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/06/953235P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> When the Tax Court decided the income earned from the farm was taxable to the Scherpings individually rather than the Noske corporation. Ellering were charged in Count I of the indictment with conspiracy to defraud the United States by impeding the IRS. Joan Noske and the Scherpings were also charged with several counts of structuring a monetary transaction for negotiation of the cattle proceeds. Ellering were convicted of all charges against them. The Scherpings were found guilty of conspiracy to evade income taxes. The Noskes have not been punished by assessment of the § 6700 penalties. Because the penalties are remedial rather than punitive in nature. The Noskes were jointly assessed a penalty of $490. This is not overwhelmingly disproportionate to the Government's damages. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="643"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/oct95/94-5162.html">TAYLOR V. IRS<BR></A><BR> The penalty under 6672 can be assessed against any officer or employee of a corporation who: (1) is under a duty to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="641"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/CFEACD09E7E48461882571930076FFDF/$file/0473277.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We reaffirm the principle that the Tax Court's jurisdiction over appeals from CDP determinations is limited to issues over which the Tax Court would have had jurisdiction to consider the underlying tax liability. Is entitled to raise defenses and to contest the levy or lien. 26 U.S.C. § 6330(c)(2)(A).1 After receiving a determination from Section 6320(c) looks to § 6330 for issues regarding hearings. Which was denied. II [1] The Tax Court is an Article I </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="641"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/981401.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and taxpayer Allen dispute whether § 163(h) of the Internal Revenue Code (I.R.C.) of 1986 is facially ambiguous. Is a valid regulation. Ruling that the language of § 163(h) is clear. We find without doubt that I.R.C. § 163(h) is facially ambiguous. The district court ruled that the language of I.R.C. § 163(h) is so unambiguous on its face that Temp. Reg. § 1.163 9T(b)(2)(i)(A) is per se invalid. The facts of this case are essentially uncontested. Allen is a real estate developer. He is also the director and majority shareholder of D.R. That held among its assets a tract of land upon which apartments were subsequently built. Was later extended. The IRS eventually audited Allen and determined that he should have reported the gain on the sale of both properties on his own 1984 individual return. While the Tax Court proceeding was pending. Noting in a letter of explanation that income tax deficiency interest is considered nondeductible personal interest pursuant to Temp. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="640"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/04/01-9013.htm">01-9013 -- IHC HEALTH PLAN, INC V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE -- 04/09/2003<BR></A><BR> Will &. We have jurisdiction to review the Tax Court's decision under 26 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="640"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-5045.html">WALTER PROCHORENKO V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> Argued for defendant appellee.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="638"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/nov97/96-1513.wpd.html">UNITED STATES V. WINCHELL<BR></A><BR> That the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction on the six counts related to that section. He contends that the evidence was insufficient to establish that he acted corruptly within the meaning of 7212(a). I. BACKGROUND The relevant facts are undisputed. The proceeds of the second sale would have fully satisfied its judgment against Winchell. In which he stated that he was not a person subject to taxes. Winchell sent one of the IRS employees involved in his case a letter stating that he </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="638"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-5107.html">BROWN AND DARNELL V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="638"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0402p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The primary question before us is whether or not the tax code and regulations create a ministerial task obligation on the IRS to notify. A tax matters partner who is under criminal investigation. Hoyt's partnerships were found to be illegal tax shelters. Hoyt is currently serving a federal prison sentence of 235 months for conspiracy 1 No. 03 2304 Mekulsia v. While the scheme was active. Losses were allocated among the limited partners in amounts necessary to zero out their incomes for tax return purposes. There is conflicting evidence and testimony regarding the degree of complicity of the individual investors. Indicating they knew from the beginning that these were not for profit partnerships. The victims in this case were not people that got into this as a matter of personal greed. [They] were truly victimized by a person who is capable of the greatest deceit. Including those closest to him . . . it is my strongest recommendation that those remaining cases that remain open be resolved by denying the tax shelter. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="638"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0238p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The taxes at issue in the instant cases are payroll taxes withheld from employees' paychecks and held in trust by the employer until payments are made to the government. The total current liability (including interest and penalties) is approximately $450. Collection due process hearings were conducted by phone in March 2002 (Living Care II. Notice of Determination letters denying Living Care's claims were mailed June 2002 and March 2003. Which were heard by different judges. Judicial Review of Collection Due Process Proceedings Collection due process hearings were created by the Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998. 112 Stat. 685 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May1994/94a0694p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will therefore affirm in part and reverse in part. We will remand the case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. I. It is important to emphasize at the outset that. Because we are reviewing the partial grant of a motion for summary judgment. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="636"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/07/99-2201.htm">99-2201 -- U.S. V. GAECHTER OUTDOOR ADVERTISING INC. -- 07/18/2000<BR></A><BR> The cases are therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> This case involves claims for rent and ownership of property originally owned by Harry Garcia that Gaetcher Outdoor Advertising. The court then held a bench trial on Garcia's claim that GOA was unjustly enriched by its failure to make rent payments to Garcia or to the IRS under tax levies against Garcia. We conclude the district court needs to further consider GOA's argument that a portion of Garcia's claim is barred by the statute of limitations. We also conclude that the court erred in determining the amount of postjudgment interest to which Garcia is entitled. <p> The general facts are not disputed. The rent on the lease for the larger billboard was $23. The rent for the smaller one was $1. Before the second year's rents were due. Although GOA contends it is disputed whether it made the 1987 rent payment. It is undisputed that GOA did not make any payments for use of the property to either Garcia or the IRS from 1989 to 1995. To determine who was entitled to the funds and to the deed to the property. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="636"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar2001/00-13404.man.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="636"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar2001/00-13404.man.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="635"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/5EA944D380B4012488257162007BE10D/$file/0473277.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We reaffirm the principle that the Tax Court's jurisdiction over appeals from CDP determinations is limited to issues over which the Tax Court would have had jurisdiction to consider the underlying tax liability. The lien is not effective until the IRS has filed notice. Is entitled to raise defenses and to contest the levy or lien. 26 U.S.C. § 6330(c)(2)(A).1 After receiving a determination from the 1 Section 6320(c) looks to § 6330 for issues regarding hearings. Which was denied. II [1] The Tax Court is an Article I </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="635"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-2143.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. Were on brief. Vinick appeals the district court's determination that he personally is liable for withholding taxes that Jefferson Bronze. Previously this court vacated a determination that Vinick was a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="635"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-2256.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Lubart was on brief for Robert A. Were on brief for the Internal Revenue Service et al. 1 *Of the District of Rhode Island. I Background Robert Aronson is a lawyer who specializes in finding persons to whom the government owes money and. Helping them obtain the money that is their due. 3 3 Insofar as he finds people whom the agency would not otherwise have found. Insofar as he finds and charges people whom the agency would have located on its own. His service is less beneficial. 188 (1st Cir. 1987) (Department's </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="633"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0032p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> United States Page 2 Because the COLI plans were economic shams and the deductions therefore were properly disallowed. The facts of the case and the parties' arguments are discussed at length in the district court's two thorough opinions. Which was both the owner and the beneficiary of these policies. Using the cash values of the policies as collateral.1 These policy loans were the principal source of funding during the first. The value not already used as collateral for a policy loan).3 Partial withdrawals were the principal source of funding during the fourth through seventh and tenth through thirteenth years of the Great West plan and during the fourth through eighth years of the MetLife plan. 000 of its own cash.4 1 The policy loan transactions were structured as follows: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="633"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1835.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> A Collection Due Process ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="633"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May1994/94a0712p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was convicted by a jury of mail fraud. He is entitled to a new trial because the district court did not strike the entire jury panel after the limitation on the investigation had been disclosed. We conclude that the requirements of § 6103(h)(5) were met in this case and that the district court did not err when it refused to strike the jury panel. Copple argues that the district court abused its discretion in admitting victim impact testimony that was irrelevant and highly prejudicial. Although we agree with Copple that the admission of the victim impact testimony was error. We believe the error was harmless given the overwhelming evidence of Copple's guilt. Was improper. The district court is free to reconsider alternative grounds for upward departure or increase in the offense level mentioned in the original presentence report but not factored into the original sentence. I. BACKGROUND Over the years a practice has developed in the funeral home business whereby persons who wish to rest assured that their funeral needs are taken care of in the event of a sudden or unexpected death may purchase </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="633"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0F0E18540654AF5F88256EEB00573AF1/$file/0316319.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Specifically they argue (1) that the injunction is overbroad as it relates to a book they sell. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a). I. Background Irwin Schiff has a long history of opposition to the federal income tax laws.1 For over thirty years he has maintained that the federal income tax is voluntary. Co defendant Lawrence Cohen is an employee at Freedom Books. Is sold individually and as part of tax avoidance packages. Which authorizes a district court to enjoin any person from conducting activities that are subject to penalty under 26 See. Including organizing or selling a plan or arrangement and making or furnishing a statement regarding the excludability of income that they know or have reason to know is false or fraudulent as to any material matter. Including organizing or selling a plan or arrangement and making or furnishing a statement regarding the excludability of income that they know or have rea (2) (3) UNITED STATES v. SCHIFF 10821 son to know is false or fraudulent as to any material matter. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="632"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200312/02-5278a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="632"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//feb2003/02-12164.opn.html">MONAHAN V. COMMISSIONER (2/13/2003, NO. 02-12164)<BR></A><BR> The losses and credits claimed by Barrister and its partners were subsequently examined in an IRS audit of Barrister's tax return. </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="632"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=06-2446_009.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="632"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/feb2003/02-12164.opn.html">MONAHAN V. COMMISSIONER (2/13/2003, NO. 02-12164)<BR></A><BR> The losses and credits claimed by Barrister and its partners were subsequently examined in an IRS audit of Barrister's tax return. </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="631"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July1996/96a1383p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Lilley's prepetition conduct was cause for dismissal under the statute. Lilley was unlawfully engaged in counterfeiting activities. Lilley was unable to obtain monetary redress from the Secret Service for the loss which he believed it had caused. He filed federal tax withholding forms on which he falsely claimed that he was exempt from withholding. As a result of which no federal income tax money was withheld from his wages though he did allow state income taxes and FICA taxes to be withheld. Lilley was convicted in federal court of willful failure to file tax returns for 1976 through 1979. He was required to file his delinquent tax returns for 1974 through 1984. When he was faced with a violation of his probation. Lilley eventually filed a petition with the United States Tax Court arguing that his failure to file income tax returns was due to both mental illness and. Lilley was 66 years old. That his sole creditor was the IRS. That his sole income was monthly Social Security benefits of $904. Lilley's petition on the ground that it was filed in bad faith in violation of 11 U.S.C. 1307(c). </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="630"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/043408p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Appellants/Plaintiffs are physicians and their professional corporations who purchased life insurance through Voluntary Employee Beneficiary Associations ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="627"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/01opinions/01-1045a.html">HERBERT L. MITCHELL V. COMMISSIONER IRS<BR></A><BR> With her on the brief was David English Carmack. Circuit Judge:<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="627"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/4928E2354A1A790B88256C6B005FCEEB/$file/0071285.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Opinion by Judge Tashima *Submission was deferred for seven days in order to allow supplemental briefing of the jurisdiction issue. **The Honorable Thomas M. Miller contends that the tax court erred in concluding that she was not entitled to an abatement of interest on employment taxes under 26 U.S.C. § 6404(e). The Commissioner conducted an examination of Miller's business and concluded that the individuals should have been treated as employees rather than independent contractors. Was dispositive. The tax court's grant of summary judgment is subject to de novo review. Or (B) any payment of any tax described in section 6212(a) to the extent that any error or delay in such payment is attributable to such an officer or employee being erroneous or dilatory in performing a ministerial act. The statute was amended by adding the word </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/061040np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/994536.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> MASIARCZYK Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. OPINION PER CURIAM: Frank and Linda Masiarczyk (Frank and Linda) were convicted by a jury in the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia of conspiracy to defraud the United States by impairing and impeding the lawful function of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in the computation and assessment of taxes. Frank also was convicted of willful tax evasion. Frank and Linda argue on appeal that the district court should have granted their joint motion for judgment of acquittal based upon insufficiency of the evidence. That the jury was not impartial. Linda also argues that the district court erred in enhancing her sentence because she was a leader. Frank was convicted of misdemeanor tax charges arising from his failure to file personal income tax returns. Frank engaged in a scheme with Linda and others to conceal his income and assets in order to avoid paying the IRS.1 Because this is a challenge to the denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal based upon insufficiency of the evidence. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="625"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/sept96/95-5174.wpd.html">NEECE V. IRS<BR></A><BR> I This case is before us for the third time. After a hearing the district court concluded that an investigation of the family trust </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="625"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-1132.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Hawkes & Goldings were on brief for appellant. Was on brief for the United States. Richard Goldberg was convicted of two counts of conspiracy to defraud the Internal Revenue Service. Goldberg's appeal is now before us. Goldberg was involved in several businesses in and around Boston. Since many of its signs were located on the parking lot's land. Scopa and consultant Vernon Clark were named as co conspirators in the two separate conspiracies for which Goldberg was ultimately convicted. The facts pertaining to the two different conspiracies were as follows. Which were then filed with the IRS. Reporting the money on the straws' returns instead of Scopa's resulted in a loss of about $150 to the Internal Revenue Service. 3 3 The government claimed at trial that the scheme was devised so that Scopa would seem to be unemployed and thus could continue to collect monthly benefits under a disability insurance policy. Was motivated by all of these objectives. Clark was having a secret affair with a woman named Patricia McNally. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="622"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/98opinions/98-5361a.html">TELECOMUSA, INC V. USA<BR></A><BR> With </P> <P>him on the briefs were Pamela F. With her on the brief </P> <P>were Loretta C. Appeal the district court's </P> <P>ruling that Telecom is not entitled to the income tax refund it </P> <P>seeks. Telecom's principal contention </P> <P>is that its basis in depreciable property should be reduced by </P> <P>the amount of ITC it received in the year to which it carried </P> <P>its ITC forward. We agree </P> <P>with the district court and the other courts that have consid </P> <P>ered this issue. Vari </P> <P>ous other methods of depreciation also have been permitted. </P> <P> . ACRS permits recovery of capital costs for most </P> <P>tangible depreciable property by using accelerated methods </P> <P>over predetermined periods that are generally shorter than </P> <P>the useful life of the asset. The </P> <P>investment tax credit dates back to the Kennedy Administra </P> <P>tion and was also designed to stimulate the economy by </P> <P>encouraging investment. The credit was a dollar for dollar offset </P> <P>against a taxpayer's tax liability. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="622"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199910/98-5361a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Pamela F. With her on the brief were Loretta C. Appeal the district court's ruling that Telecom is not entitled to the income tax refund it seeks. Telecom's principal contention is that its basis in depreciable property should be reduced by the amount of ITC it received in the year to which it carried its ITC forward. We agree with the district court and the other courts that have consid ered this issue. Vari ous other methods of depreciation also have been permitted. ACRS permits recovery of capital costs for most tangible depreciable property by using accelerated methods over predetermined periods that are generally shorter than the useful life of the asset. The investment tax credit dates back to the Kennedy Administra tion and was also designed to stimulate the economy by encouraging investment. The credit was a dollar for dollar offset against a taxpayer's tax liability. Congress concluded that this combination was distorting the allocation of capital re sources and determined to reduce the level of benefits. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="621"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/02/041407U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Langers' pro se complaint sought review of the determination of the IRS Office of Appeals that Patricia Langer was liable for the employee portion of certain unpaid FICA taxes. The crux of their complaint is that the IRS incorrectly assessed Patricia Langer's FICA taxes as income taxes. Because the Tax Court had determined in a prior proceeding that the taxes at issue in this case were FICA and not income liabilities. Where the underlying tax is an income. The IRS is required to send the taxpayer a deficiency notice before making the assessment. 165 n.4 (1976) (deficiency notice is of import primarily because it is jurisdictional prerequisite to taxpayer's suit in Tax Court for redetermination of his tax liability). (2) that the underlying tax is in fact not an income. Thus the IRS was not required under sections 6212 and 6213(a) to send the Langers a deficiency 2 notice. That the Langers acknowledge the underlying tax is in fact a FICA tax. The essence of their suit is that the IRS incorrectly assessed the FICA tax as an income tax. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="621"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-2086.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 28 U.S.C. 1291. The case is therefore submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case. The notice informed plaintiff that: (1) the IRS was intending to levy on his property thirty days after the date of the notice. Plaintiff sent defendant Apodaca a letter informing her that he was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="620"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B832E8C40717037B882572EC0000BF7B/$file/0650178.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we reverse and remand. Kayser was subsequently indicted on two counts of attempted income tax evasion (for 1999 and 2000) in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7201.1 1 Section 7201 provides: Any person who willfully attempts in any manner to evade or defeat any tax imposed by this title or the payment thereof shall. 000 of A2Z income that should have been reported on his individual return. These deductions were composed of automobile expenses. Kayser's accountant testified that the deductions were calculated from receipts and records maintained by Kayser. Kayser was able to declare virtually no tax due on the $145. Kayser's primary theory of defense was that he had not willfully evaded paying taxes. 445 in income from A2Z in 2000 and that this income should have been reported on Kayser's individual return for 2000. 2 UNITED STATES v. This theory was supported by two principal pieces of evidence. Kayser asked the district court to approve the following jury instruction: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="620"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/061031p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The distinction between a loan and an advance payment for the purpose of whether the funds received are to be treated as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="619"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/11/99-2327.htm">99-2327 -- U.S. V. JACOB -- 11/13/2000<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Jon Barton Jacob appeals from his convictions for attempting to evade or defeat tax in violation of 26 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="619"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200411089.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which was later discharged in bankruptcy. Which were not discharged. The IRS determined that Meadows's wife held their residence as his nominee because she did not have enough income to pay the mortgage and the house was in her name alone. Representing that Meadows's equity interest in the home was only $10. All of these debts were actually secured debts. 3 2 asked whether the IRS had illegally placed a nominee lien on the residence held in his wife's name and second. 000 was wrongfully applied to a tax period that had been discharged. He revealed that he thought that the automatic stay only applied to the debts that would have been discharged later. The Appeals Office decision also declined to find a violation of the stay because the agreement to release the lien was reached before Meadows filed for bankruptcy. Which he asserted were unaffected by 4 the stay. That Meadows did not have the right to designate how his wife's payment should be applied. That no designation of payment was made. That the payment was made by a nondebtor so it did not violate the stay. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="619"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/06/021532P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The IRS appeals the district court's grant of partial summary judgment that Cardinal was entitled to depreciate under the provisions of 26 U.S.C. §§ 167. Other materials are melted to yield liquid glass. Which then is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="618"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0347p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This is a consolidated appeal from a decision of the United States Tax Court. (2) Petitioner was not entitled to an income tax deduction in the taxable year 1990 for payments made to his former spouse as part of their divorce settlement. When he was terminated. The fact that the §§ 1981 and 1983 claims were still being litigated was evidenced elsewhere in the order. The limitation on relief sought was also confirmed in the part of the pretrial order calling for a non jury trial: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="618"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0136p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We are presented with a case of first impression regarding the validity of the Treasury Department's so called </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="618"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200206/01-1045a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the brief was David English Carmack. Circuit Judge: This case is before us on appeal by the taxpayer from a decision of the Tax Court denying </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="618"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/340ABB926DF09C948825735600531093/$file/0575957.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That the inter vivos transfer was not a bona fide sale for adequate and full consideration under 26 U.S.C. § 2036(a). We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1). At the age of eighty eight.1 She was survived by her son. Who is the executor of The facts we recite are undisputed facts. Was attorney in fact pursuant to a durable power of attorney from 1986 until decedent died. Is the attorney of record for this appeal. These gifts were in keeping with decedent's practice of making cash gifts to her children every year around Christmas. After she was released from the hospital. Which was evidenced by a promissory note and secured by a first position deed of trust on the Padaro Lane property in favor of the bank. 2 whose stated purpose was to engage in the business of owning and operating residential real property. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="617"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0A1172566FA6870A88256DAA0076ED98/$file/0130316.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Bridges contends that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence that was seized by the Government with an invalid search warrant. Bridges claims that the district court's instructions to the jury were deficient. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We agree with Bridges that the search warrant was invalid and excessively broad in its scope. Bridges's Due Process claim is without merit. Bridges' conviction is vacated and we remand to the district court for a new trial. Residents of the United States are not liable for federal income taxes if they declare that they are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="617"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr2001/00-11916.man.html">FOSTER V. UNITED STATES (4/30/2001, NO. 00-11916)<BR></A><BR> We review whether punitive damages are taxable income. Whether the position of the Internal Revenue Service ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="617"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/june97/95-6391.wpd.html">EWC, INC. V. MORRISSEY<BR></A><BR> At issue is whether 448 requires the IRS. Was entitled. Income is recognized in the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="617"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr2001/00-11916.man.html">FOSTER V. UNITED STATES (4/30/2001, NO. 00-11916)<BR></A><BR> We review whether punitive damages are taxable income. Whether the position of the Internal Revenue Service ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="615"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/04/031964P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Schoppert first contends that the government's concession that the existence of a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="615"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/041640p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> At issue is whether a permanent injunction barring defendant Thurston Paul Bell from promoting and selling unlawful tax advice is permissible under the First Amendment. We will affirm the injunction with modifications. 2 I. Thurston Paul Bell is a professional tax protester who ran a business and a website selling bogus strategies to clients endeavoring to avoid paying taxes. An entity dedicated to the proposition that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="614"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/01/012912P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Willis was convicted by a jury on two counts of tax evasion. He began to believe that payment of federal income taxes was not compulsory.4 He purchased books on the subject and spoke with lawyers and accountants. Most of those with whom he spoke told him that payment was compulsory. Even those materials which encouraged his belief told him that it was contrary to the view of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the courts. Willis rejected a return prepared by an accountant for his 1995 tax year because of his view that payment was voluntary. Connectivity was then required to remit to the IRS additional funds beyond those already provided to the payroll company for payment of its taxes. Willis testified that he felt that the IRS was at least partly responsible for Connectivity's lost funds. 24 3 2 previously withheld by Connectivity. Willis told IRS agents that he was unable to find any legal authority requiring him to file tax returns. In 1996 he drafted and filed a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="614"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug99/98-8514.man.html">DANTZLER V. UNITED STATES INTERNAL REVENUE SERV. (8/10/1999, NO. 98-8514)<BR></A><BR> The binding aspect of an earlier case is found in the actual disposition of the case given its particular essential facts. The power of precedent chiefly is to assure that like cases have like results. Cases that are not essentially alike can rightly have different results. Because Taxpayers' claims for refunds were not timely. Who are husband and wife. These amounts were sent to the IRS: $5. The returns showed that the Dantzlers' liability was less than the remittances the Dantzlers had made in connection with the corresponding extension requests. The IRS later notified the Dantzlers that it had disallowed their refund claims because the claims were barred by the statute of limitations.</P> <P> The Dantzlers brought this action seeking a refund for the years 1985. We conclude that the remittances were payments. The Dantzlers' refund claims are therefore time barred.</P> <P> The Internal Revenue Code contains two jurisdictional time bars for tax refund claims. Section 6511(a) provides that a refund claim must be filed </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="614"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug99/98-8514.man.html">DANTZLER V. UNITED STATES INTERNAL REVENUE SERV. (8/10/1999, NO. 98-8514)<BR></A><BR> The binding aspect of an earlier case is found in the actual disposition of the case given its particular essential facts. The power of precedent chiefly is to assure that like cases have like results. Cases that are not essentially alike can rightly have different results. Because Taxpayers' claims for refunds were not timely. Who are husband and wife. These amounts were sent to the IRS: $5. The returns showed that the Dantzlers' liability was less than the remittances the Dantzlers had made in connection with the corresponding extension requests. The IRS later notified the Dantzlers that it had disallowed their refund claims because the claims were barred by the statute of limitations.</P> <P> The Dantzlers brought this action seeking a refund for the years 1985. We conclude that the remittances were payments. The Dantzlers' refund claims are therefore time barred.</P> <P> The Internal Revenue Code contains two jurisdictional time bars for tax refund claims. Section 6511(a) provides that a refund claim must be filed </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D128CB01E10806F888256B970082C6CE/$file/9971580.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was incorporated in Hong Kong in 1972. DHL and DHLI/MNV were part of a global network in which DHL handled United States operations exclusively and DHLI/MNV handled foreign operations. A Worldwide Coordination Center was established in Belgium. The MOA was extended through 1990. Which was then used worldwide. The agreement was terminable only for cause and had a 15 year term. With an automatic 10 year renewal if both parties were satisfied. If the agreement was terminated. This offer was not well received. A second offer was made on June 14. Was of some value that should be reflected in the final price. DHLI is sometimes used to refer to both DHLI and MNV collectively. This valuation was based in part on the view that DHL's trademark rights were diluted by its agreements with DHLI. Appears to have been done without knowledge of any ownership problems in the trademark. Should not have to pay royalties given its difficult financial position. DHL would have the exclusive U.S. rights to the trademark for 10 years. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200011916.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This decision is rendered by a quorum. 28 U.S.C. § 46(d). We review whether punitive damages are taxable income. Whether the position of the Internal Revenue Service ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200011916.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We review whether punitive damages are taxable income. Whether the position of the Internal Revenue Service ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="612"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/08/952791P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is required to pay federal income tax on certain payments it received through its sponsorship of group insurance plans. affirm. The Academy is a national association of family physicians that was organized to represent the interests of family physicians and to promote quality health care. The Academy is exempt from federal income tax as a The Academy created the business league under 26 U.S.C. § 501(a). We conclude the payments are not taxable. American Academy of Family Physicians Foundation (Foundation) to serve as The Foundation is exempt from federal income See id. § 501(a). Life insurance plans that are available to Academy members and their employees. The policies were initially administered by an individual. ISI is a for profit corporation that pays federal The ISI when he died. Principal controls the investment of The group policies require Principal to turn over to the In the Academy any reserve funds remaining after the policies have been terminated and all the claims have been paid. Whether the insurance plans are profitable for Principal or not. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="612"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1121.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief for appellee.</P> <BR WP= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="611"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/03/022307P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Arguing that the evidence was insufficient. That the indictment was insufficient. The essence of the charges was that Mr. When no such wages were in fact paid. 277 in farm expenses was increased to $54. Fletcher argues that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="611"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-5066.html">BANKERS TRUST NEW YORK CORPORATION V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> With him on the brief were <u>Joel V. With him on the brief were <u>Loretta C. <u>Circuit Judge</u>.</p> <p ALIGN= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="610"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-8017.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The case is therefore submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent. R. 36.3. <hr> Evidence was presented at trial indicating that from 1965 to 1990. Lesoon testified that his employer for many years was an attorney who advised him to file annual tax returns and pay federal taxes. That the IRS was without authority to compel him to pay taxes and that. He was not a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="610"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0412n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Meaning that they would not normally have owed federal income tax. Much less have been entitled to a tax refund. Was fictitious. The tax return also indicated that the client was responsible for qualifying minor dependents and therefore eligible for the earned income tax credit. Received tax refunds to which they were not entitled as a result of Allen's falsification of their tax returns. The government contended that the people in whose names Allen prepared tax returns were not in fact Allen's clients. These tax refunds were allegedly sent to and deposited by other clients of Allen's. No motion for a new trial was ever filed. Standard of review We are limited in our review of Allen's claim that there was insufficient evidence to convict her because she failed to renew her motion for a judgment of acquittal after the jury returned its verdict. The standard of review for Allen's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence against her is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="610"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/00a0078p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Constituted income from the trade or business of farming that was subject to the self employment tax pursuant to § 1401 of the Internal Revenue Code. The Tax Court agreed with the Wuebkers' position that the payments constituted </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="610"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1803.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were conducting a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="610"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1061.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Carl Emmett Baylis was on brief for appellants. Were on brief for appellee. The sole question presented on this appeal is whether. Johnson were officers. Employers are required to hold these withheld funds </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="610"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Oct1994/94a0860p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The first issue is whether the plaintiff exhausted his administrative remedies before seeking relief from the district court for damages from unauthorized tax collection actions and failure to release a tax lien. The grant of summary judgment on these claims is proper. Plaintiff contends that the levies against his assets were unlawful and therefore the information relating to the levies was impermissibly disclosed. The question is whether it is relevant that the levy is unlawful. We hold that it is not and. That the grant of summary judgment on the disclosure claim is proper. 28 U.S.C. § 1291 gives us jurisdiction. The district court's grant of summary judgment is subject to plenary review. Summary judgment is appropriate where </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="609"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/487744B4FFBA1C5688256A9C00598EAE/$file/9935818.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: The United States appeals the district court's summary judgment determining that the Boeing Company and its consolidated subsidiaries ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="609"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/36F1D87F2676FE1888256E5A00707C13/$file/9935818.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: The United States appeals the district court's summary judgment determining that the Boeing Company and its consolidated subsidiaries ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="608"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/012161.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were gifts or compensation for services. The district court concluded that they were gifts and dismissed the complaint. It also held that the counterclaim was time barred under 26 U.S.C. § 6532(b) because the government failed to prove that Lane made intentional or knowing misrepresentations in connection with the amended income tax returns he filed. Because the payments in question were gifts. Because Lane's grossly negligent misrepresentations were sufficient to trigger the extended limitations period of § 6532(b). I. What follows is a story of sentiment which appellant would convert LANE v. Hampton Powell was formerly CEO of the Lane Company. Jane Young was his secretary there from 1958 until he retired in 1984. Powell was a very generous man. Giving was his primary pleasure in life. His practice at Christmas was to give shares of stock in equal amounts to Young. Which was converted to Interco stock when Interco acquired Lane Co. in the mid 1980s. He was very grateful to her. She visited him whenever he was in the hospital. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="607"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/031771.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="606"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1035.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> P.C.</SPAN> was on brief. Was on brief. Boulerice appeals from a judgment of conviction following a jury trial in which she was found guilty of having filed false income tax returns for 1993 and 1994 in violation of 26 U.S.C. § . On appeal Boulerice claims that there was insufficient evidence to support the findings of guilt. Ronald Boulerice.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="606"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/06/97-3030.htm">97-3030 -- KANE V. CAPITAL GUARDIAN TRUST CO. -- 06/15/1998<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge. <p align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="605"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/994557.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> AMICK Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. The IRS was unable to levy any of his funds. Asserting that this evidence was a prejudicial appeal by the government to class bias. Amick contends that the district court should have exercised its gatekeeping function under Federal Rule of Evidence 403. Amick objected only to similar evidence on the unrelated argument that facts involving events occurring after limitations expired on his civil tax liability were inadmissable. This evidence was important to prove that Amick lied about his income to evade payment. That he spent extravagantly belies this defense and is more probative than prejudicial. A review of the record indicates that this evidence was not particularly prejudicial. The argument is meritless. Review of the record indicates the testimony of these agents was not based on expert knowledge. Agents Miller and Uhlrich were fact witnesses who explained their investigation of Amick under the tax laws and the actions they took to recover the taxes he owed. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="605"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may99/96-8579.man.html">ROBERTS V. COMMISSIONER (5/4/1999, NO. 96-8579)<BR></A><BR> The Commissioner has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that the petitioners' notice of appeal was untimely. We find that their notice of appeal was untimely and grant the Commissioner's motion.</P> <P><CENTER>I.</CENTER> </P> <P> This case stems from an Internal Revenue Service ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="605"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec97/96-5013.man.html">UNITED STATES V. BARAKAT<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. The district court sentenced him to 21 months in prison.<p> Barakat's challenge to the tax evasion conviction is meritless and requires no discussion. A remand is necessary for clarification of that court's ruling concerning the third enhancement.<p> <b>I. FACTS</b><p> <p> Barakat was the head of the Broward County Housing Authority ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="605"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0686n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The defendant was found guilty by a jury on two counts of attempted tax evasion in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7201. The district court erred when it refused to permit defense counsel to introduce evidence that even if the defendant were found not guilty of the criminal charges. The defendant maintains that his Sixth Amendment right to trial by a jury was violated when the district court enhanced his sentence under a mandatory guideline regime based upon facts not admitted by the defendant or found by a jury beyond a 1 reasonable doubt. The sources of unreported income were the defendant's fees as minister of the Abundant Life Church and the defendant's spiritual consulting income from his client Robin Lipsky. If funds were available. Was obtained from Robin Lipsky. They agreed to increase the The indictment alleges that the defendant's actual income for the years of 1997 through 1999 was $520. The income the defendant actually reported for those years was only $38. The difference between his alleged actual income and reported income was $1. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="605"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may99/96-8579.man.html">ROBERTS V. COMMISSIONER (5/4/1999, NO. 96-8579)<BR></A><BR> The Commissioner has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that the petitioners' notice of appeal was untimely. We find that their notice of appeal was untimely and grant the Commissioner's motion.</P> <P><CENTER>I.</CENTER> </P> <P> This case stems from an Internal Revenue Service ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="605"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/02/961563P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He was denied a discharge for various infractions. The trustee had The case was dismissed on April located only eighteen dollars in assets. Following an investigation by the IDORF that was based at least in part on the information it received from the IRS. Taylor was convicted. The motion was granted on August 3. So we are faced only with the question whether the United States is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Federal tax </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="605"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/08/96-3166.htm">96-3166 -- FLOYD V. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE -- 08/10/1998<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="605"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec97/96-5013.man.html">UNITED STATES V. BARAKAT<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. The district court sentenced him to 21 months in prison.<p> Barakat's challenge to the tax evasion conviction is meritless and requires no discussion. A remand is necessary for clarification of that court's ruling concerning the third enhancement.<p> <b>I. FACTS</b><p> <p> Barakat was the head of the Broward County Housing Authority ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="604"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-5110.html">LARRY J. CULLEY V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> On the brief was <u>David E. With him in the brief were <u>Loretta . Of counsel was <u>Joan . Culley failed to show that he was entitled to the favorable tax treatment provided under I.R.C. § . Culley was the owner and sole shareholder of Thrust Industries. S principal business activity was the die cutting of membrane spacers and faceplates for telephone sets. </p> <p ALIGN= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="604"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1519.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> (2) the substantive arguments raised by Haggert were frivolous and </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="604"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/05/963462P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Alleging that the Gavin estate is entitled to (1) value certain farmland under the special use valuation provisions of Internal Revenue Code (I.R.C.) § 2032A (1988 & Supp. The facts of this case are not in dispute. Verdon Gavin was a farmer who owned two parcels of farmland (Parcel One and Parcel Two) in Jones Parcel One was approximately 200 acres. Parcel Two was During Verdon's active farming years. Gary Gavin was to pay his father </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="604"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-5002.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. The Internal Revenue Service ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="602"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/june96/94-4242.wpd.html">AMOCO PROD. CO. V. NEWTON SHEEP CO.<BR></A><BR> The defendants in that action were originally the United States and its lessees. There was a related dispute between the Newtons and Bass Enterprises Production Co. The issues relating to the ownership of the oil and gas were resolved in two decisions by this court in 1988. Most of these accounting issues were settled. Windfall profit taxes from unpaid oil proceeds during the years 1980 1987 was not resolved. After the title dispute was settled and the first payment to the Newtons from Amoco's oil purchases was authorized. That they were consequently unable to obtain a refund. The proceeds of Amoco's oil and gas purchases that would have been paid to the Newtons. Were suspended and held by Amoco in an escrow account from the beginning of production in 1976 until January 1982. Were to be deposited with the clerk of the district court and invested in U.S. Where they were to remain until further order of the court. This was the first occasion on which the Newtons received any of the proceeds from Amoco's purchases. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="602"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/04/00-1317.htm">00-1317 -- STERLING CONSULTING CORP. V. U.S. -- 04/10/2001<BR></A><BR> The judgment of the district court is therefore <strong>reversed</strong>. <p> II. IMMI was one of several companies embroiled in a dispute over the Indian Motorcycle trademark. Have been in bankruptcy in Massachusetts since before 1995. The assets of the receivership estate and bankruptcy estates were combined for sale and eventually sold. $3.5 million of the proceeds from the sale of assets was allocated to the bankruptcy estates and placed in an escrow account with the district court in Colorado. The account was established for the payment of claims owed by the bankruptcy estates. Claiming the district court lacked jurisdiction to determine the tax liabilities of debtors who were in bankruptcy in Massachusetts. <p> In December 1999. The government indicated that the tax liabilities of the bankruptcy estates for 1999 would amount to $1.2 million if the top corporate tax rate was applied to the $3.5 million allocated to the bankruptcy estates from the sale of the combined estates. 000 to cover the potential tax liabilities of the bankruptcy estates was insufficient. <p> The bankruptcy court entered an order approving the trustee's amended final accounts. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="602"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/961357.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Line 4 the phrase </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="602"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTE5NDktY3YucGRm/04-1949-cv.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The dismissal of which is the subject of this appeal. After the IRS was found liable for race discrimination and retaliation against an African American employee in its Poughkeepsie office. HVBP published an article that was highly critical of the IRS. Was notified that HVBP would be audited by the IRS. 2 after this report was initially rejected by an IRS hearing officer. Because HVBP was delinquent in paying payroll taxes. The IRS seized all of HVBP's accounting records relating to the period in which delinquent payroll taxes were alleged. These requests were unsuccessful. Tax liens were filed against HVBP for the period of allegedly delinquent payroll taxes. An administrative hearing was convened. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="601"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-2192.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Their petition was later dismissed on procedural grounds. No Tax Court petition was filed. If such a petition is filed. The IRS is barred from taking any action to collect the debt until the Tax Court decision has become final. If no such petition is filed (or once the Tax Court decision becomes final). If the deficiency is not paid. The Niemelas contend that none of these safeguards was followed. They argue that: (1) no proper notices of deficiency were sent. (2) no assessments of the deficiencies were made. (3) no notices and demands for 3 payment were mailed. (4) no notice of intent to levy was provided. They say that relief is warranted under the quiet title statute. As we find no such defect in any event. 4 The Niemelas have devoted only cursory attention on appeal to several of these claims. A. Notices of Deficiency The IRS submitted copies of two notices of deficiency said to have been sent to the Niemelas: one dated April 6. Both that no notices of deficiency were sent and that such notices were inadequate in form. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="601"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0488p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He claims that the materials comprising the Tax Toolbox were never introduced into evidence at the hearing on the injunction. Because the injunction's scope is appropriately tailored and does not unduly burden his livelihood. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="601"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Nov1994/94a0877p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The appellee is Allegheny International. Allegheny Ludlum was an operating division of Allegheny International but between mid 1979 and late 1980 was its wholly owned subsidiary. Allegheny Ludlum was known as the Allegheny Ludlum Steel Corporation (Allegheny Ludlum Steel). LSC Corporation was merged into Allegheny Ludlum Steel. The reimbursement required by this section shall be made at the time any such tax benefit is determined by the filing of a tax return. See app. at 77.[fn2] Paragraph 12(e) provides that Allegheny International will reimburse LSC for any tax detriment suffered by LSC after the sale </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/001244.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The first is whether a 1992 transfer of land from a husband to his former wife constitutes a transfer </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=06-1934_014.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Petitioner Dave Arnett was employed by Raytheon Corporation and stationed in Antarctica for the calendar year 2001. The Internal Revenue Service ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="599"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0039p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This appeal arises from four state court actions against the defendants that were separately removed to the U.S. The four cases were later consolidated to address the defendants' separately filed motions for judgment on the pleadings after the court denied the separate motions to remand. This was vitally important to Centerior in 1986 because it needed to justify the recent merger of CEI and Toledo Edison. The defendants were required to file an information return with the Internal Revenue Service reporting payments of dividends aggregating $10 or more made to any person during any calendar year. A company that furnishes an information return is required to give notice to the person who is the subject of the return by written statement under 26 U.S.C. § 6042(c) and is subject to a penalty. The IRS may instruct a corporation to deduct and withhold a specified amount of tax for dividends if the payee underreports or if there is a payee certification failure. Those distributions not paid from earnings and profits are returns of capital of the shareholders' basis in the stock. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="599"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0202n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He argues that 1) prejudicial testimony was introduced at trial. 2) the indictment was constructively amended. 3) the jury was improperly instructed. 4) Count One (Conspiracy) of the indictment was legally insufficient. 5) his motion for acquittal on Count One (Conspiracy) was erroneously denied. 6) his sentence was miscalculated under the Guidelines. 7) he was sentenced in violation of the Sixth Amendment. Kosinski was also ordered to pay an assessment of $7. Kosinski is a dentist. His father was a carpenter and independent contractor. Thyssen was in the midst of a multi million dollar expansion of its warehouse system. Which was run by Melvin Phillips. Kosinski and Melvin Phillips worked together for several years and were friends. Their 2 relationship as business associates was particularly close. So much so that two of Phillips's employees testified that they believed Kosinski and Phillips were partners. 625 were drawn on T.J.'s business account and made payable to Melvin Phillips or Phillips Contracting. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="598"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-5344a.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Hutchison argued the cause for appellant.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="598"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-2469.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Snyder LLP</SPAN> were on brief. Were on brief. Mikutowicz is the sole shareholder of AGM Marine Contractors ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="598"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/August2002/003875.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 1 challenges the District Court's holding that loading dividends used to fund insurance premiums for corporate owned life insurance ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="598"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1784.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> LLP</SPAN> was on brief for appellant.</SPAN> <BR WP= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="597"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/July2002/012862.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Into Voluntary Employees Beneficiary Program (VEBA) plans in excess of the cost of term life insurance were taxable constructive dividends to the physicians owning the corporations and their spouses rather than employer deductible expenses. The consequences of the decisions were substantial for the taxpayers inasmuch as the professional medical corporations were denied deductions they had taken for the contributions and the individuals were charged with significant additional taxable dividend income. The court held further that the individual taxpayers were liable for accuracy related negligence penalties under I.R.C. Our examination of the record convinces us that the contributions at the heart of this dispute were so far in 4 excess of the cost of annual life insurance protection that they could not plausibly qualify as ordinary and necessary business expenses in accordance with I.R.C. These contributions were taxable disguised dividends and not deductible expenses. We will affirm the decisions of the Tax Court. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="597"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-2123.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. Stein & Gordon were on joint brief. Be guilty of a felony . . . 26 U.S.C. 7201 (1988). 2Although the district court's thoughtful opinion is unpublished. Claimed to have misplaced the invoice log and the passbook for the business savings account (either of which would have revealed much of the unreported income). It was only when the IRS issued a summons to IHB that it discovered the business savings account. The case was tried to a jury. ANALYSIS Our analysis of this case is partitioned into three segments. Expressing the standard for judicial review of a claim of evidentiary insufficiency in a criminal case is a straightforward exercise. Then the evidence is legally sufficient. Both direct and circumstantial evidence are accorded weight. Is to be viewed from the government's coign of vantage. Two or more of which are plausible. The granting of a motion for judgment of acquittal is subject to de novo review. Our assignment is simplified. That is. While the defendants who claimed to have signed the return without reading it contended that they were guilty only of inadvertence. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="597"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/August2002/012862.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Into Voluntary Employees Beneficiary Program (VEBA) plans in excess of the cost of term life insurance were taxable constructive dividends to the physicians owning the corporations and their spouses rather than employer deductible expenses. The consequences of the decisions were substantial for the taxpayers inasmuch as the professional medical corporations were denied deductions they had taken for the contributions and the individuals were charged with significant additional taxable dividend income. The court held further that the individual taxpayers were liable for accuracy related negligence penalties under I.R.C. Our examination of the record convinces us that the contributions at the heart of this dispute were so far in 4 excess of the cost of annual life insurance protection that they could not plausibly qualify as ordinary and necessary business expenses in accordance with I.R.C. These contributions were taxable disguised dividends and not deductible expenses. We will affirm the decisions of the Tax Court. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="596"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sep1999/99a2275p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Have intervened as plaintiffs in this action. Arch Street predicated its piercing the veil argument on the contention that the corporations were Blatstein's </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="596"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-5162.html">FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> Argued for plaintiff <span class=SpellE>appellee</span>.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>With him on the brief was <u>Thomas D. Argued for defendant appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>With her on the brief were <u>Eileen J. The United States Court of Federal Claims held that FNMA was entitled to the interest it claimed.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span><u>Fed. FNMA is a private. For profit entity that provides liquidity for mortgage investments.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>FNMA had a series of tax disputes with the government during the 1980s and early 1990s.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>One such dispute was resolved in 1994 by the Tax Court. Mso pagination:widow orphan no line numbers'>Section 6621(d) of the Internal Revenue Code was enacted in 1998 as part of the IRS <span style='mso bidi font family: Arial'>Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 ( the RRA ). Interest is payable under subchapter A and allowable under subchapter B on equivalent underpayments and overpayments by the same taxpayer of tax imposed by this title. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="596"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sep1999/99a2275.htm">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Have intervened as plaintiffs in this action. Arch Street predicated its piercing the veil argument on the contention that the corporations were Blatstein's </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="595"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/061598np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That his sentence was reasonable. We will affirm. Judgment was entered on February 13. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. 2 On appeal. Therefore was improperly admitted in violation of Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b). Or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith. The record shows that the letter was not offered for the purpose of proving the character of Havey </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="595"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/02/97-9016.htm">97-9016 -- PRESLAR V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE -- 02/16/1999<BR></A><BR> Owned the ranch and was a debtor in possession in a Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding. Which had been experiencing serious financial difficulties and whose interest was subordinate to the other banks. Moncor Bank's actions were designed to avoid foreclosure and recoup as much of its loan as possible. <p> On July 12. The agreement expressly referred to the fact that Moncor Bank was financing the purchase. The Preslars were to pay fourteen annual installments of $66. The goal was to sell each cabin lot for approximately $16. There is no reference to this unique repayment arrangement in the loan documents. The arrangement is also discussed in an unsigned 1985 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="594"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/52E5A9FA09CA9295882571680058F992/$file/0472190.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> These partnerships were themselves partners in yet other partnerships (Wilshire West Associates and Redwood Associates. Which in turn were associated with a series of tax shelters called the Swanton Coal Programs.1 All of the partnerships were subject to the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA) provisions of 26 U.S.C. §§ 6221 6234. The Swanton Coal Programs were exposed as purely taxmotivated transactions in Kelley v. With the Tax Court opining that the Programs were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="594"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200613925.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Finding her claims were frivolous. She distinguished Peterson on the ground that Peterson was not entitled to a CDPH because his request was untimely. To which Peterson was entitled. Was not subject to judicial review. There is no dispute in this case that the request was timely. 3 1 be filed in the Tax Court.2 26 U.S.C. § 6330(d)(1). There is no merit to Barry's claim that the constitutional issues vest jurisdiction in this court. We are persuaded by the reasoning of the other circuits that have addressed this claim and concluded that an alleged due process violation does not confer subject matter jurisdiction on the district court if the underlying claim involves income tax issues.3 Voelker v. Such appeal must be filed in Tax Court unless the Tax Court </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="594"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/11/01-4229.htm">01-4229 -- U.S. V. BROWN -- 11/04/2003<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judges. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="594"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6E29776BED11ACA288256E5A00707BC8/$file/9971436.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> ORDER The </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="594"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/feb95/93-4307.opa.html">ESTATE OF KOSOW V. COMMISSIONER<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 ><title>Estate of Kosow v. District Judge:<p> <p> The Estate of Joseph Kosow has appealed the Tax Court's decision to disallow a deduction for a claim that was made against and paid by the estate. The Tax Court held that the estate had failed to prove that the agreement by the deceased that gave rise to the claim was an agreement supported by full and adequate consideration. Who were born in 1940 and 1945. Joseph had largely disassociated himself from the manufacturing businesses and was primarily engaged in financing activities through the Industrial Finance Corporation. A corporation of which he and his brother were equal shareholders.<p> Joseph's business ventures permitted him and his family to enjoy a very comfortable standard of living. One of which was a Cadillac that was regularly replaced. Joseph paid all the major bills as they came due and Barbara was not aware of any reliance on credit to sustain their standard of living. Joseph was very secretive about his business ventures. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="594"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//feb95/93-4307.opa.html">ESTATE OF KOSOW V. COMMISSIONER<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 ><title>Estate of Kosow v. District Judge:<p> <p> The Estate of Joseph Kosow has appealed the Tax Court's decision to disallow a deduction for a claim that was made against and paid by the estate. The Tax Court held that the estate had failed to prove that the agreement by the deceased that gave rise to the claim was an agreement supported by full and adequate consideration. Who were born in 1940 and 1945. Joseph had largely disassociated himself from the manufacturing businesses and was primarily engaged in financing activities through the Industrial Finance Corporation. A corporation of which he and his brother were equal shareholders.<p> Joseph's business ventures permitted him and his family to enjoy a very comfortable standard of living. One of which was a Cadillac that was regularly replaced. Joseph paid all the major bills as they came due and Barbara was not aware of any reliance on credit to sustain their standard of living. Joseph was very secretive about his business ventures. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="594"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/07/01-4229.htm">01-4229 -- U.S. V. BROWN -- 07/08/2003<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="594"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/8EE97855ECB8043988256A7E0000574B/$file/9971436.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> ORDER The </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="594"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/08/993307P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This case is before the Court on appeal from the Tax Court. Rather than deducted fully during the year in which the salaries were paid. It is this Court's determination that the Tax Court is due to be REVERSED IN PART. The following are the facts. Which are made to facilitate continuity within this opinion. 1. General Information Norwest is a bank holding company that was incorporated in 1929. It is the parent corporation of an affiliated group of corporations (Norwest consolidated group) that files consolidated Federal income tax returns. Norwest's stock is traded on the New York and Midwest Stock Exchanges. Is a member of the Norwest consolidated group. [Bettendorf] is a national banking association operating under a charter granted by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC). [Davenport] is an Iowa State bank that was incorporated in 1932. Its main office was in Davenport. It filed a consolidated Federal income tax return with two wholly owned subsidiaries. 2 [Davenport]'s only class of stock was thinly traded in the Davenport over the counter market. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="593"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/07/98-9005.htm">98-9005 -- DAVENPORT (ESTATE OF) V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE -- 07/13/1999<BR></A><BR> She did not have a sufficient ownership interest in the stock to do so. That is. Included in the sisters' assets were 3. Was consistent with their joint ownership agreement. Even though Birnie may not have held legal title to the Hondo stock. Her ownership of the stock was presumed in her will. Several of Birnie's and Elizabeth's federal income tax returns were audited. Botefuhr were appointed as coexecutors of Elizabeth's estate.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="593"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/07/98-9005a.htm">98-9005A -- DAVENPORT (ESTATE OF) V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE -- 07/13/1999<BR></A><BR> A copy of the corrected cover page is attached. <p> Sincerely. She did not have a sufficient ownership interest in the stock to do so. That is. Included in the sisters' assets were 3. Was consistent with their joint ownership agreement. Even though Birnie may not have held legal title to the Hondo stock. Her ownership of the stock was presumed in her will. Several of Birnie's and Elizabeth's federal income tax returns were audited. Botefuhr were appointed as coexecutors of Elizabeth's estate.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="592"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june2001/00-12720.man.html">UNITED PARCEL SERV. OF AM. V. COMM'R OF INTERNAL REVENUE (6/20/2001, NO. 00-12720)<BR></A><BR> Whose main business is shipping packages. If a parcel were lost or damaged. This profit was taxed. Almost all of whose shares were distributed as a taxable dividend to UPS shareholders (most of whom were employees. UPS stock was not publicly traded). The premiums for the policy were the excess value charges that UPS collected. Was responsible for administering claims brought under the policy. The tax court agreed with the IRS.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="592"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/09/973888P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="592"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june2001/00-12720.man.html">UNITED PARCEL SERV. OF AM. V. COMM'R OF INTERNAL REVENUE (6/20/2001, NO. 00-12720)<BR></A><BR> Whose main business is shipping packages. If a parcel were lost or damaged. This profit was taxed. Almost all of whose shares were distributed as a taxable dividend to UPS shareholders (most of whom were employees. UPS stock was not publicly traded). The premiums for the policy were the excess value charges that UPS collected. Was responsible for administering claims brought under the policy. The tax court agreed with the IRS.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="590"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/10/023012P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which are depreciable over thirty years. It argued that its truckstops qualified for such depreciation because they are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="589"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july99/98-8159.man.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court held that IRS's claim was a priority claim because the three year priority period of 11 U.S.C. § 507(a)(8)(A)(i) was tolled during the pendency of the Morgans' first Chapter 13 case. BACKGROUND</CENTER> </P> <P> The relevant facts are undisputed. Was confirmed in November 1990.</P> <P> The Morgans. They did not make all of the payments required and the IRS claim was not satisfied prior to the dismissal.</P> <P> Soon after. The IRS asserted that this was a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="589"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july99/98-8159.man.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court held that IRS's claim was a priority claim because the three year priority period of 11 U.S.C. § 507(a)(8)(A)(i) was tolled during the pendency of the Morgans' first Chapter 13 case. BACKGROUND</CENTER> </P> <P> The relevant facts are undisputed. Was confirmed in November 1990.</P> <P> The Morgans. They did not make all of the payments required and the IRS claim was not satisfied prior to the dismissal.</P> <P> Soon after. The IRS asserted that this was a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="589"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19956951.OP.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> PER CURIAM: This is an appeal by David L. and Fagale D. The following facts are derived from the evidence constituting the record in this case. We was employed by the State of Alaska ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="589"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19956951.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> PER CURIAM: This is an appeal by David L. and Fagale D. The following facts are derived from the evidence constituting the record in this case. We was employed by the State of Alaska ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="587"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Nov1999/995116.TXT">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> They are entitled to an abatement of the penalties assessed under those provisions. Concluded that reasonable cause was not established by the Taxpayers because financial distress was the only fact and circumstance supporting their failure to pay and deposit employment taxes timely. Because we believe the Brewery bright line test is inconsistent with both Congress' creation of a reasonable cause exception and Treas. We believe the better reasoned approach is the one set forth in Fran Corp. v. We have concluded that reasonable cause existed for the Taxpayers' failure to pay and deposit their employment taxes timely. We will reverse the judgment of the District Court and enter judgment for the Taxpayers. I. The following facts are undisputed and have been largely stipulated to by the parties. Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="587"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/04/046053P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> These cases were consolidated for purposes of oral argument on appeal. The appeal in each case is from an order of the bankruptcy court filed September 24. This matter was originally submitted after oral argument on February 8. The findings have been made and the matter was reargued on March 2. STANDARD OF REVIEW The findings of fact are uncontested and no review thereof is sought by the parties. Conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. A bankruptcy court's denial of a claim of exemption is a final. The attorney for the debtor is holding the refunds pending a final judgment. Which were estimated in the total amount of $2. The attorneys for the debtors are holding the original refunds pending a final judgment. The debtors filed an amended Schedule C claiming that all of the 2003 tax refunds are exempt pursuant to Missouri statutes. That a debtor's anticipated tax refund is not exempt. The court therefore sustained the Trustee's objection to exemptions and ordered turnover to the Trustee. 3 DISCUSSION Each of the debtors claimed that the federal and state tax refunds were exempt under Missouri law. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="587"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/04/00-6187.htm">00-6187 -- U.S. V. ARNEY -- 04/24/2001<BR></A><BR> Chief Judge. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="587"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200110/00-5344a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs was Mark R. With him on the brief were Jonathan S. Senior Circuit Judge: Early in 1997 there was public controversy over claims that the Internal Revenue Service had selectively audited conservative non profit organi zations in response to requests from outside parties. Please include the names of the individuals and/or entities requesting the audits or investigations and the names of the 501(c)(3) tax exempt organizations for which audits or investiga tions were requested. We wish to make clear that we are not asking the IRS to provide information revealing whether. Any of these entities are actually being audited. See Landmark Legal Foundation v. * Senior Circuit Judge Williams was in regular active service at the time of oral argument. We agree that Exemption 3 is applicable to the disputed documents and we reject Landmark's other claims of error. We need not reach the IRS's contention that the district court erred in rejecting the Exemption 6 defense. * * * Exemption 3 provides that documents need not be released if they are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="587"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/7997071B05C9512188256E290070A3B9/$file/0215789.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Concluding that his case was a core proceeding and that it had authority to decide the matter. Dunmore consulted with his tax attorney to determine whether he should list these refund claims as assets on a voluntary Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition he was preparing. Any potential waiver objection is now itself waived. 1 1212 DUNMORE v. Dunmore admitted he was not prepared to proceed with trial in the bankruptcy court. Whether Dunmore was entitled to a jury trial in federal court. Dunmore must have suffered an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="586"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec96/95-6951.man.html">GRANT V. COMMISSIONER<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Grant v. Senior Circuit Judge.<p> <p> PER CURIAM:<p> <p> This is an appeal by David L. and Fagale D. We affirm.<p> <i>FACTS.</i><p> <p> The following facts are derived from the evidence constituting the record in this case. Taxpayer David Grant was employed by the State of Alaska ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="586"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec96/95-6951.man.html">GRANT V. COMMISSIONER<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Grant v. Senior Circuit Judge.<p> <p> PER CURIAM:<p> <p> This is an appeal by David L. and Fagale D. We affirm.<p> <i>FACTS.</i><p> <p> The following facts are derived from the evidence constituting the record in this case. Taxpayer David Grant was employed by the State of Alaska ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="586"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1761.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> <SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="585"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug2000/99-10640.man.html">LYONS V. GEORGIA PAC. CORP. SALARIED EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT PLAN (8/11/2000, NO. 99-10640)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="585"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug2000/99-10640.man.html">LYONS V. GEORGIA PAC. CORP. SALARIED EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT PLAN (8/11/2000, NO. 99-10640)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="585"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/964462.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Three decisions made by the district court are at issue in this appeal. The district court ordered the government to produce discovery related to Hastings' claim that he was selectively prosecuted because he is a Republican. The district court ordered the government to disclose certain documents which the government argues are protected by the law enforcement privilege. We decline to reach the issue of privilege because it is made moot by our decision that discovery regarding selective prosecution was not warranted. I Hastings is a prominent businessman and Republican Party leader in Boone. Hastings owed substantial taxes for some of those years and was entitled to a less substantial credit or refund in one of those years. That he is 2 partner in several business enterprises. The official referral to the criminal investigatory unit within the IRS was made in January 1993. The referral form was completed by Revenue Agent Tanya Schmidt. Schmidt acknowledged in the report that Hastings' income for two of the four years at issue was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="585"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/08/972914P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> NSP argued that the fuel assemblies were placed in service when NSP acquired them because they were fully assembled and destined for use in an existing nuclear power plant. It was merely correcting mistakes on its 1985 and 1986 tax returns. Continues to argue that it was correcting a mistake. I. The material facts are not in dispute. Because the pertinent facts for each issue are entirely separate. These operating cycles are sequentially numbered. The first ten to sixteen months that Prairie Island I produced power is referred to as Cycle 1. The next ten to sixteen month period following refueling is referred to as Cycle 2. The removal and replacement of the fuel assemblies is staggered: that is. For each cycle the core is composed of one third new fuel assemblies. Once the reactor is shut down. It includes the following steps: new fuel assemblies are moved from the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="584"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/04/994228P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The court denied his motion because it found that the United States was substantially justified in pursuing the action against Green. Green was treasurer and Bisbee was president and chief executive officer (CEO) of IMI. After determining that they were persons responsible to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="583"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/jan97/95-3067.wpd.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The solitary legal question generated by this appeal is whether a valid assessment of a tax liability is a prerequisite to a subsequent claim for the taxes due. The question arises in the bankruptcy context where an Internal Revenue Service assessment of the tax was made without first obtaining relief from the automatic stay arising out of a Chapter 11 case. The assessment was held to be void. Taxpayer challenged the claim on the ground the 6672 assessment was void. The IRS was not entitled to a secured claim. The IRS admitted the invalidity of its lien but maintained Taxpayer was nevertheless personally liable for the sums he collected and did not remit. The predicate for his argument is that a penalty or tax must first be assessed before a taxpayer is liable for the penalty or tax. While Marvel is still good law. Its extension was unwarranted given the differences in the facts. Employers are required to withhold FICA and federal income taxes from employees' wages and remit the withheld sums. ' the liability imposed by 6672 is not penal in nature. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="582"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=90-1690.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Special Counsel to Assistant Attorney General were on brief for appellee. 2 COFFIN. Appellants Hurley and Burnett were charged in a 15 count indictment with participating in a sophisticated scheme to launder more than $5 million in illicit drug proceeds through the use of offshore front companies. Hurley and Burnett are both lawyers who spent substantial periods of time working for Salvatore </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="581"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19968257.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="581"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-3582.html">MATTSON V. DEPT. OF TREASURY<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="580"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr97/96-8257.opa.html">GOLD KIST, INC. V. COMMISSIONER<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Gold Kist. Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="580"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr97/96-8257.opa.html">GOLD KIST, INC. V. COMMISSIONER<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Gold Kist. Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="579"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/09/012962P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Jurisdiction Jurisdiction in the bankruptcy court was proper based upon 28 U.S.C. § 157(b) (transferring jurisdiction of cases arising in or related to Title 11 from district court to bankruptcy court). Jurisdiction in district court was proper based upon 28 U.S.C. § 158(a)(3) (enabling district court to consider interlocutory orders of bankruptcy courts). Jurisdiction in this court is proper based upon 28 U.S.C. § 158(d) (authorizing appeals from final district court judgments reviewing The Honorable Rodney S. The notice of appeal was timely filed pursuant to Fed. The balance of the note was to be paid on September 30. Nerland Oil was responsible for forwarding from Conoco to Superpumper the credit card receivables generated by the Dakota Fuel Stop. Superpumper and Nerland Oil did not have a contract governing this relationship. It is a well known industry practice which is generally not recognized in writing. The existence of these contracts is puzzling. As WFTS was not a Conoco jobber authorized to sell the Conoco fuel products required. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="579"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/03/96-9016.htm">96-9016 -- KORNFELD V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE -- 03/03/1998<BR></A><BR> Kornfeld (taxpayer) was not entitled to a federal income tax deduction for amortization of a life interest in bonds that he purportedly jointly purchased with his daughters and secretary. The question for determination is whether what was done. Was the thing which the statute intended. <p> <u>Gregory v. 469 (1935).<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="577"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/03/03-20882.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court was correct in determining that the Pates were not entitled to the Fifth Amendment privilege here. The Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. The Pates were entitled to their Fifth Amendment claim to the bag of documents. After the conclusion of the examination the district court asked the IRS to re enter the courtroom and ruled via an order that it was denying the Pates claim of Fifth Amendment privilege. Provided that the IRS's purpose in issuing the summons is not solely the pursuit of a criminal investigation and/or prosecution. The United States Supreme Court has held that because any tax fraud inquiry involves civil and criminal elements that are intertwined. The IRS is empowered to issue a section 7602 summons even though the investigation may result in a recommendation for criminal prosecution of the taxpayer. The Secretary is authorized (1) To examine any books. Roundtree that it is the taxpayer who bears the burden of showing that the IRS's purpose in issuing the summons is solely criminal. 420 F.2d 845. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="577"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Aug2004/Aug10/03-20882.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court was correct in determining that the Pates were not entitled to the Fifth Amendment privilege here. The Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. The Pates were entitled to their Fifth Amendment claim to the bag of documents. After the conclusion of the examination the district court asked the IRS to re enter the courtroom and ruled via an order that it was denying the Pates claim of Fifth Amendment privilege. Provided that the IRS's purpose in issuing the summons is not solely the pursuit of a criminal investigation and/or prosecution. The United States Supreme Court has held that because any tax fraud inquiry involves civil and criminal elements that are intertwined. The IRS is empowered to issue a section 7602 summons even though the investigation may result in a recommendation for criminal prosecution of the taxpayer. The Secretary is authorized (1) To examine any books. Roundtree that it is the taxpayer who bears the burden of showing that the IRS's purpose in issuing the summons is solely criminal. 420 F.2d 845. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="577"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/nov96/95-9022.wpd.html">LEFEVER V. COMMISSIONER<BR></A><BR> Respondent determined that they were not putting the land to a qualifying use as required to maintain the benefits of the election. Contending that they were never actually entitled to the special use valuation election and that a three year statute of limitations barred the assessments. The Tax Court ruled that the assessments were timely under a provision of the Code extending the limitations period for three years after Respondent has notice that the property is no longer being put to a qualifying use. The Tax Court ruled that Petitioners were precluded under the doctrine of the duty of consistency from denying the initial validity of the special use valuation election. Section 2032A The Tax Code imposes a general estate tax on the transfer of the taxable estate of every decedent who is a resident or citizen of the United States. 26 U.S.C. 2001. The estate's executor is responsible for paying this tax. The estate tax under 2001 is generally based on the fair market value of the taxable property. The decedent must have been a citizen or resident of the United States. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="577"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july95/94-6606.opa.html">MUTUAL ASSURANCE, INC. V. UNITED STATES<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Mutual Assurance. An Alabama corporation whose principal place of business is located in Birmingham. Is a property and casualty insurance company specializing in medical malpractice insurance. The relief set forth in Revenue Procedure 91 21 was available for all years for which the statute of limitations on filing refund claims were still open.<p> Mutual Assurance reports its income taxes on the basis of a calendar year. The earliest open year was 1987. Section 6511(a) of the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C.) requires a taxpayer to file an administrative claim for refund with the IRS within three years from the time the taxpayer files the return or two years from the time the tax is paid. The amount claimed for 1987 was $495. The IRS notified Mutual Assurance that it was disallowing both the company's informal and formal claim for an additional refund for tax year 1987 due to Mutual Assurance's failure to timely file an administrative refund claim pursuant to I.R.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="577"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july95/94-6606.opa.html">MUTUAL ASSURANCE, INC. V. UNITED STATES<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Mutual Assurance. An Alabama corporation whose principal place of business is located in Birmingham. Is a property and casualty insurance company specializing in medical malpractice insurance. The relief set forth in Revenue Procedure 91 21 was available for all years for which the statute of limitations on filing refund claims were still open.<p> Mutual Assurance reports its income taxes on the basis of a calendar year. The earliest open year was 1987. Section 6511(a) of the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C.) requires a taxpayer to file an administrative claim for refund with the IRS within three years from the time the taxpayer files the return or two years from the time the tax is paid. The amount claimed for 1987 was $495. The IRS notified Mutual Assurance that it was disallowing both the company's informal and formal claim for an additional refund for tax year 1987 due to Mutual Assurance's failure to timely file an administrative refund claim pursuant to I.R.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="576"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Mar2002/002289mo.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> At the heart of this appeal is the Tax Court's refusal to permit the taxpayers. We will affirm. Who are familiar with the events that concern us. We will only note those facts that are particularly relevant to our ruling. The Tolves' 1981 tax return was audited. An IRS Form 872 A (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="576"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200515857.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Facts White was president and sole shareholder of WCC. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="576"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/04/98-9035.htm">98-9035 -- KLAASSEN V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE -- 04/07/1999<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> David R. and Margaret J. Klaassen appeal from the Tax Court's ruling that they are liable for an alternative minimum tax (AMT) in the amount of $1. We affirm. <p> <center><strong>BACKGROUND</strong></center> <p> The facts are undisputed. The Klaassens were the parents of ten dependent children. Advising the Klaassens that they were liable for a $1. The tentative minimum tax was computed on the excess: 26% x $23. The difference between that figure and the Klaassens' regular tax was $1. 57 preferences are involved. The Klaassens argue that their entitlement to their personal exemptions is mandated by I.R.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="576"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-5058.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief was George M. With her on the brief were Eileen J. Can claim tax credits for foreign taxes they have paid. If such an election is made. The U.S. parent and the foreign subsidiary are treated as a single company for U.S. tax purposes. Is the parent company of a group of subsidiaries in the United States. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="575"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/10/024138P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That the IRS retained the right to collect the 1983 liability from any assets that were exempt from the bankruptcy estate. Which were limited to a pension plan held in the name of W. Which was later rejected. Morgan's account was assigned to Revenue Officer Elizabeth Cooper. Special Procedures Branch is in the process of getting it abated. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="575"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0244p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That the district court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the case after Darue removed it from Michigan state court. Grable's quiet title action is based on provisions of the Internal Revenue Code concerning proper procedures for notifying delinquent taxpayers that their property has been seized. I The facts in this case are not disputed. Meaning that Grable's claim was based on a federal question. Federal Question Jurisdiction A defendant may remove to federal district court </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="575"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/mar96/95-4001.wpd.html">DALTON V. IRS<BR></A><BR> The bankruptcy court held that the tax debts were not dischargeable under 11 U.S.C. 523(a)(1)(C). He also contends that the finding that he willfully concealed assets was clearly erroneous. Therefore the tax debts were excepted from discharge under 11 U.S.C. 523(a)(1)(C). If unambiguous statutory language is not defined. Provided (1) Section 523(a)(1)(C) provides that an individual bankrupt debtor is not discharged from any tax debt which the debtor </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="575"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/07/962573P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 1 holding that the claim of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) against debtor's estate is not discharged because the IRS did not receive proper notice of the bankruptcy proceedings. Debtor filed his Chapter 13 plan with the bankruptcy court debtor's tax liabilities were not specifically mentioned on June 3. Provided that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="574"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/07/98-9012.htm">98-9012 -- SIMONS V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE -- 07/12/1999<BR></A><BR> The cases are therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Petitioners Danny and Sally Simons (hereinafter </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="573"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/00a0189p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The sole issue presented in this appeal is whether federal income and selfemployment taxes should be considered consumer debt for purposes of 11 U.S.C. § 1301. We hold that these taxes are not consumer debt and. I. The facts are stipulated by the parties. The following version is taken from the decision of the bankruptcy court: Wilbur G. 221 (1st Cir. 1999) (stating that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="573"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-2017.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: On page 2 remove the hyphen from the word </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="573"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/974260.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. He contends that the district court failed to instruct the jury that it could consider whether Neujahr was acting in good faith and an honest belief that he was obeying the federal tax laws. Neujahr asserts that the trial court's instructions to the jury were unbalanced in favor of the government. If the jury charge was slightly biased or unbalanced in favor of the government. We believe that this error was harmless. After he was discharged from the military in 1981. He was an employee of this firm from 1987 to February 1989. None of which income was subject to income tax withholding. Neujahr was made a full time employee of Horace Cofer Associates. The CPA explained that Neujahr's income was not then subject to tax withholding and. The only income that Neujahr was reporting was on Forms 1099 MISC. A 1040 NR is the return filed by non resident aliens who have earned income in this country. Muller informed Neujahr that he was not qualified to file a 1040 NR because 3 Neujahr was a citizen of the United States. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="573"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/05/042771P.pdf">N:\DOCS\SUSAN\04-2771 BARTMAN V. CIR.OPINION.FINAL FOR FILING.WPD<BR></A><BR> Bartman ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="573"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1012.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: On page 2 remove the hyphen from the word </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="573"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/001696.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE 3 was ultimately valued at over $20 million. Because much of Hunter's estate was tied up in real estate. The trust was considered a complex trust and it took a deduction for this interest payment. The estate and the IRS entered into a settlement agreement in which the estate tax liability of the estate was substantially reduced. Regardless of who was the payee of the check for refunded interest from the IRS. The tax benefit rule is a judicially created doctrine. A completed transaction in one tax year will unexpectedly reopen in a subsequent tax year. Prove not to have been a deductible expense at all. Such a cancelation will occur only when a subsequent event is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="573"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200407/99-1020a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="572"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/974464.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Williams contends that the district court erred in directing a verdict as to whether the forms submitted to the Internal Revenue Service ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="572"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200513267.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="571"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/07/962923P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. BACKGROUND Robert Darrah was a Certified Public Accountant ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="571"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1204.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Gonsalves and the IRS even after O'Connor was decided. The complaint named only the Internal Revenue Service (that is. Any of the individual IRS officers who may have actually committed the acts complained of. Who might have been held personally liable for their behavior. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="571"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/002346.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Who are Vietnamese. Informed them that their 1998 return was being audited. Although they could have negotiated it immediately upon receipt. It recorded the returned refund check as a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="571"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-2268.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Klehm</SPAN> was on brief for appellants.</SPAN> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="571"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-2237.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Strother</SPAN> and <SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="571"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/11/053636P.pdf">N:\DOCS\E-DOS\11-8\05-3636 SNIDER V. USA FINAL OPN 11.3.06.WPD<BR></A><BR> The case was submitted for oral argument to Judges Heaney. The IRS opened a criminal administrative investigation against Snider and Turley after receiving a tip that they were not paying income and employment taxes. Jackson told many third parties that the Taxpayers were being investigated for criminal tax violations and accused the Taxpayers of several crimes. All of which constituted return information: (1) Turley had a large increase in income from 1999 to 2000 that was questionable. (3) Turley was avoiding paying employer taxes. (4) Turley and Snider were involved in money laundering. Which was the first time she had seen it. Jackson 4 stated to the interviewees that he was conducting a criminal investigation of Taxpayers. Were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/043942np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This appeal is from the District Court's grant of the United States' motion for summary judgment against defendants Rudolph and Elaine Isley for unpaid taxes and interest. The parties have not appealed the amounts assessed against Rudolph and Elaine jointly. The controversy is founded in the substantive consolidation of Rudolph's bankruptcy estate with those of his two brothers. We will remand for the resolution of that limited issue. I. Because this is a Not Precedential Opinion. O'Kelly Isley were all members of a music group called the Isley Brothers that obtained some fame and wealth beginning in the 1960s. The proceedings were converted to Chapter 7 and the bankruptcy court substantively consolidated the individual estates in 1989. While others did not provide such a designation.1 1 Some of the copies of the checks in the appendix are unreadable. 3 After the trustee paid the amounts due under the consent order. 826.78 was applied to the tax liability of the consolidated estate. The IRS calculations are based on records that were not revealed to Rudolph until this case was on appeal and are encoded in such a fashion that they require explanation.2 In 1999. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/EB2B5317580712D08825728000567202/$file/0535167.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Among the named defendants were accounting firm KPMG. Swartz also sought a judicial declaration of defendants' liability for interest and penalties that might have arisen during an IRS audit. Believing amendment would be futile and that the request was procedurally improper. That the district court should have taken judicial notice of certain documents attached to his opposition to defendants' motions to dismiss. We affirm the district court's dismissal with prejudice of the RICO and WCPA claims as well as the request for declaratory relief because each was properly resolved on grounds independent of the reasonable reliance inquiry and because amendment would be futile in each case. Whether Swartz could demonstrate reasonable reliance on defendants' alleged misrepresentations was not properly settled as a matter of law under the allegations in the complaint. It would not have been futile for Swartz to amend. Swartz should have been given an opportunity to cure this defect through amendment. Swartz should have been granted leave to add alternative claims for securities fraud. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="569"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-2488.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Rose Cleveland is executrix of the estate of her late husband. Which are for legal malpractice sounding in contract and tort. We will affirm the dismissal if it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff cannot prove any set of facts entitling it to relief. Who was an attorney. The estate alleges that this is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="569"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1035.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Hanleys filed income tax returns indicating that they were entitled to a tax refund of $53.85 for the previous year. The Hanleys' calculation was based. Are questions left unanswered by the record.1 What does seem reasonably clear 1. The IRS is required by law to provide the taxpayer with a notice of deficiency. 1987 the Internal Revenue Service sent the Petitioner a is that on several occasions in 1988 and 1990. 217 figure stated in the notice of deficiency was. They asked the Tax Court to determine only whether the Hanleys were entitled to take a deduction for the allegedly worthless debt. He found that the Hanleys had failed to carry their burden of proving that the debt was worthless. Submitted their own computation which said that they were entitled to a refund of $849. The government acknowledges that the filing of a timely motion to vacate will re set the clock on the time to appeal. 895 (1st Cir. 1966) ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="568"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200411817.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The 1985 tax liabilities are not at issue in this appeal. The plea agreement itself is not in the record. The district court sentenced Creel in the criminal case and he was placed on probation for five years. Creel was ordered to make restitution to the IRS for the years 1986 1991 in the amount of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="568"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/08/023978P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Russell was in charge of the farming operation in North Dakota. While Melvin was in charge of the oil and gas exploration in the United States and Canada. The brothers withdrew profits from the partnership that were attributable to each of their respective business pursuits and paid the expenses related to each of their respective activities. In years where the oil business was more profitable. Paid some of the oil business's taxes­and vice versa for years when the oil business was less profitable. Many of the assets used by BBP were not held in the partnership's name. Were owned by the brothers jointly or individually. For taxable years 1980 through 1994 (which encompasses the records which were before the Tax Court). Which was attributable to grain sales by BBP. The proper 1 Form 1065 is the Partnership Return of Income form. 2 distribution of these 1994 grain sales are at the heart of the dispute in this case. After Melvin was diagnosed with cancer in late 1993. It appears that this was the first that Melvin's family knew of the partnership arrangement to split the tax burden evenly. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="568"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/09/96-2180.htm">96-2180 -- PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT BOAD V. SHALALA -- 09/02/1998<BR></A><BR> The sole issue here is whether contributions to a retirement plan for New Mexico State employees. Can be said to be contributions made pursuant to a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="568"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1723.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Gonsalves and the IRS were locked in a quarrel over the extent of Mr. Although the remedies were available to him. Pennsylvania (who are identified only by title). Gonsalves now contends that he is entitled to recover directly from the IRS officials who violated his rights. The district court ruled that the defendants were entitled. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="568"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/06/98-4147.htm">98-4147 -- U.S. V. BONNEVILLE DISTRIBUTING -- 06/12/2000<BR></A><BR> </strong><a name= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="568"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/06/99-1179.htm">99-1179 -- GASS V. U.S. DEPT. OF TREASURY -- 06/09/2000<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Plaintiffs Larry and Sandee Gass appeal from a district court order which. We agree with defendants that this appeal is frivolous and. Which were judicially sustained by the Tax Court decision affirmed in <em>Gass v. Many of which were issued against Sandee Gass as nominee/transferee of property from Larry . They alleged the underlying assessments were unconstitutional and procedurally improper. They also claimed that efforts to collect Larry Gass' tax liabilities from property in Sandee Gass' possession were unauthorized. <p> While the action was pending. They </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="568"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-9012.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief for appellant.</P> <P><U> Craig J. Braunstein LLP</U> was on brief for appellee.</P> <P> </P> <P ALIGN= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="567"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B0021A36FCAE8E6088256D8E007DA95F/$file/0270421.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Much of this information was culled from confidential financial statements. Imploring Banaitis to keep the financial information with which he was entrusted confidential. Banaitis' refusal to disclose was apparently not well received by Mitsubishi Bank or the Bank of California. Banaitis was placed on work probation. His pension for 1987 would have vested for that year. Merten was authorized to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="567"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021896.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Although Hunt is not entitled to interest under the applicable statute. The district court held that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) was equitably estopped from denying payment of interest on the 1982 refund. A claimant may not use equitable estoppel to require the Government to make payments out of the Federal Treasury that are not authorized by statute. A decision was filed in the Tax Court on December 20. The Tax Court decision did not mention the 1982 tax year at all and did not incorporate Hunt's draft settlement language.2 After the Tax Court decision was entered. Hunt contacted the IRS to find out why he had not received the refund for the 1982 tax year and was advised to file an amended return for 1982 to claim the NOL carryback. Hunt made further inquiries with the IRS to determine why his refund was not the We note that because Hunt did not receive a notice of deficiency with respect to the 1982 tax year. The Tax Court did not have jurisdiction over that tax year. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="566"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-2210.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Chief Judge. and four partnerships of which he is the general partner. Four limited liability companies of which he is the managing member. The district court entered summary judgment in favor of the defendant on the ground that the Brademas entities' suit was barred by the statute of limitations. I. Background Thomas Brademas is the general partner of the Madison Partnership ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="566"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/27544D51DF4E0D8E88256F6B0078B05F/$file/0257052.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: 1. The petition for rehearing is DENIED. No future petitions for panel or en banc rehearing will be entertained. The district court granted the government's cross motion for summary judgment and entered judgment finding that RMC was entitled only to the refund that the government conceded was due for taxable year 1992. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Facts The facts of this case are not in dispute. Appellant RMC is the holder of a Cadillac franchise from General Motors Corporation. RMC is an accrual basis taxpayer.1 All of Appellant's stock is owned by Caesar Wackeen ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="566"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/08/02-1330.htm">02-1330 -- JOHNSON V. U.S. -- 08/29/2003<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> In this appeal we determine whether front and back pay awarded in an employment discrimination suit filed under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="566"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/04C610823A5FED5D88256F2B00581ADB/$file/0257052.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> UNITED STATES 14495 district court granted the government's cross motion for summary judgment and entered judgment finding that RMC was entitled only to the refund that the government conceded was due for taxable year 1992. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Facts The facts of this case are not in dispute. Appellant RMC is the holder of a Cadillac franchise from General Motors Corporation. RMC is an accrual basis taxpayer.1 All of Appellant's stock is owned by Caesar Wackeen ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="564"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr2000/98-7026.opn.html">DAVIS V. COMM'R OF INTERNAL REVENUE (4/27/2000, NO. 98-7026)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judges.</P> <P>PER CURIAM:</P> <P> This case presents the issue of whether the portion of a judgment paid directly to the taxpayer's attorneys pursuant to a contingency fee arrangement is taxable as income to the taxpayer.</P> <P ALIGN= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="564"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/04/982924P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The IRS determined that Taxpayers should have included the fair market value of the deferred obligation in their 1990 and 1991 taxable incomes rather than in the year the payments were received for purposes of comparing their Alternative Minimum Tax ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="564"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1886.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. This is an appeal from a Tax Court determination unfavorable to the estate of Ida Abraham (the Estate). That the purchase of the decedent's interests by the children were not bona fide sales for adequate and full consideration. That action was taken in order to ensure that Mrs. Which were owned by Mrs. Were transferred to three family limited partnerships (FLPs). Abraham and her children were partners in those FLPs. When the FLPs were set up. Abraham received from her husband were three pieces of commercial real estate located in Tyngsboro and Walpole. The Walpole property was leased to a lumber yard. The other properties were skating rinks leased to third parties. The leases on all of these properties were long term. The feud was apparently over what amount was needed for Mrs. The litigation was also draining Mrs. There was a separate estate plan. The family also understood that the FLPs were a means to protect Mrs. The protection was there for her as a guarantee that she would live status quo.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="564"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr2000/98-7026.opn.html">DAVIS V. COMM'R OF INTERNAL REVENUE (4/27/2000, NO. 98-7026)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judges.</P> <P>PER CURIAM:</P> <P> This case presents the issue of whether the portion of a judgment paid directly to the taxpayer's attorneys pursuant to a contingency fee arrangement is taxable as income to the taxpayer.</P> <P ALIGN= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="563"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/03/00-2015.htm">00-2015 -- U.S. V. MILTON -- 03/30/2001<BR></A><BR> Milton was indicted on four counts including two counts of making a false or fraudulent statement to a department or agency of the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="563"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/8A98DADBE23347A388256F0E00819979/$file/0210287.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> As the error went to the heart of Boulware's defense and was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Boulware is entitled to a new trial on the nine tax counts. Boulware was indicted on four counts of filing false tax returns for the 1989 1992 tax years. The company was renamed Hawaiian Isles Enterprises ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="563"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/031250.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That its advertisements </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="563"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-3325.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Diesel argues that we should overturn his conviction because (1) he </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="562"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug2000/993775.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Alleging that the Westinghouse Plan was amended impermissibly by first the narrowing. Of a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="561"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200306/02-1213a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="561"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/11/01-2112.htm">01-2112 -- GLASS V. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE -- 11/05/2001<BR></A><BR> Hold the suit should have been dismissed </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="561"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTUyODItY3Jfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-5282-cr_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Ruling that the obstruction count was multiplicitous. (b) that even if there were impermissible overlap. The dismissal of an overlapping count on that basis prior to trial was premature. We agree that dismissal was at best premature. His challenges were either rejected or (See id. ¶¶ 4 5.) dismissed for lack of prosecution in 1996. 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 A. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="560"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/04/98-9001.htm">98-9001 -- WADE V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE -- 04/26/1999<BR></A><BR> The Wades were indicted in United States District Court for the District of Utah for filing false income tax returns for 1982 and 1983. Judgment was entered against him. Wade were dropped. Having determined the underreporting was the result of fraud. We have jurisdiction to hear Mr. DISCUSSION</strong> <p> The instant appeal is actually two actions consolidated for appeal. There is a three year statute of limitations for the IRS to assess deficiencies after filing. <u>See</u> 26 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="560"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/971931.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Section 6532(a) of the Internal Revenue Code requires a taxpayer who wishes to file a tax refund suit against the United States to do so within two years after the taxpayer is mailed formal notice of disallowance of the claimed refund or. Within two years after the taxpayer's waiver is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="560"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/11/99-5072.htm">99-5072 -- U.S. V. WEBB -- 11/30/1999<BR></A><BR> Finding that Webb was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="560"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/CFC9633881A7BA4388256BB20073510A/$file/0171259.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Litis argue that the Tax Court erred by holding that the IRS was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="560"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-5109.html">MUSIC SQUARE CHURCH V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> On the brief were <U>Eric M. With him on the brief were <U>Loretta C. MSC is a church founded by Tony and Susan Alamo. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue determined that MSC was not an organization described in 26 U.S.C. § 501(c). The stated bases for the revocation were that: MSC was so closely operated and controlled by and for the benefit of Tony Alamo that it enjoyed no substantive independent existence. That MSC was formed and operated by Tony Alamo for the principal purpose of willfully attempting to defeat or evade federal income tax. That MSC was inseparable from Tony Alamo. Even with a one and a half year delay that may have been agreed to by the parties. Seeking a determination that the Final Notice of Adverse Determination was void as untimely. The Court of Federal Claims struck MSC s argument that the IRS Final Determination letter was untimely. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3) (Supp. 1999). </P> <P ALIGN= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="559"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug96/99-12407.opn.html">CARL J. FABRY, PATRICIA P. FABRY V. COMM'R OF INTERNAL REVENUE (8/21/2000, NO. 99-12407)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="559"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug2000/99-12407.opn.html">FABRY V. COMM'R OF INTERNAL REVENUE (8/21/2000, NO. 99-12407)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="559"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-2062.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Redding & Associates were on brief for petitioners. Were on brief for respondent. The company and its investors were audited by IRS. With the result that IRS was required to make its supplemental tax assessments within one year after the final decision in the controlling case. IRS responded that the Form 906 closing agreement had no effect upon the earlier Form 872 A extensions. 3 The tax court rejected the taxpayers' argument that their Form 872 A extensions were superseded by the Form 906 closing agreement. Holding that the tax assessments were not time barred since IRS had issued its tax deficiency notices within ninety days of its receipt of the Forms 872 T. II II DISCUSSION DISCUSSION A tax court decision is reviewed in the same manner as a civil judgment in a case tried to the district court without a jury. As the instant matter was submitted to the tax court on a stipulated record. Have declined to enforce attempted terminations of Form 872 A extensions unless correctly implemented in a manner pre scribed within Form 872 A itself.2 See. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="559"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug2000/99-12407.opn.html">FABRY V. COMM'R OF INTERNAL REVENUE (8/21/2000, NO. 99-12407)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="559"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug96/99-12407.opn.html">CARL J. FABRY, PATRICIA P. FABRY V. COMM'R OF INTERNAL REVENUE (8/21/2000, NO. 99-12407)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="559"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/DEBDFDBD58E609F788256E21005E1D58/$file/0256786.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 158(d) and 1291. The bankruptcy court's conclusions of law and interpretation of the Bankruptcy Code are reviewed de novo. There are two sets of proceedings at issue in this appeal: (1) the instant case. Which began as two separate bankruptcy court cases that were consolidated. Where several cases began in tax court and were appealed to this court. The Debtors Appellants' appeals to our court were consolidated with approximately ninety related appeals. Arguing that the notices of appeal were untimely because they had been filed after the period for filing an appeal had expired. Appellants have filed a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="558"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/04/98-4078.htm">98-4078 -- U.S. V. CODNER -- 04/12/2000<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judges.</center> <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="557"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0006p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Many employers are required to withhold various taxes from the wages of their employees. Which the employers hold in trust until the taxes are paid over to the federal government. 902.24 that was paid to satisfy an assessment made against the late Willard R. It is not disputed that Bell was the largest stockholder (51.5% of shares) and chief operating No. 02 3295 Bell v. Nor is it disclaimed that Bell essentially ran the company on a day to day basis. Dyac was responsible for withholding federal wage. Dyac was struggling financially at and following its acquisition by Bell. The issue of who controlled Dyac's funds is paramount. As the same are set forth on the Budget. The timing of Bank One's cessation of trust fund loan advances is in dispute. 000 in FICA trust fund taxes that were in arrears for most of January. Denied the request because Bank One had already lent Dyac money for payroll taxes in January and this additional request represented an overadvance that was not covered by the Forbearance Agreement. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="557"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/03/953928P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 1 is suspended or tolled Congress renumbered 11 U.S.C. § 507(a)(7) to 11 U.S.C. § 507(a)(8) in 1994. Which was commenced before the October 22. Because the change is not substantive. We hold that it is and therefore affirm the district court judgment. Seeking to Levy upon his outstanding 1987 and 1989 tax liabilities.2 declaratory judgment that his 1987 tax liability was discharged in his Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding. 620.52 for the 1989 tax year. 2 2 claiming that his 1987 tax liability should have been discharged in his Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding because the priority period of section 507(a)(8)(A)(i) was not suspended during his prior bankruptcy cases. The priority period of section 507(a)(8)(A)(i) should have been suspended. The bankruptcy court3 adopted the majority position on this issue and held that because the priority period of section 507(a)(8)(A)(i) was suspended during Waugh's prior bankruptcy proceedings. His 1987 tax liability was nondischargeable in his subsequent Chapter 7 proceeding. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="557"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0102n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was a subchapter S corporation1. It was co owned by Morton. This federal income tax classification is not relevant to this appeal. Baldwin was also designated as MPM's registered agent for service of process. The IRS was unable to collect the unpaid federal taxes Morton owed for the years 1989 1995. Morton was removed from his position as MPM's president. THIS IS A NOTICE OF LEVY WE ARE USING TO COLLECT MONEY OWED BY THE TAXPAYER NAMED ABOVE. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="557"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/01/97-2276.htm">97-2276 -- RICE V. U.S -- 01/28/1999<BR></A><BR> Remaining were (1) a claim against the United States arising under the Internal Revenue Code. These the court found were the only sources for the information contained in the press releases. Rice contends that because the information contained in the press releases was. Whether the taxpayer's return was. Is being. Or will be examined or subject to other investigation or processing. 6103's general prohibition allows disclosure of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="556"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/07/992572P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Claiming </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="556"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0493n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> WILL EARNEST REDMOND. Will Earnest Redmond. Sr. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="556"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-4204.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The case is therefore submitted without oral argument. Defendant was charged in a four count indictment with one count of conspiring to defraud the Internal Revenue Service. After his motion for Judgment in Spite of Jury Verdict was denied. Factual Background Defendant was a promoter of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="556"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/06/03-9005.htm">03-9005 -- LE DOUX V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE -- 06/28/2004<BR></A><BR> Sent her </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July1997/97a1634p.htm">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The bankruptcy court determined that <p>Fegeley's federal tax liabilities were dischargeable. Is insufficient <p>to support the conclusion that he willfully attempted to <p>evade or defeat his taxes for those years. The Government <p>argues that the district court was correct in finding that the <p>willful failure of Fegeley to file tax returns. We will <p>affirm. <br wp= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200214910.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Tax Court ruled that because the putative refunds were really disguised rate reductions. They were not eligible for treatment under that provision. I. The facts in this case are fully set forth in the Tax Court's opinion. Florida Power is subject to the rules and regulations of both the Florida Public Service Commission ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="554"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/961620.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The tax court found that Eren's relationship with his employer was that of an employee rather than an independent contractor. With the consequence that he was not entitled to the § 911 exclusion. We are of opinion that this ruling. That Eren was an employee. Was not clearly erroneous. We further find that the Erens' remaining assignments of error are also without merit. I. Ertan Eren is an architect. Eren would qualify for a§ 911 exclusion if he is classified as an independent contractor but not if classified as a State Department employee. 459 deficiency for 1989 after concluding that Eren was an FBO employee and therefore not entitled to a§ 911 exclusion. (5) the fact that the Bogota project was within the scope of FBO's regular business of constructing U.S. government buildings overseas. The court accordingly upheld the determination of the IRS that the taxpayers were not entitled to a § 911 exclusion. The taxpayers' only assignment of error meriting any extended discussion is their claim regarding the determination of Eren's employment status. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="553"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1A613D0F854113068825706600577830/$file/0410307.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Randolph George was convicted by a jury on two felony counts of willful filing of false tax returns in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1). Are receivership1 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="553"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-5048.html">EXXON V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> Argued for plaintiff appellant.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="553"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/September2004/033173p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Concluding the transfer of assets was not a bona fide sale for adequate and full consideration. We will affirm. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="553"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec99/98-4781.man.html">UNITED STATES V. HUNERLACH (12/7/1999, NO. 98-4781)<BR></A><BR> He argues that his conviction for filing a false statement should be reversed because the prosecution was commenced beyond the six year statute of limitations and the district court erroneously admitted evidence in violation of his constitutional rights. He also challenges his conviction for wilful evasion of payment of taxes arguing that there was insufficient evidence to sustain the conviction.</P> <P> He further argues that the district court erroneously included interest and penalties as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="553"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200512814.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> How soon does asking have to be? The issue presented in this case is whether the statute of limitations period set forth in 26 U.S.C. § 6511(a) applies to claims for refunds made by those who have mistakenly filed a return and paid tax when they were not actually required to file a tax return. As the Beatles probably would have guessed. The lamentable answer is yes. I. Wachovia Bank is the trustee for the George C. Which was created in 1984. When it was reformed in order to meet the requirements of 26 U.S.C. § 664(c). The trust has qualified as a charitable remainder trust that is exempt from federal income tax. The denial letter explained that the claims for a refund as to those tax years were barred by the three year statute of limitations set forth in 26 U.S.C. § 6511(a). The government contended that Wachovia's suit was time barred because it had not filed an administrative claim for a refund within the time limits established by § 6511(a). Wachovia contended that § 6511 did not apply to its refund claims because it was never required to file a tax return for the trust to begin with. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="553"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec99/98-4781.man.html">UNITED STATES V. HUNERLACH (12/7/1999, NO. 98-4781)<BR></A><BR> He argues that his conviction for filing a false statement should be reversed because the prosecution was commenced beyond the six year statute of limitations and the district court erroneously admitted evidence in violation of his constitutional rights. He also challenges his conviction for wilful evasion of payment of taxes arguing that there was insufficient evidence to sustain the conviction.</P> <P> He further argues that the district court erroneously included interest and penalties as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="553"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-1484.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> P.C.</U> was on brief for appellants.</FONT> <BR WP= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="551"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/05/032662P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Contending that the IRS's assessment of tax underpayment was erroneous. Who was then assistant vice president at Midwest Federal. Armstrong was in a hurry due to an out of state business trip. He was given the wrong documents. These annuity contracts were issued by UNUM Life Insurance Company of America. The assignment forms were signed by Judy Ballantyne. With Midwest Federal granting a loan to Armstrong which was due November 15. Since the annuity contracts were owned by Armstrong's corporation. None of the loan documents were modified to reflect this conversation. Nor was UNUM instructed to void the assignment of the annuity contracts. All of the relevant documents continued to show that the loan was secured by an interest in the annuity contracts. RTC wrote to Armstrong informing him that his loan was more than four months past due and was continuing to accrue interest. Which were still listed as collateral on the loan. Which the Armstrongs conceded was barred by the applicable statute of limitations.3 Thereafter. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="551"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/07/063259P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Nearly identical </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="550"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May2000/995230.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> In this appeal we are called upon to decide whether a federal cause of action should be implied to permit a plaintiff to sue an employee of the Internal Revenue Service ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="550"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-1730.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> O'Brien with whom Baker & McKenzie was on briefs for petitioners. Were on brief for respondent. This appeal involves a tax dispute posing two questions: whether certain payments to the taxpayers by a controlled company were constructive dividends (rather than loans) and whether the taxpayers were residents of Illinois (rather than Puerto Rico) in 1986 and 1987. Are largely undisputed. Although the inferences and conclusions to be drawn are very much in dispute. The taxpayers are Earl and Evelyn Bergersen. The couple were the only members of the Ortho Tain board of directors. The plant was moved to Puerto Rico in 1976. Residents of Puerto Rico are exempt from U.S. income tax on income derived from Puerto Rico sources. 26 U.S.C. 933. No dividends were declared on their stock until 1987. 000) were paid annually to Ortiz and to Sedwick. 3 3 In this same period. The loans were evidenced by unsecured demand notes and carried interest rates of 8.5 to 10 percent. The loans were carried on Ortho Tain's books until March 1987. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="549"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-5159.html">MARCINKOWSKY ARTHUR E V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> With him on the brief were <U>Loretta . Marcinkowsky was employed by the Union Carbide Corporation from August 1961 until October 1991. Which found that his termination was wrongful. From which federal income tax and FICA (Social Security and Medicare) tax were withheld on his behalf.</P> <P ALIGN= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="549"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-3125.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Determining that the case should have been brought in the United States Tax Court. We have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. The appeal is submitted on the briefs and the record. The hearing was rescheduled. A declaration that the IRS's deficiency determination was erroneous. The presumption is that review should be sought in the Tax Court. The crux of his dispute with the IRS is obviously his income tax liability. A declaration that his income tax liability was erroneously determined. Voelker suggests that he should have been allowed to pursue his claims in the district court under the Federal Tort Claims Act. Voelker could have raised these same due process arguments had he properly filed his case in the Tax Court. 108 F.Supp.2d at 1364 n.4 (noting that taxpayer was free to raise due process arguments in the Tax Court). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="548"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/054997p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Tomko was also ordered to undergo twenty2 eight days of in house treatment for alcohol abuse. This sentence is unreasonable in light of the circumstances of this case and the sentencing factors outlined in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). It was therefore an abuse of discretion for the District Court to impose it and we will vacate the judgment and remand for resentencing. Inc. is classified as a flow through </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="548"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/sept95/94-3004.html">O'GILVIE V. UNITED STATES<BR></A><BR> The substantive issue raised in these consolidated appeals is whether punitive damages recovered in a case involving physical injury are excluded from gross income under 104(a)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code (I.R.C.). I The punitive damages that are the subject of these appeals were awarded in a products liability action filed after Betty O'Gilvie died of toxic shock syndrome. After attorney's fees and expenses the net proceeds were $4. Asserting that punitive damages were excluded from gross income under I.R.C. 104(a)(2) as damages received </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="548"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1622.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Ricklefs & Giordano were on brief for petitioner. Were on brief for respondent. This is an appeal BOWNES. The amounts are substantial. The computations are not contested. That contention is the main issue before us. Petitioner is a convicted drug dealer. In October 1987 petitioner was indicted along with Frederick A. Petitioner entered into a plea agreement with the United States Attorney whereby he agreed to plead guilty to all the counts in the indictment in which he was named. Petitioner claims that the value of the forfeited property is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="547"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/11/003799P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Thus the IRS could not assert any claim for increased taxes and penalties which might have been owed absent a settlement. The Ihnens are now estopped from seeking a refund. That the Ihnens agreed to the government's proposal and that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="546"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july96/94-5211.opa.html">ESTATE OF SHELFER V. COMMISSIONER<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Estate of Shelfer v. The court held that Lucille's estate was not liable for a tax deficiency assessed on the value of a trust from which she had received income during her lifetime. Claiming that the trust met the definition of a qualified terminable interest property trust ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="546"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-5130.html">FLUOR CORP. V. THE UNITED STATES<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="546"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200106/00-1313a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were David L. With him on the brief was Jonathan S. The United States all of which were related to each other and to Delcom Financial. The final transaction was a $14 million loan from Del Investments Netherlands B.V. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="546"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-1313a.html">DEL CMERCL PROP INC V. CMSNR IRS<BR></A><BR> Fuller argued the cause for appellant.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="546"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july96/94-5211.opa.html">ESTATE OF SHELFER V. COMMISSIONER<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Estate of Shelfer v. The court held that Lucille's estate was not liable for a tax deficiency assessed on the value of a trust from which she had received income during her lifetime. Claiming that the trust met the definition of a qualified terminable interest property trust ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="545"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/7DA771B7FFC0A8CF88256C170080E3C5/$file/0056558.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The administrative claim must be filed: within 3 years from the time the return was filed or 2 years from the time the tax was paid. Or if no return was filed by the taxpayer. Within 2 years from the time the tax was paid. UNITED STATES 12099 The issue in this case is whether a taxpayer's claim for credit or refund of overpaid taxes is timely under I.R.C. § 6511(a) if the claim is filed within three years of the date the taxpayer filed his return. Regardless of whether the return was filed on or before the date it was due. Omohundro and the United States argue that all claims made within three years of the date of the filing of the return are timely and urge us to overturn Miller. We reasoned that the point at which the court must determine whether a return was filed for purposes of the clause </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="545"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jan1995/94a0942p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> After finding that Greenberg was a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="544"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-1501.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Tax Deficiencies The root of the Geiselmans' claims is the government's seizure and sale of their home to satisfy unpaid tax debts. The IRS is barred from taking any action to collect the debt. He alleged that the government's lien on his property was ineffective because the government had committed procedural errors in determining the deficiency and assessing the tax liability. Valerie was not a party to this lawsuit. Valerie is. Where the two cases were consolidated. The judgment was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="543"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-5052.html">NEW YORK LIFE V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="543"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/04/021408P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The commission checks were made out to Midtown Motors instead of Steven Hart personally. He was indicted for two counts of tax evasion on April 12. Had and received taxable income upon which income tax was due and owing. The checks were endorsed by Defendant Hart to a third party who acted as a private banker for Defendant Hart. The checks were allocated to pay expenses incurred by Defendant Hart including mortgage. That the federal income tax was calculated as due and owing in the amount of $132. The disputed issue was whether the commission income from Plaza Motors should have been considered the corporate income of Midtown Motors rather than included in Hart's personal income. Was only $58. The disputed issues were whether Hart's failure to keep records. French testified Hart was using Midtown Motors as a front to funnel personal income to Jon Fuhrer. The government argued Hart's commissions from Plaza Motors were unrelated to Midtown Motors's used car business and the income from the enterprise was properly classified as personal. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="543"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0115p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This decision was originally issued as an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="543"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0213n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was convicted of one count of conspiring to defraud the Internal Revenue Service ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="542"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/9_opinions/92-3037b.html">USA V. LLOYD CHARLES N.<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="540"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/98opinions/98-5158.html">LA CROSSE FOOTWEAR V. US<BR></A><BR> With him on the brief were <U>Loretta . The court held that La Crosse was entitled to a refund of income taxes paid for tax years 1982 1986 because it determined that the base year cost of certain inventory acquired by La Crosse. ) was a closely held corporation in the business of manufacturing and selling rubber. The purchase agreement was consummated on June 21. The purchase price was approximately $7.5 million ($4.5 million in cash. Was approximately $10.6 million ($50. The fair market value of the inventory was even higher. The LIFO accounting method is one of two common methods­­the other being the first in first out (". The difference between these methods is whether a fungible item pulled from inventory is deemed to have been the last product placed in inventory (LIFO) or the product that has been in inventory for the longest period of time (FIFO). <U>See</U> <U>Kohler Co. v. The taxpayer s closing inventory is deemed to consist of the earliest acquired goods. The closing inventory is deemed to consist of the most recently [acquired] goods.". </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="540"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0279n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The convictions are affirmed. Madison's sentence is affirmed. Madison's sentence is reversed and remanded. Was selfemployed as a minister. Madison's principal employment from 1996 1999 was as the executive director for Cherokee Children and Family Services. Was run under the umbrella of Cherokee Children and Family Services. The organizations collectively are referred to as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="540"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/08/042040P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was indicted in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota on four counts of filing false income tax returns in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1). He was tried and convicted on all four counts. Morse was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment. He was ordered to pay $61. The tax deficiencies were $14. The fraud penalties (75 percent of the tax deficiencies) were $10. 1369 (8th Cir. 1989). 26 U.S.C. § 6663(a) provides if any part of a tax underpayment is due to fraud. 75 percent of the fraudulent underpayment is added to the tax. The Commissioner must show (1) there was an underpayment of tax. 2 and (2) part of the underpayment was due to fraud. If the Commissioner proves any portion of the underpayment is attributable to fraud. The entire underpayment is considered fraudulent unless the taxpayer establishes which portions are not fraudulent. The Commissioner must show the taxpayer intended to evade taxes he knew or believed to be owing by conduct intended to Morse argues </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="538"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/981939.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. We will refer to Charles A. A certified public accountant who was retained to provide accounting advice. By the early 1980s Greene was earning a substantial six figure salary. Although Corman was not retained as an investment advisor. Satisfied that Corman was qualified to analyze investments. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-5078.html">AMERICAN MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> Argued for plaintiff appellant.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="535"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A0C0745D00D79B73882572A30077FE2E/$file/0535615.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Kenneth Reiserer was an attorney whose practice included tax planning services. The IRS alleged that he was involved in an abusive tax arrangement known as offshore employee leasing (OEL). Reiserer was an officer or director of several domestic leasing corporations involved in an OEL scheme. Under an OEL scheme a customer will terminate his current employment and enter into a contract with a foreign leasing corporation. The IRS published a notice stating that OEL schemes were abusive arrangements and persons involved could be subject to IRS investigation and possible liability. The case was referred to a magistrate judge. Who found: (1) the penalties under §§ 6700 and 6701 are not penal in nature and thus do not abate with death. Id. § 6701(a) & (b). [2] It is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="535"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/05/052476P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 2 which held that Gary Wayne Colsen's debts to the IRS were dischargeable. He then initiated an adversary proceeding claiming that his federal income tax liabilities for tax years 1992 through 1996 were dischargeable despite 11 U.S.C. §523(a)(1)(B)(i). If required ... was not filed or given. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="535"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2BD9159A5356B7C488256CF60060CC6E/$file/0235054.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> WILL STEEN. About 84 of which are the subject of this lawsuit. Thereby fraudulently reporting tax deductions and other items to which they were not entitled. Hoyt was convicted of mail fraud. Abelein was. It discovered that the partnership records were unreliable to say the least. It was exceedingly difficult to know who was actually a partner at any given point. The Schedule K 1 in making decisions about who was or who was not a partner. Hoyt himself told agents that he moved loyal partners about at will and treated some people who were no longer contributing as if they had never been partners. This was so that his loyalists would not have tax liabilities arising out of the minor difficulty that the cattle or sheep supposedly owned by some of the partnerships were phantoms. The IRS decided that it was not able to accurately ascertain at the partnership level the identities of those who were the real investors in any given partnership at any given time. Having so cracked the dulcarnon with which it was faced. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="534"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0401p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Foundation argues that it does meet the requisite test and is therefore a supporting organization. Claims that the Tax Court was correct in holding that the Foundation did not meet the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="534"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/03/012014P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> These four claims were consolidated by order dated November 7. Which was granted on March 22. This is a case of first impression in both this and other federal courts of appeal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Was enacted in 1958 to eliminate tax disadvantages that might dissuade small businesses from adopting the corporate form and to lessen the tax burden on such businesses. Credits are attributed to individual shareholders in a manner akin to the tax treatment of partnerships. Is a Subchapter S corporation that manufactures. Financing for these direct sales to farmers was provided through several internal divisions of T L. The IRS determined that taxpayers were liable for additional taxes for the tax years in question. The district court held that section 453(l)(2)(A) </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="534"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-1317.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> P.C. were on brief for appellant. Were on brief for appellee. Because we reverse the conviction on the clearer ground that the trial evidence mustered by the government was insufficient to support a guilty verdict. Hold that the defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal should have been granted on all counts. Is inadequate to support convictions on either the wire fraud or computer fraud charges. The defendant Czubinski was employed as a Contact 2 Representative in the Boston office of the Taxpayer Services Division of the Internal Revenue Service ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="534"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/09/02-8004.htm">02-8004 -- MIDKIFF V. STEWART -- 09/04/2003<BR></A><BR> The plan included a provision that income tax refunds to which the Midkiffs would be entitled during the first thirty six months of the plan were to be deemed </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="533"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/5B90A7B9B502E0B788256E2B005762D0/$file/0235664.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Arguing that the payment was a capital gain subject to a lower tax rate. Later determined that the lump sum payment was ordinary income. Maginnis' $9 million share was payable in 20 equal installments of $450. Are named appellants. Michael Maginnis' assignment of his personal share of the lottery prize is at issue. That Maginnis was judicially estopped from claiming otherwise because of prior arguments in a separate Oregon state case involving the Oregon income tax. Noting that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="533"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-4243.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> It further alleges that ADL leaders falsely told the seminar attendees that they were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="533"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1896.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. BACKGROUND The following facts are undisputed. Sack is a veteran who graduated from law school in 1959. The IRS announced that it was accepting applications for Estate and Gift Tax Attorney positions (Grades 9 and 11) in its Boston and Portsmouth offices. Sack was 58 years old when he sought this position. All applicants were evaluated and assigned a numerical score pursuant to the Single Agency Qualification Standard (SAQS) for Attorney (Estate Tax) and Law Clerk (Estate Tax) described in the IRS's Qualifications Standards and Guidelines Handbook.1 1. Applicants were not required to complete a written examination. They were rated based on the extent and quality of their education. These points were also available to applicants who had completed accounting education or experience within similar time frames. Who was employed as a salesman for Lechmere when he submitted his 42). 2. Bonus points were available if an applicant had special qualifications. He was given 70 points for having a law degree and 5 points for being a veteran under 5 U.S.C. 3309.3 Sack was only given 1 point for his past legal experience. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="533"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-5013.html">KEVIN CONWAY V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> Argued for defendant <span class=SpellE>appellee</span>.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>With him on the brief were<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class=MsoNormal style='mso layout grid align:none. Holding that the Internal Revenue Service s ( IRS s ) deficiency assessment was timely and rejecting the taxpayer s other contentions.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span><u>Conway v. A New York lawyer who had represented the taxpayer and provided investment advice.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>Alter told the taxpayer that he and several other members of his law firm were planning to invest in the partnership and recommended that the taxpayer invest as well.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>Alter did not provide the taxpayer with the partnership s offering memorandum nor any other document relating to the partnership at the time.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>Although a tax opinion about the project was prepared by another New York law firm. Mso bidi language:AR SA'>[1]</span></span><![endif]></span></span></a> a tax partnership is treated as a pass through entity.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>Although administrative and judicial proceedings concerning partnership items are conducted at the partnership level. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="533"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Feb2002/002049.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 2002) OPINION OF THE COURT PER CURIAM: Diana Visco appeals the United States Tax Court's decision sustaining the Internal Revenue Service's ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="532"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/044721p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We agree with the Commissioner of the IRS that the lump sum consideration paid for the right to lottery payments is ordinary income. They did not then have the option to take the prize in a single lump sum payment. So they were entitled to 26 annual installments of $369. The Commissioner determined that this sale price was ordinary income. In December 2002 the Latteras were sent a notice of deficiency of $660. Because its decision was final. We have appellate jurisdiction under I.R.C. § 7482(a)(1). So venue is proper under I.R.C. § 7482(b)(1)(A). We do not disturb its factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous. Discussion The lottery payments the Latteras had a right to receive were gambling winnings. The parties agree that the annual payments were ordinary income. Whether the sale of a right to lottery payments by a lottery winner can be treated as a capital gain under the Internal Revenue Code is one of first impression in our Circuit. It is not a new question. Both the Tax Court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals have held that such sales deserve ordinaryincome treatment. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="532"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E34A0E7AB35AAE8B88256BC8007937BE/$file/0150195.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is whether the appellants' conduct was willful. Bishop also claims that his waiver of a jury trial was invalid. Who is not a party to this appeal. Were employed as managers by American Wireless Cable Systems. It was undisputed at trial that: (1) some Scorporations commonly designate interim payments to their shareholders as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="532"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/12/022956P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which is a corollary to the Federal Insurance Contributions Act. The sole issue in this case is whether the value added payments that the Bots received from MCP were derived from a trade or business carried on by the Bots. Thus were subject to self employment tax. Richard and Phyllis Bot are a married couple who filed joint tax returns for 1994 and 1995. The Bots are retired farmers who own 700 acres of farmland in Minnesota that they have sharecropped with two of their sons since 1987. The crop share agreement effective for the years at issue provided that the Bots were entitled to onehalf of the crops grown on the farm. The Bots were members of MCP at all times relevant to this appeal. The agreement was automatically renewed for an additional year. The Grower was still obligated to supply corn for a period of four years following his or her notice of termination. The Bots agreed to a pro rata change in the number of bushels they were obligated to supply depending on MCP's total corn needs. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="532"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-5032.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were Ernest M. With him on the brief were Eileen J. This is the second appeal in an action by John Greene ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="531"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19987026.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> PER CURIAM: This case presents the issue of whether the portion of a judgment paid directly to the taxpayer's attorneys pursuant to a contingency fee arrangement is taxable as income to the taxpayer. Of which six million dollars was punitive damages. The Tax Court found that although the punitive damages were otherwise taxable as income. The amount paid to her attorneys was not taxable income under Cotnam v. 000 were excludable because they were damages received on account of personal injuries. Davis's tax deficiency was $919. DISCUSSION This Court has previously addressed the issue of whether a taxpayer is taxed on the portion of a judgment paid to the attorneys under a contingency fee arrangement in Alabama. Was not required to include as income the portion of the award paid to her attorneys for their work in enforcing that In Bonner v. The deduction for attorneys' fees and costs which the IRS allowed was less favorable to the taxpayer than the exclusion from income approach adopted by the Tax Court because the operation of technical tax rules such as the alternative minimum tax. 3 3 2 contract. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="531"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19987026.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> PER CURIAM: This case presents the issue of whether the portion of a judgment paid directly to the taxpayer's attorneys pursuant to a contingency fee arrangement is taxable as income to the taxpayer. Of which six million dollars was punitive damages. The Tax Court found that although the punitive damages were otherwise taxable as income. The amount paid to her attorneys was The compensatory damages of $151. 000 were excludable because they were damages received on account of personal injuries. Davis's tax deficiency was $919. DISCUSSION This Court has previously addressed the issue of whether a taxpayer is taxed on the portion of a judgment paid to the attorneys under a contingency fee arrangement in Alabama. Was not required to include as income the portion of the award paid to her attorneys for their work in enforcing that contract. Because Cotnam is squarely on point and controlling. The deduction for attorneys' fees and costs which the IRS allowed was less favorable to the taxpayer than the exclusion from income approach adopted by the Tax Court because the operation of technical tax rules such as the alternative minimum tax. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="531"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-2105.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Claiming that he had no obligation to pay federal income tax since the IRS could not tax or sanction members of the United States Armed Forces and that the IRS's levies and notices of lien were invalid. The magistrate judge should have issued proposed findings of fact and held a hearing on the motions. The magistrate judge was not required to hold a hearing on the Rule 12(b) motions. P. 72(b). 3 Because the case was not referred to the magistrate judge for entry of final judgment. Simanonok's consent was not required. Simanonok's motion to vacate the order to amend his complaint was treated as an amended complaint. Denial was appropriate. We need not consider his claim that he properly served the defendants or was prevented from doing so or that the defendants had actual notice of the amended complaint. So the dismissal was correct to the extent that Simanonok sought a refund or challenged his underlying tax liability. See id.2 The same is true of his claim that the IRS had no jurisdiction over him since he is a member of the United States Armed Forces. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="531"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/12/02-9006a.htm">02-9006A -- UMBACH V. COMMISSOINER OF INTERNAL REVENUE -- 12/11/2003<BR></A><BR> Is granted. A copy of the published opinion is attached. <p> Entered for the Court <p> Patrick Fisher. Hold that the compensation is not excludable under either section. 117 T.C. 95 (2001).<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="531"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/024091.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> STERN Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Stern was convicted on all counts. Who were known as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="531"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July1997/97a1634p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The bankruptcy court determined that Fegeley's federal tax liabilities were dischargeable. Is insufficient to support the conclusion that he willfully attempted to evade or defeat his taxes for those years. The Government argues that the district court was correct in finding that the willful failure of Fegeley to file tax returns. We will affirm. Fegeley is a 50 year old high school graduate who was employed as a salesman in the 1980s. He was paid both a salary and commission. Was also reimbursed for his expenses. At the time the taxes were due. Fegeley was communicated with by the Criminal Investigation Division of the IRS in 1987. The Government determined that the returns were reasonably accurate and complete. Has not alleged that any of the returns are fraudulent. The remaining two counts were dismissed. Were thereafter granted a discharge in bankruptcy pursuant to § 727 of the Bankruptcy Code. The matter was tried before the bankruptcy court. ] . . . was much too lavish[. The bankruptcy court entered judgment for the Fegeleys holding that the Government failed to prove that the Fegeleys attempted to evade or defeat their 1983 85 income taxes and that such taxes are not excepted from discharge pursuant to § 523(a)(1)(C).1 The bankruptcy court held that Fegeley's knowing failure to file income tax returns. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="530"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/94opinions/94-5178a.html">FL AUDBN SCTY V. BENTSEN L.<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="530"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-2236.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Dowell</U> was on brief. Were on brief for appellee.</P> <BR WP= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="530"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov95/94-8924.opa.html">HOSPITAL RESOURCE PERSONNEL V. UNITED STATES<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Hospital Resource Personnel v. HRP moved for summary judgment on the ground that it was exempt from a duty to withhold and pay such taxes by the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="530"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/03-5087.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were Melvin C. Of counsel on the brief was Thomas R. With him on the brief were Stuart E. The plaintiffs argue that the 1993 legislation breached the contract because it changed the tax laws to abrogate tax benefits to which they were entitled at the time the contract was executed and because the legislation specifically targeted the benefits they enjoyed under the contract. Holding that under the pre 1993 tax laws they were entitled to the tax benefits in question and that * Paul R. The plaintiffs have cross appealed from the court's denial of their request for additional damages. Fixed rate mortgages created when interest rates were low. The acquisition was effected through a contract between FSLIC. FSLIC bound itself to make assistance payments to Texas Trust in an amount equal to the difference between the book basis of the covered assets and the value of those assets when they were sold or written down. The Consolidated Group expected to be able to take deductions for the built in losses on the covered assets as those assets were liquidated or written down. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="530"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/981752.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The court found that Plett was a person at Wilder & Wilder responsible for collecting. We affirm the district court's conclusion that Plett was liable under § 6672. The withheld amounts are commonly referred to as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="530"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//nov95/94-8924.opa.html">HOSPITAL RESOURCE PERSONNEL V. UNITED STATES<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Hospital Resource Personnel v. HRP moved for summary judgment on the ground that it was exempt from a duty to withhold and pay such taxes by the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="529"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/01/011881U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Michael Hollen is a dentist who operates his business through a professional corporation. The transfer was never reduced to writing. Thus it was invalid under California law. Michael Hollen never informed the IRS that the transfer to the partnership was invalid. The Hollens argued that because the transfer to the partnership was invalid. They owned the ranch individually and therefore were liable for tax on the sale to the extent the gain exceeds their original basis in the farm. The tax court held that this argument was barred by the doctrine of the duty of consistency. The taxpayer is placed under a duty of consistency when: (1) the taxpayer has made a representation or reported an item for tax purposes in one year. The Hollens argue that their error in thinking the partnership owned the ranch was one of law. Although the Hollens may have made a legal error in the attempted transfer. The question of who owned the property was. Our affirmance of the tax court's ruling that the Hollens do owe taxes forecloses their argument is that because they owe no tax. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="529"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-5027.html">CHARLES WILLIAM LEDFORD, V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> For defendant appellee.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="528"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/02/00-3013.htm">00-3013 -- ROGERS V. U.S. -- 02/22/2002<BR></A><BR> We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="528"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200505/04-5082a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Argued the cause on his own behalf and was on the joint briefs for appellants. With him on the joint briefs were Vasilios S. With her on the brief were Kenneth L. Ruling that Appellants' requests had not complied with Freedom of Information Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="528"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July1995/95a1106p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: The genesis of this appeal is a decision by the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="528"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-1635.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> A portion of the profits were distributed to investors as dividends or </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="527"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3AD3B8DF742F2F7788256C3800051FFE/$file/0070764.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This is a tax case regarding availability of a loss deduction to a company whose predecessor in interest left a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="525"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/04/041241P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Desselle challenges the determination of the administrative law judge (ALJ) that he was not insured for disability. Desselle must have had at least </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="525"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/August2002/013891up.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> These taxes were not paid upon notice and demand. 132 was to be deducted each month from the wages of Joyce Stinson. This agreement was signed by Harold and Joyce Stinson and a representative of Mrs. Title and IDRS number </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="525"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/962549.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The employer obtains a deduction for the contribution at the time it is made. There are various restrictions upon the timing and amounts of distributions from a qualified pension plan. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="525"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcU1VNXDA1LTA3NDFfc28ucGRm/05-0741_so.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="524"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-2457.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> John Fisher is an employee of Digital Equipment Corporation. From 1982 87 he was on a disability leave of absence from the company. The Tax Court concluded that Digital's distribution of stock to John Fisher in 1986 was a taxable transfer of property under 26 U.S.C. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="524"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Aug2004/Aug24/02-21182-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. I. Izen is a tax attorney. The referral contained allegations from a third party informant that Izen was involved in money laundering. Including allegations that Izen was involved in the failure of a private bank and had accounts in foreign countries. Izen alleges the informant was Michael J.B. Catalina accepted the referral for investigation of the charge of failure to file tax returns. there was insufficient basis to investigate He determined for money Izen laundering. Though a return had been filed. tion was soon derailed by the fact that Izen ultimately filed his 1986 return in September 1989. Izen alleges that the impetus for the investigation was a desire to retaliate against him for his history of association with tax protestors. One of whom was represented by Izen). Catalina in turn alleges that the investigation was prompted by his review of various reports concerning a client of Izen's. Climer was the undercover agent assigned to the Climer posed as a client seeking to create a foreign trust in which to deposit proceeds from the sale of purportedly stolen oil. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="523"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0250p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Defendant Gerald Rayborn was charged with one count of conspiracy to commit mail fraud. He was convicted on all counts. BACKGROUND Gerald Rayborn was a pastor at the Mt. While they were in Bullock's office working on their taxes. A mortgage broker who was coincidentally in Bullock's office at the time. Were looking to spend about $475. The closing date was set for April 29. A document verifying Rayborn's income and employment and signed by Bullock was included in the loan package. All loan materials received by Wells Fargo were sent via Federal Express. The home purchase was completed on May 20. Rayborn was required to re sign the documents that were part of his original loan package. Rayborn submitted a lease to Wells Fargo that indicated he was leasing his former residence to one </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="522"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/07/012874P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This case arises out of an April 1996 Northwest Airlines (Northwest) interpleader of the United States and Mary Taylor (Mary) to determine whether the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) or Mary has priority and is entitled to the benefits of three Northwest sponsored employee benefits plans. Finding Mary's right to the plans under a Texas domestic relations order (DRO) was subject to a prior federal tax lien. BACKGROUND As is often the case. The sequence of events is critical. Where the plans were administered. (3) would have required Northwest to make an extra payment. The IRS and Mary were left to determine who was entitled to the plan proceeds. The IRS claimed its interest in the plan proceeds was first in time. While Mary argued her interest had priority because she was both a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="522"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200604/05-1269a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Haver was on the briefs for appellant. Were on the brief for appellee. Senior Circuit Judge: Peter Haver is a United States citizen who spent several years living and working in Germany. The question in this case is whether a Treaty between 2 the United States and Germany relieved Haver of all obligations to pay income tax to the U.S. for the time when he was in Germany. Haver claims that the statute and the Treaty are inconsistent. That the Treaty should control because it was ratified subsequent to the statute's promulgation. U.S. citizens are subject to taxation on all of their income no matter where they live. Claiming that their entire United States tax liability was offset by foreign tax credits. (This provision was repealed. There is no dispute over how much Haver paid in German taxes or what his AMT would be if § 59(a) applies. The only question in this case is whether Article 23(1) of the Treaty allows IRS to demand payment under the statute. 4 Haver sought review of IRS's determination in Tax Court. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="521"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19948393.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Allen sued for the the district court concluded that the Commissioner's We agree and AFFIRM. action was proper and denied the refund. I. The material facts are not in dispute. Allen was convicted for willful failure to file federal income tax returns under the former 26 U.S.C. § 7203. Allen was required to file acceptable tax returns for Unless otherwise indicated. All statutory references to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="521"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/06/001545P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court determined that payments to tenured faculty under the program were not wages within the FICA definition of wages but that payments to high level administrators under the program were wages subject to FICA taxation. The material facts are generally undisputed in this case disposed of on cross motions for summary judgment. Participation in the program was voluntary by both parties­neither the employee nor NDSU could force the other to enter into an Early Retirement Agreement. The payment was capped at 100% of the employee's most recent annual salary. The prospective retiree was not automatically entitled to the full amount. Various factors were considered in setting the The Honorable Rodney S. North Dakota State University also sought refunds for FICA taxes based on wages paid to teachers and trainees who were residents of other countries and were working at the university on J 1 work Visas. These were not the only factors considered during the negotiations. There was no restriction on the factors that could be considered. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="521"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-5039.html">LOCKHEED MARTIN CORP. V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> With him on the brief was <U>Thomas W. Of counsel on the brief was <U>Daniel J. Of counsel were <U>Mark M. With them on the brief were <U>Loretta C. With him on the brief was <U>David Kasanow</U>. </P> <P ALIGN= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="520"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0455p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Two defendants pleaded guilty and the remaining twelve defendants were convicted by a jury on all charges following a joint trial. Defendant Rodger Yates was serving a sentence in federal prison for activities involving the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="520"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/10/011501P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> As deficiencies were assessed against her because she filed a joint tax return with her husband. References to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="520"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/03/97-9025a.htm">97-9025A -- AMERICAN STORES CO. AND SUBSIDIARIES V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE - - 03/09/1999<BR></A><BR> Contemplates this result. <p> <p> A copy of the corrected opinion is attached. <p> Sincerely. BACKGROUND</strong></center> <p> American Stores is an accrual method taxpayer. The case was submitted on facts which were fully stipulated by the parties. <p> The Tax Court issued an opinion upholding the position of the Commissioner. <u>American Stores Co. and Subsidiaries v. The court held that pension contributions made pursuant to collective bargaining agreements that were based on units of service worked after the close of American's 1988 fiscal taxable year were not </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="520"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/03/97-9025.htm">97-9025 -- AMERICAN STORES COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE -- 03/09/1999<BR></A><BR> BACKGROUND</strong></center> <p> American Stores is an accrual method taxpayer. The case was submitted on facts which were fully stipulated by the parties. <p> The Tax Court issued an opinion upholding the position of the Commissioner. <u>American Stores Co. and Subsidiaries v. The court held that pension contributions made pursuant to collective bargaining agreements that were based on units of service worked after the close of American's 1988 fiscal taxable year were not </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="520"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/972106.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> No. 97 2106 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Drummond's stated goal was to train and sell accomplished show horses. Drummond's stated purpose was to expand the herd and use it to manage his horses' pasture. His losses have in every year exceeded his profits. Was that the IRS considered Drummond's horse and cattle operations to constitute only hobbies. The IRS also insisted that Drummond's horse and cattle operations were separate activities. In finding that Drummond's activities were not conducted for profit. Was apparently able to afford because of the income available to him from other sources. Therefore had failed to prove that his reliance on the advisor's advice was reasonable. 3 We have carefully reviewed the tax court's opinion. Have had the benefit of oral argument. Although we believe it is a close question. Drummond's horse and cattle activities were clearly erroneous. That he was impressed with the amount of resources especially time that Drummond spent on his horses. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="519"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/lognameprint.php">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Jerome Wayne Johnson</td> <td align=left valign=top>03 13595 / 03 00036 CR J 25 TEM</td> <td align=left valign=top><font color=red>07 12 2004</font></td> </tr> <tr bgcolor=cccccc> <td colspan=3> </td> </tr> <tr bgcolor=cccccc> <td colspan=3> </td> </tr> <tr> <td align=left valign=top>In re: Will C. Bowman</td> <td align=left valign=top>02 13050 / 01 01345 CV BU E</td> <td align=left valign=top><font color=red>08 13 2003</font></td> </tr> <tr bgcolor=cccccc> <td colspan=3> </td> </tr> <tr bgcolor=cccccc> <td colspan=3> </td> </tr> <tr> <td align=left valign=top>In re: Will C. Whose name in this complaint will be Dakota Allen v. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="519"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1983.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He was incarcerated. Explaining that it could not </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="519"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/lognameprint2.php">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Whose name in this complaint will be Dakota Allen v. Bowman</td> <td align=left valign=top>02 13050 / 01 01345 CV BU E</td> <td align=left valign=top><font color=red>08 13 2003</font></td> </tr> <tr bgcolor=cccccc> <td colspan=3> </td> </tr> <tr bgcolor=cccccc> <td colspan=3> </td> </tr> <tr> <td align left valign=top>In re: Will C. Cohen</td> <td align=left valign=top>03 13162 / 02 23079 CV KMM</td> <td align=left valign=top><font color=red>07 08 2004</font></td> </tr> <tr bgcolor=cccccc> <td colspan=3> </td> </tr> <tr bgcolor=cccccc> <td colspan=3> </td> </tr> <tr> <td align left valign=top>In re: Will C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="518"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Oct1999/987159.TXT">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> For underpayment of tax attributable to a valuation overstatement pursuant to IRC S 6659.1 The Commissioner's decision was based upon the taxpayers' attempt to claim tax credits and losses purportedly resulting from their 1981 investment in Northeast Resource Recovery Associates ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="518"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-2302.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was actually listed as the owner of SCV in the Illinois Department of Revenue filings. Structured the sale of the Halsted property to make it appear that the purchase price was only $675. This finding is not challenged on appeal. The only problem was that they had to somehow make the SCV debt worthless to Chavin. He was told that the sale was nothing more than a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="518"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199812/98-5009a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs was J. With him on the brief were Loretta C. Circuit Judge: These are consolidated appeals from district court judgments dismissing. Lake is typical. To furnish such information </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="517"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/07/041241P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Desselle challenges the determination of the administrative law judge (ALJ) that he was not insured for disability. Desselle must have had at least </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="517"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-4182_019.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Susan Vucko was employed by the Northwest Building Materials and Supply Company. After she was caught. Although her argument might have some force if one were to view those provisions of the Guidelines in isolation. We conclude that the district court properly found that grouping was inappropriate. I There is little that we need to add to the facts underlying Vucko's convictions. Vucko was responsible for reconciling credit card sales with merchant banks that processed credit transactions for the company. Ensuring that the cash register and credit card swipe machine were properly closed. Vucko succumbed to the temptation to help herself to some of the money she was handling. These </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="517"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/06/963287P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Their claims were disallowed. Although there were several issues decided by the District Court. 1988 James Alford was an employee within the meaning of the relevant provisions of the tax code.1 On their federal income tax returns for those years. The taxpayers claimed that Alford was not an employee but an independent contractor. The IRS determined that he was an employee and recalculated the Alfords' tax liability. If he was an independent contractor. Then he was entitled to deduct the full amount of his business expenses from his earned income for those years. If on the other hand he was an employee. The assessed deficiencies at issue on appeal are the result of the difference in the amount of business expenses allowed as deductions under these two calculations. It appears they are challenging only one year's assessment of tax deficiencies. Alford was selfemployed during 1986. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="517"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200415013.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The estate of Blount was required to sell Bount's shares when he died. Blount's family business owned an insurance policy to ensure that it would have sufficient liquidity to accomplish the contractual buyout. Because the Tax Court should not have added the insurance proceeds to the value of the corporation when calculating its fair market value. I. BACKGROUND Blount Construction Company ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="514"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/04/02-9000.htm">02-9000 -- COLORADO GAS COMPRESSION INC. V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE -- 04/06/2004<BR></A><BR> We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="514"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/08/98-4043.htm">98-4043 -- U.S. V. WORTHEN -- 08/19/1999<BR></A><BR> Defendant was indicted on the following counts: (I) . The court sentenced Defendant to a term of 33 months' imprisonment followed by 3 years' supervised release. <p> The facts underlying the indictment indicate that Defendant was the president of Nordic Limited. Defendant's stipulated amount of tax liability for 1990 was therefore $38. Rule 32(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="512"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/04/99-7042.htm">99-7042 -- CHICKASAW NATION V. U.S. -- 04/05/2000<BR></A><BR> The Nation alleges that these taxes were unlawfully assessed against its pull tab gaming activities pursuant to 26 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="512"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-1326.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. Were on brief. Was convicted by a jury of filing false federal income tax returns for the years 1991 and 1992. The estimated tax loss to the government was $457. He was sentenced to 30 months in prison. A term which he is now serving. His appeal results in our resolving for the first time several issues under the Federal Rules of Evidence.</FONT></P> <P ALIGN= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="512"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B39C1A58D9740A92882572BF007B6279/$file/0435897.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> So long as the position of the United States was not substantially justified. 26 U.S.C. § 7430. The taxpayers and the United States agree that the summonses were not enforce PACIFIC FISHERIES INC. v. The government's only action during the litigation was to promptly withdraw the summonses. The question is whether the government's prelitigation conduct should be factored into a determination of whether its position in the judicial proceeding </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="511"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/011353.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. RAL borrowers also may be subjected to collection costs and attorneys' fees where their actual tax refunds are insufficient to cover the amounts of their corresponding loans. Several states sued Block in the 1990s for engaging in deceptive advertising by concealing the fact that RALs were loans. Are identical to RALs in every other respect: they required the submission of loan applications and the making of significant certifications. To make </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="511"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-3127.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The signs are everywhere: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="511"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/09/954206P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He was sentenced to 293 months in prison for the continuing financial crimes enterprise violation. Lefkowitz argues that the evidence was insufficient to convict him of any crime. Lefkowitz was President of Citi Equity Group. Or acquire buildings in which a prescribed percentage of the apartment units are occupied by low income tenants. Money raised from limited partners was the project's equity. Remaining debts to the builder were paid. While CEG obtained permanent financing to replace the construction loan once a building was completed. 000 were unbuilt. Funds from limited partners and FSM investors were first deposited in an operating account for each particular investment. 000 was used to pay Lefkowitz's personal expenses. The black hole was $3. IRS agents traced new partnership deposits that cleared negative balances in the central CEG account and then were used to meet Lefkowitz's personal needs and to fund older projects. This practice was not disclosed to CEG investors. Lefkowitz denies that this was fraudulent. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="511"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-3229.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. Or conclusions unless they are: (1) arbitrary or capricious. Was not available when the record closed. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.115(d)(1)(2006). Bennett argues: (1) removal is an unduly harsh penalty. 2002 tax years could have been incorporated into a single disciplinary action. Bennett was aware of her obligations. Bennett knowingly and intentionally failed to timely pay all of her 2002 federal personal income tax and this was clearly inconsistent with her job duties and responsibilities. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="511"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021464.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> TRUST UNDER THE WILL OF JOHN STEWART BRYAN. Circuit Judge: Four federal taxpayers a trust and three of its beneficiaries appeal a district court's decision that they were not entitled to tax deductions for fees paid to investment advisors. The taxpayers maintain that a trust's investment advice fees should be fully deductible under § 67(e) of the Internal Revenue Code because such fees are incurred as a result of the fact that the income producing property is held in trust. We agree with the Government that such investment advice fees are not fully deductible. This appeal involves the Trust Under the Will of John Stewart Bryan (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="511"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/07/994338P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Elto n Silkman was indicted on five counts of tax evasion in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7201 after he failed to file federal income tax returns for the years 1981 throug h 1985. We reversed the conviction because an elemen t of the crime of tax evasion is a tax deficiency. Silkman was again tried on all five counts. The government again relied on the administratively final tax assessments for its prima facie case that a tax was in fact owing in each of the five tax years. Silkman then put on evidence that no tax was owing. Arguing that the government's prima facie case was legally insufficient. One </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="511"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/042645p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Are the Insurance Contracts Mass Assets? . . . . . . . 13 IV. Capital claims that it properly established a basis in hundreds of insurance contracts that were terminated in that year. That it is therefore entitled to take a loss deduction under 26 U.S.C. § 165 to account for the cancellation of those contracts. That the zero basis found by the Court was inconsistent with the facts and hence clearly erroneous. We are convinced that Capital's process was thorough and professional. We are unwilling to affirm the Tax Court merely because we find some flaws in Capital's valuation process. We will reverse and remand for further proceedings. The existence of some problems in Capital's valuation process will not justify finding a zero basis in the lost contracts. By proposing alternative methods that will lead to what. Such a procedure is insufficient to reject Capital's claimed deductions. The Service has inform[ed] Blue Cross Blue Shield insurance organizations that the Service will challenge deductions for losses that relate to the termination of 4 individual customer. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="510"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/595BCCFD0A4500DA88256B4100625E4C/$file/0070850.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: Slip op. p. 16380. Strike the sentence that reads: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="510"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-5064.html">B.F.GOODRICH V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="510"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-1251.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Smith & Cohen were on brief. Were on brief. 662 (1977) (holding that pretrial orders rejecting double jeopardy claims premised on successive prosecutions are immediately appealable).2 Inasmuch as the appeals challenge the district court's application of the law rather than its factfinding. Our review is plenary. We have jurisdiction to hear and determine them prior to trial. 3 (1st Cir. 1996). The resolution of their claim turns on whether the tax conspiracy is the same offense as the marijuana conspiracy for double jeopardy purposes. The test to be applied to determine whether there are two offenses or only one. Is whether each provision requires proof of a fact which the other does not. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="510"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/09/042978P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were engaged in the liquified petroleum business and jointly formed SYN. Which was also engaged in the liquified petroleum business. Lindsey discovered NGC and SYN were in acquisition negotiations with another propane company. Lindsey also discovered that NGC's intentions were that EGC would not manage SYN in the future. Kristen Lindsey is a named party because she filed joint federal tax returns with her husband. Her first name is spelled </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="510"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1BAB33BBE8AE578C88256B17007519E6/$file/0070850.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Phillips contends that a waiver of the three year statute of limitations was invalidly executed by Walter Jay Hoyt III (Hoyt) the Tax Matters Partner of each of 16378 the partnerships. The principal issue on appeal is whether criminal tax investigation of a statutory Tax Matters Partner (the TMP) does. Holding that there is no automatic termination of TMP status by virtue of such an investigation. FACTS The facts were stipulated by the parties in skeletal form sufficient to provide. What was necessary to raise the single issue relied on by Phillips. All three partnerships were organized and marketed by Hoyt. Who was the general partner in each and also the TMP. The Examination Division of the IRS requested that the Criminal Investigation Division of the IRS investigate Hoyt for allegedly preparing false tax returns for twelve persons who were limited partners in partnerships formed by Hoyt. Hoyt was aware of the decision by Justice. It was decided not to prosecute Hoyt. Although later Hoyt was investigated. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="510"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3830A0C29E10A3C388256E5A00707D72/$file/0070850.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Phillips contends that a waiver of the three year statute of limitations was invalidly executed by Walter Jay Hoyt III (Hoyt) the Tax Matters Partner of each of 16378 the partnerships. The principal issue on appeal is whether criminal tax investigation of a statutory Tax Matters Partner (the TMP) does. Holding that there is no automatic termination of TMP status by virtue of such an investigation. FACTS The facts were stipulated by the parties in skeletal form sufficient to provide. What was necessary to raise the single issue relied on by Phillips. All three partnerships were organized and marketed by Hoyt. Who was the general partner in each and also the TMP. The Examination Division of the IRS requested that the Criminal Investigation Division of the IRS investigate Hoyt for allegedly preparing false tax returns for twelve persons who were limited partners in partnerships formed by Hoyt. Hoyt was aware of the decision by Justice. It was decided not to prosecute Hoyt. Although later Hoyt was investigated. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="509"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/03/99-2170.htm">99-2170 -- LESTER V. U.S. -- 03/02/2000<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> In December 1996. Finding that the claim of the IRS was unsecured because it did not provide plaintiffs with proper notice at their last known address. Although due to its failure to give proper notice the IRS was prohibited from collecting the tax through any non judicial procedure. It was allowed to file a proof of claim in the judicial bankruptcy proceeding. The IRS was in contempt of the bankruptcy court's order prohibiting the IRS from collecting the taxes through non judicial means. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="509"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-4258_032.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were indicted. Both were convicted Marin of assisting in the preparation and presentation of a false tax return and Palivos of conspiracy to obstruct justice though he was acquitted of obstruction of justice. Was JACPG. The buyer was Peter Bouzanis. Was a felon. The mortgage to finance the purchase was obtained from The Money Store and was partially guaranteed by the United States Small Business Administration (SBA). The loan itself was for approximately $1.25 million. The Money Store and the SBA were not aware that 100 percent of the funds for the closing came from the seller. We will use full names to distinguish between Peter and George. George Palivos and Bouzanis are fugitives believed to be living in Greece. 2 Nos. 05 4258 & 05 4329 3 Obviously. Bouzanis was required to come to the closing with over $350. Palivos's brother in law Dimitrios Bousis went to a bank where he was a long time customer and pledged his own accounts to guarantee a $354. The dispute was then </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="509"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021273.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I The Sheet Metal Workers' National Pension Fund (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="509"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/24FC4B5E7EF4AF8B88256CF00075EDF5/$file/0155933.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Hold that the taxpayer's claim was. The taxpayer failed to show what cash it did have on hand and how it spent its funds in lieu of paying its taxes. Inc. is a corporation that provides temporary employee services. This was despite an instruction on Synergy's check to apply the payment to current taxes. Synergy was never current. The claims were made on IRS Form 843 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="507"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/01/981648P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Irvin Couvillion presiding. in 1992 was taxable as ordinary income and that certain unreimbursed travel expenses were not adequately substantiated. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue supports the court's rulings on these issues but points out that no additional tax is due under 26 U.S.C. § 6651(a)(2) because that section does not apply. The lease was to terminate on all or part of the land. If the Community were to notify him before January 1 of any year that it would need the land for economic development the following summer. This lease was approved by the Minneapolis Area Director of the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Some of his possessions were lost when the trailers were removed. The matters have apparently not yet been finally resolved. Campbell's tax status was also affected. The income he received from farming was not taxable by the federal government. They are normally taxable under 25 U.S.C. § 2710(b)(3)(D). The IRS acknowledged that he was entitled to a self employment tax deduction of $138. These additions were based on failure to file a timely return ($1. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="507"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may99/97-4845.opn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge:</P> <P> This case raises the issue of whether certain tax debts are dischargeable in bankruptcy despite the debtor's efforts to evade payment of the taxes by transferring assets to his wife. The district court found that such tax debts are not dischargeable. The amount of taxes owed at the time that Griffith filed for bankruptcy in this case was close to $2. Inc. was incorporated. Assets from another corporation that he owned were transferred to NuWave. The assets transferred pursuant to the antenuptial agreement were insulated from being levied upon because assets held by tenants in the entirety cannot be levied upon without a judgment against both owners. The government argued that the tax debts were nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(1)(C). The bankruptcy court agreed. <U></U>Although there was no evasion with respect to the assessment of the tax. The court held that the phrase </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="507"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar2003/02-10716.opn.html">BONE V. COMMISSIONER (3/21/2003, NO. 02-10716)<BR></A><BR> The Tax Court concluded that the deductions were impermissible because the expenses benefitted the C corporations. Once the contracts were transferred. BACKGROUND</CENTER> </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="507"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar2003/02-10716.opn.html">BONE V. COMMISSIONER (3/21/2003, NO. 02-10716)<BR></A><BR> The Tax Court concluded that the deductions were impermissible because the expenses benefitted the C corporations. Once the contracts were transferred. BACKGROUND</CENTER> </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="507"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/01/97-6329.htm">97-6329 -- U.S. V. BOOS -- 01/14/1999<BR></A><BR> Gunwall both were convicted of one count of conspiracy to impede and injure officers of the United States from discharging the lawful duties of their offices. (3) he was selectively and vindictively prosecuted. (4) a $9000 fine imposed by the district court was inconsistent with his ability to pay. Gunwall appeals his convictions on four separate grounds: (1) he was vindictively prosecuted. (2) the district court should have excluded evidence of his affiliation with </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="507"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0093p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> James Thomas McBride was convicted of (1) presenting a false claim against the IRS. (2) various obstruction of justice and bankruptcy fraud charges based upon certain financial transactions he initiated that were related to a tax evasion case against his girlfriend. McBride seeks to overturn his conviction on the basis that his waiver of counsel was ineffective and because the evidence against him was allegedly insufficient. We AFFIRM the district court's determination that McBride effectively waived his right to counsel at all stages of the proceedings and that there was sufficient evidence to convict him on Counts 2 6. REVERSE McBride's conviction on Count 1 because there was insufficient evidence to support the verdict on that charge. Factual background Katina Kefalos was convicted by a jury. Kefalos was McBride's girlfriend. Kefalos fired the two attorneys David Axelrod and Terry Sherman who were appointed to represent her. McBride knew that his check would </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="507"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may99/97-4845.opn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge:</P> <P> This case raises the issue of whether certain tax debts are dischargeable in bankruptcy despite the debtor's efforts to evade payment of the taxes by transferring assets to his wife. The district court found that such tax debts are not dischargeable. The amount of taxes owed at the time that Griffith filed for bankruptcy in this case was close to $2. Inc. was incorporated. Assets from another corporation that he owned were transferred to NuWave. The assets transferred pursuant to the antenuptial agreement were insulated from being levied upon because assets held by tenants in the entirety cannot be levied upon without a judgment against both owners. The government argued that the tax debts were nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(1)(C). The bankruptcy court agreed. <U></U>Although there was no evasion with respect to the assessment of the tax. The court held that the phrase </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="506"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july97/96-2145.opa.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>In re Hillsborough Holdings Corp. United States Court of Appeals. Senior Circuit Judge:

The issue here is whether the district court correctly ruled that when a corporate debtor's fiscal tax year straddles the filing of a petition for Chapter 11 reorganization. The portion of the year's income tax attributable to income earned during the prepetition part of the year is not allowable as an administrative expense under section 503(b)(1)(B)(i) of the United States Bankruptcy Code. 11 U.S.C.

506 OPINION/ORDER
Will & Emery 600 Thirteenth Street. Venue is proper pursuant to I.R.C. We will affirm in part. Each of ACM's three partners was created as a subsidiary of a larger entity several days before ACM's formation. Southampton was incorporated under Delaware law on October 24. Kannex Corporation N.V. (
506 OPINION/ORDER
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > In re Hillsborough Holdings Corp. United States Court of Appeals. Senior Circuit Judge:

The issue here is whether the district court correctly ruled that when a corporate debtor's fiscal tax year straddles the filing of a petition for Chapter 11 reorganization. The portion of the year's income tax attributable to income earned during the prepetition part of the year is not allowable as an administrative expense under section 503(b)(1)(B)(i) of the United States Bankruptcy Code. 11 U.S.C.

506 OPINION/ORDER
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The relevant facts are largely undisputed. Tigrett II1 is a developer and promoter of restaurant and entertainment venues. He was chairman of the board of directors and chief executive officer of HOB Entertainment. It was in connection with his efforts to promote the House of Blues concept that Tigrett personally incurred the $5 million expense which is at the center of this litigation. His name is consistently spelled in the more conventional way. While the discrepancy is noted in appellant's brief at p. 1. He has not directly advised which version is correct and has not moved to correct the case caption. Appellant is referred to herein as
505 OPINION/ORDER
The Tax Court concluded that the deductions were impermissible because the expenses benefitted the C corporations. Once the contracts were transferred. I. BACKGROUND AJCS is an S corporation that was incorporated in 1987. AJCS was originally in the construction business. The income of a C corporation is subject to corporate tax and any distributions it makes to its shareholders will be subject to a second. Certain C corporations are permitted to elect to be S corporations. This corporate income is passed through to the S shareholders and taxed to them at their individual rates. AJCS was a calendar year taxpayer (i.e. The total income from a contract is recognized. The total costs of performance are deducted. In the taxable year in which the contract is completed.
505 OPINION/ORDER
All three argue the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support their convictions. Carl Woodman adds two other arguments that he was denied due process and a downward sentencing departure. That Carl Woodman was not denied due process. All three were convicted of conspiracy to defraud the United States. That a rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. A.
505 OPINION/ORDER
We unanimously agree that oral argument is not needed. The notice was sent The Honorable Thomas A. Sitting by designation. 1 by certified mail to Raft's post office box and the record contains a delivery notice from the postal service indicating that a certified letter was available to be picked up until October 8. The IRS Office of Appeals rejected Raft's request for a CDP hearing because his request was received more than 30 days after the issuance of the September 20. The IRS notified Raft that his request for relief from the levy was denied. The case was dismissed on the Commissioner's motion. With the Tax Court holding that the decision letter resolving Raft's equivalent hearing was not a notice of determination sufficient to confer jurisdiction 2 on the Tax Court under IRC section 6330. The instant case was filed on June 13. The district court further held that actual receipt of the notice of intent to levy was not a necessary predicate to start the 30 day period for requesting a CDP hearing. The district court's factual findings made in resolving a motion to dismiss are reviewed for clear error while its application of the law to the facts is reviewed de novo.
505 OPINION/ORDER
I. BACKGROUND & PROCEDURAL HISTORY This criminal case is before the court on appeal and cross appeal from judgments of conviction and sentence. Appellants are medical doctors: Kresock is a cardiologist and DePaoli is a dermatologist. Appellants' practice was to send their accountant copies of the corporate check stubs. Which were coded as
504 OPINION/ORDER
On which Maloof was a co obligor and guarantor. The S corporations
504 OPINION/ORDER
Two significant constitutional questions are presented for our review. The first is whether the government's use of acquitted codefendant Mercedes Travis. Who Voigt alleges was counsel to the Trust and to him personally. The second is whether the district court violated Voigt's Sixth Amendment right to counsel of choice when. We must decide whether those statutes require formal
502 OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge A civil investigation was commenced by the Internal Revenue Service (
502 OPINION/ORDER
The taxpayer maintains that it was not required to recognize the proceeds from the sale of goods as income in the year it received those proceeds because the funds were subject to a governmental blocking order and. It did not have unfettered discretion as to the funds. Reasoning that the Iraqi Sanctions Regulation then in place which prohibited the taxpayer from selling those goods either was in effect a confiscation or deprived the goods of any market value. One furnace (
502 AMERICAN AIRLINES V. U.S.

With him on the brief were Mary B. With her on the brief were Loretta C. We also affirm the judgment of the Court of Federal Claims on the issue whether American's per diem allowances qualify as a working condition fringe benefit because the court correctly held that they are not excludable under Internal Revenue Code (
502 OPINION/ORDER
Was on brief for the United States. With whom Terry Philip Segal and Burns & Levinson LLP were on brief for appellee. John Brennick was convicted of various offenses centered around his failure to pay over to the Treasury income and social security taxes withheld from his employees' paychecks. Arguing that the downward departure was error. I. John Brennick was the president and sole proprietor of a number of head injury treatment centers in Massachusetts. Others appear to have been supported living centers for head injured patients. The companies were a large and successful business venture. Employers like Brennick are required to withhold income taxes and social security taxes from employee paychecks on a periodic basis and to pay those amounts over to the Treasury. The Internal Revenue Service specifies the periods for which such withholding is required. Employers are required by law to deposit the withheld taxes into the Treasury within three days after the end of each such period. Are also required on a quarterly basis.
502 OPINION/ORDER
These kickbacks were routed through Catherine Jean Ronschke. Moses was able to meet the financial obligations of Sadies Place. Gaudelli and Ronschke were indicted for conspiring to defraud the United States by obstructing the lawful functions of the IRS. Moses was indicted for willfully filing a false personal income tax return. Concluding that some of the statements were admissible because they were against the declarant's penal interest. Others were admissible because they were made in furtherance of the conspiracy. He moved for a judgment of acquittal on the ground that there was insufficient evidence to convict him of willfully failing to file the Sadies Place returns. II A Moses's primary contention on appeal is that the district court erroneously admitted out of court statements made by Edmond Gaudelli. Were presented through the testimony of Michael Tutro. Gaudelli said on several occasions that he was
500 SCOTT V. ADMIN. COMM. OF ALLSTATE AGENTS PENSION PLAN

This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > Scott v. The amendments to the Plan were ineffective and therefore could not retroactively reduce benefits accrued after January 1. Were not followed. The amendments at issue were not retroactively effective to January 1. Was to eliminate perceived discrimination in favor of highly compensated employees. One of the most common instances of the discrimination Congress wanted to eliminate was the social security offset.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="500"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/04/012811P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This case is about the Fifth Amendment privilege against self incrimination as applied to documents. The IRS was conducting an investigation into his tax liability for 1996 and 1997. The matter was referred to a magistrate judge. The government opposed the motion and a hearing regarding the extent of the taxpayer's compliance was held on April 3. His response was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="500"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june97/95-3357.opa.html">SCOTT V. ADMIN. COMM. OF ALLSTATE AGENTS PENSION PLAN<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Scott v. The amendments to the Plan were ineffective and therefore could not retroactively reduce benefits accrued after January 1. Were not followed. The amendments at issue were not retroactively effective to January 1. Was to eliminate perceived discrimination in favor of highly compensated employees. One of the most common instances of the discrimination Congress wanted to eliminate was the social security offset.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="500"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0481n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Nortel's Tax Department was spread amongst several offices. Nortel's Tax Department was structured into three groups. Plaintiff was hired in 1999 as a Senior Tax Analyst to work in the Nashville office in the Sales and Use Tax group. The majority of Nortel's Sales and Use Tax work was performed in the Nashville office. The confirming letter stated that Plaintiff was being transferred to Raleigh to work for Nortel in his </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="499"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcU1VNXDAzLTQ4MjBfc28ucGRm/03-4820_so.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0476n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Defendant Larry Bullock was charged with one count of conspiracy to commit mail fraud. Claiming that there was insufficient evidence to sustain his conviction. Both men were charged with one count of conspiracy to commit mail fraud. Two counts of aiding and abetting mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 2.1 They were tried separately and convicted on all counts. The relevant facts of this case are as follows. The closing date was set for April 29. Bonnie Rayborn was listed as a co borrower. Bullock was responsible for submitting it. All of the loan documents sent to Wells Fargo 1 Rayborn was also charged with money laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1957. Bullock Page 3 were sent through Federal Express. Included in the loan package was a document verifying Rayborn's income and employment which was signed by Bullock. The Rayborns' adjusted gross income (AGI) in 2000 and 2001 was $84. Rayborn was required to re sign the documents that were part of his original loan package. This was done without his knowledge or assistance. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/974765.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: The instant case is an appeal by James Vincent Wells. Who was convicted of all twelve counts of an indictment in relation to mail fraud. Comptroller warrants are fraudulent financial instruments that. Virtually none of the warrants were being accepted.2 Persons attending a Freemen conference could acquire as many as five comptroller warrants for $100. Each was issued jointly to Wells and a third party payee. Schweitzer's usual practice was to send Wells comptroller warrants whose face values were twice the amount requested. 1 Evidence was introduced tending to show that some of the banks had difficulty determining that the documents were fraudulent. 2 There was evidence that two of the warrants were accepted by banks. 3 Soon after Wells returned to North Carolina. Wells sent cover letters along with the warrants to notify creditors that the warrants were intended to satisfy debts owed to them. Any additional funds were to be refunded to Wells. Liability was to extend for 99 years. Wells was notified by mail of a rejection. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-2489_011.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Claims that her sentence is otherwise unreasonable. The mechanics of the fraud were simple: Use W 2 Forms to overstate wages. 32 false returns were filed by 25 participants. Most of whom were close relatives and friends of Davis residing in the Milwaukee area. Davis was also a participant in the fraud. IRS agents learned that one of the ringleaders was known as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec98/97-6823.man.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The issue is one of characterization. The IRS contends that the plan impermissibly reclassifies the status of tax obligations and that the plan is. The appellees claim that the plan permissibly allocates priority of payments and is also feasible and in good faith. Haas was. He is an attorney who is a sole practitioner. His wife is employed full time in her husband's law office providing secretarial and clerical assistance. We will hereafter refer to them as the debtors. Virtually all of which was secured by notices of federal tax lien. 000 was for income taxes and $68. 000 was for employment taxes. Employment taxes (also referred to as trust fund taxes) refer to taxes the debtors were supposed to withhold for income taxes and social security. During the pendency of the bankruptcy the debtors were required to pay $1. 600 in pre petition accounts receivable were collected and held in a separate account. 600 is available to satisfy claims. 000 in bankruptcy estate assets.</P> <P> There are. Provides that claims secured by liens on property of the bankruptcy estate are secured claims only to the extent of the value of the collateral. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/03/986085P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This matter is comprised of three consolidated appeals. For which he was the sole shareholder. Wintz Properties was engaged in the property management of commercial real estate. The Debtor was comprised of five operating divisions and owned interests in the three parcels of real property which are at the heart of these appeals. Only one of the loans was made directly to the Debtor. The Terminal Road Property is divided into two parcels. The first of which consists of approximately 28.48 acres and is abstract property. The second of which consists of approximately 0.67 acres and is Torrens property. 2 1 The Debtor did. As the tax liens were filed with the Minnesota Secretary of State and also with Hennepin. The divisions were sold to companies variously owned by Wintz's children and their relations. The real estate interests were conveyed to Wintz Properties and subsequently. The Debtor leased the Rosemount Property to Wintz It is unclear from the record whether the Debtor's interest in the Terminal Road Property was also pledged as collateral for the aggregate debt. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec98/97-6823.man.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The issue is one of characterization. The IRS contends that the plan impermissibly reclassifies the status of tax obligations and that the plan is. The appellees claim that the plan permissibly allocates priority of payments and is also feasible and in good faith. Haas was. He is an attorney who is a sole practitioner. His wife is employed full time in her husband's law office providing secretarial and clerical assistance. We will hereafter refer to them as the debtors. Virtually all of which was secured by notices of federal tax lien. 000 was for income taxes and $68. 000 was for employment taxes. Employment taxes (also referred to as trust fund taxes) refer to taxes the debtors were supposed to withhold for income taxes and social security. During the pendency of the bankruptcy the debtors were required to pay $1. 600 in pre petition accounts receivable were collected and held in a separate account. 600 is available to satisfy claims. 000 in bankruptcy estate assets.</P> <P> There are. Provides that claims secured by liens on property of the bankruptcy estate are secured claims only to the extent of the value of the collateral. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="497"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/011305.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The IRS assessed additional gift taxes on the grounds that Armstrong undervalued the stock when the original gift taxes were paid. So </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="496"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/94opinions/94-5280a.html">PENN MTL LIFE INS CO V. USA<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="496"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0556n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because the district court did not err in concluding that Taxpayer was a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="496"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-5111.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were William H. With her on the brief were Eileen J. This loss was generated by Coltec's selling of high basis stock for a relatively low price. BACKGROUND I In 1996 Coltec was a publicly traded company with numerous subsidiaries. Which were a prerequisite for this type of transaction. Asbestos was widely used in the manufacture of a variety of products. Manufacturers and distributors of asbestos products have faced a flood of claims from workers and other individuals who subsequently suffered from asbestos related diseases. Coltec was at risk from the asbestos problem. Corporate veil piercing claims were not uncommon in asbestos cases. Has admitted that tax avoidance was one of its reasons for doing so. Coltec's first step was to rename one of its dormant subsidiaries. Coltec explicitly admits that Garrison's assumption of the asbestos liabilities was in exchange for the Stemco note. The $375 million amount was calculated to cover the estimated future asbestos liabilities of Garlock. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="496"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-5116.html">RHI HOLDINGS V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="496"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200308/02-1145a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="495"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-1335_014.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> In 1995 David Stinnett was diagnosed as suffering from depression and as a result has been collecting substantial monthly benefits from two different policies of long term disability insurance. The district court concluded that the disability payments are property of the bankruptcy estate. That Stinnett is entitled to an exemption of $6000 per month under Indiana law. Which we have consolidated for decision. We agree with the district court's conclusion that the disability payments are property of the bankruptcy estate and also that Stinnett is entitled to exempt only $6000 not 100% of the disability payments. Because the disability payments are property of the bankruptcy estate. I. Background David Stinnett worked for Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="495"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/004895.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. BREMNER OPINION PER CURIAM: Robert Bremner was convicted by a jury of four counts of willfully evading income taxes in violation of 26 U.S.C.A. § 7201 ( West 1989 & Supp. 2000). (4) the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions. Restrictions on the scope of crossexamination are within the sound discretion of the trial court. Or confusion of the issues or where the information sought is of marginal relevance. Bremner was allowed to question the agent at some length about his reasoning in determining Bremner's gross income. The district court then limited Bremner's continued cross examination regarding whether the income at issue was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="495"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1636.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Sylvestre is entitled to notice of a third party summons and may petition to quash such a summons. Sylvestre was given notice and did. The IRS must show that the investigation will be conducted pursuant to a legitimate purpose. That the information sought is not already within the Commissioner's possession. That the administrative steps required by the Code have been followed.... Enforcement of an IRS summons is precluded if a referral to the 1. Were different from those relating to the earlier summonses. Justice Department for criminal prosecution is in effect. 318 (1978). </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="495"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May1995/95a1053p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> District Judge: Appellant Dennis Felton was a tax examining assistant with the Automated Collection Service ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="493"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-1440.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. The district court concluded that the government had already produced the assessment records relating to Mr. (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. R. 36.3. <hr> Goodman's unpaid income taxes that the Internal Revenue Service was attempting to collect by levy. Goodman was entitled to receive a copy of the assessment records for amounts that the IRS was seeking to collect. For 1997 and 1998 and that the petition was therefore moot. Goodman argued that he was entitled to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="493"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-5157.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. The IRS determined that the Jibilians' claims were frivolous and disallowed the claims in May and June of 2004. The Court of Federal Claims dismissed those additional arguments as having no merit and also concluded that the court was barred from considering many of Mr. Jibilian asserts that he is not liable for federal income tax for 1999. Each of his arguments leads to the conclusion that the vast majority of citizens are exempt from federal income tax. Jibilian is liable for tax on that income. His arguments to the contrary are without merit. Jibilian argues that because his claims were dismissed. He was prevented from conducting discovery. While it is unclear whether Mr. We hold in any event that the argument is meritless. Jibilian has not shown why that presumption is overcome in this case. The dispositive facts in this case are that Mr. That he has shown no plausible reason why he is entitled to any refund of the taxes that he paid pursuant to his initial filings. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="493"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/10/046016P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Debtors learned that their federal tax liability resulting from the ESOP liquidation was $150. Were only able to pay $20. The first debt was valued at $ 297. 000 and the second debt was valued at $32. The record indicates that Debtors have no equity in the Residence. Debtors' monthly payment on the first mortgage is $2. Their combined net income as of the petition date was approximately $7. The basis of the UST's motion was its argument that because Debtors had sufficient disposable income to fund a Chapter 13 plan. Debtors countered by arguing that their purchase of the Residence was as an investment. 000 debt that was secured by the Residence was utilized for investment purposes and was not a consumer debt. 3 Accordingly. Debtors maintain that their debts were not primarily consumer debts as required by § 707(b). Debtors testified at the hearing on the UST's motion that the reason they liquidated the ESOP and invested the proceeds into the Residence was that they believed that the Residence was a better investment than the ESOP. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="493"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/02/02-9013.htm">02-9013 -- SHAFFER V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE -- 02/06/2003<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> <em><strong> </strong></em>Mr. Shaffer owes in taxes for the years 1985 through 1995 is not at issue here.<em><strong></strong></em> <p> <strong><em> </strong></em>On June 30. Shaffer timely requested a hearing by letter in which he again asserted his disability payments were tax exempt. Shaffer's underlying tax liability for the years in question was not at issue. Shaffer's property.<em> </em> <p> The requirements for a collection due process hearing are set out in 26 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="493"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/974342.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were tried by a jury for various offenses stemming from their involvement in a conspiracy to rig bids at real estate foreclosure auctions. Both Appellants were convicted of violating the Sherman Act. Romer was convicted of bank fraud. I. Appellants are real estate speculators who. The purpose of the conspiracy was to hold down the price of auctioned properties by agreeing not to bid against one another at auctions an activity commonly known as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="493"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-1697_019.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The issue is the interpretation of a sale and leaseback arrangement intended by Downey to generate a considerable tax savings for it. Both the sale and the lease specify that Illinois law is to govern any dispute arising from the contracts. 2 No. 05 1697 Comdisco. Downey is not in the computer business it is a savings and loan association but it happened to have large loss carryforwards from which it sought to reap a cash benefit by using them to offset taxable income. The problem was that the loss carryforwards were about to expire. There was no net tax benefit not yet. Anyway because the loss carryforwards merely offset taxable income that Downey would not have had but for the lease. As the owner of the computers Downey was entitled to depreciate them over their useful life. The loss carryforwards could not have been applied directly to future income because they were about to expire. For the sale and leaseback to accomplish this </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="492"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar2000/97-4845.ma2.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We AFFIRM the finding that Griffith's tax debts are nondischargeable.</P> <P><CENTER><EM>I. The amount of taxes owed at the time that Griffith filed for bankruptcy in this case was close to $2. Was incorporated. Assets from another corporation that he owned were transferred to NuWave. The assets transferred pursuant to the antenuptial agreement were insulated from being levied upon because assets held by tenants in the entirety cannot be levied upon without a judgment against both owners. The government argued that the tax debts were nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(1)(C). Although there was no evasion with respect to the assessment of the tax. The court held that the phrase </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="492"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar2000/97-4845.ma2.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We AFFIRM the finding that Griffith's tax debts are nondischargeable.</P> <P><CENTER><EM>I. The amount of taxes owed at the time that Griffith filed for bankruptcy in this case was close to $2. Was incorporated. Assets from another corporation that he owned were transferred to NuWave. The assets transferred pursuant to the antenuptial agreement were insulated from being levied upon because assets held by tenants in the entirety cannot be levied upon without a judgment against both owners. The government argued that the tax debts were nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(1)(C). Although there was no evasion with respect to the assessment of the tax. The court held that the phrase </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="492"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-1613.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> DeMallie & Lougee were on brief for appellants. DeMallie & Lougee were on brief for appellants. Were on brief Section Tax Division and David I. Were on brief for appellee. for appellee. A closely held corporation of which Ralph and his three brothers were the only individual shareholders. The IRS determined that the alleged loans were taxable as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="492"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/07-3204.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="491"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Jan2004/032754p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Who was an officer and the sole shareholder of Nu Look Design. The Notice further advised that the IRS had determined that Nu Look was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="490"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/oct2000/98-3562.ma2.html">UNITED STATES V. DOHERTY (10/27/2000, NO. 98-3562)<BR></A><BR> Diesel fuel used in vehicles traveling on public highways ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="490"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/981043.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> D.C. office space where his private law firm was located. He never informed Baybrook that the expenses were personal and therefore not properly payable with corporate funds. A taxpayer cannot be held to have committed civil tax fraud when the understatement of tax results from </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="490"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//oct2000/98-3562.ma2.html">UNITED STATES V. DOHERTY (10/27/2000, NO. 98-3562)<BR></A><BR> Diesel fuel used in vehicles traveling on public highways ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="490"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1702.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. The remaining issue of whether Stuart could be held liable for BBN's debt was then tried to a jury. Entities at Issue</STRONG></P> <P> Stuart is an experienced businessman who held interests in numerous operations. Local building contractor Thomas Sheridan was the trustee. Stuart's son Greg was originally the president of Combined Financial. The first of the four quarters involved in the suit.</P> <P> BBN was a Maynard Mall tenant. A new agreement was executed on March 5. Such as if BBN was fiscally imbalanced or mismanaged.</P> <P> Stuart became a signatory on BBN's bank account on November 22. Two signatures were required on any check for more than $250. All ten checks Stuart signed for more than $250 were countersigned by either O'Dell or Robert Minka. These returns were signed by O'Dell as BBN's president. Contending that the assessment for the second and third quarters of 1994 was invalid because the amounts of the tax liabilities for those quarters was estimated. The Government submitted Certificates of Assessments and Payments as proof that the assessments were presumptively valid. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="490"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0404p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> BACKGROUND Mas One is an Ohio limited partnership that was organized in 1986 with two partners. One was Mas One Generals. The other was Midland Mutual Life Insurance Company. The partnership agreement stipulated that gains and losses were to be generally allocated in proportion to each parties' ownership interest. Were to be allocated first to partners with negative balances. While any such losses were to be allocated first to partners with positive balances. The remainder of the loan was to be repaid in 1994. Two guaranty agreements were signed along with the promissory note. One agreement (the Principal Reduction Guaranty) stipulated that Midland would guarantee the $2.5 million substantial completion principal payment if it was not </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="490"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/11/97-5242.htm">97-5242 -- U.S. V. PROCTOR -- 11/23/1998<BR></A><BR> We affirm in part and reverse in part. <p align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="490"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C011973AF17D255C88256D190052D9C6/$file/0255090.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Socal's deed of trust was senior to the IRS's lien. Socal was the successful bidder on the Malibu property. Whichever is longer. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="489"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/19F4298821718589882571220083C50F/$file/0473237.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Concluding that Gwendolyn Ewing was entitled to relief under the so called equitable innocent spouse provision of the Internal Revenue Code ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="489"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=90-1174.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on brief for appellee. Sheldon Yefsky was convicted by a jury of a dual object conspiracy. The Greater Boston Police Council (GBPC) was formed in the early 1960s as a mutual aid society for various metropolitan area law enforcement agencies. A primary concern of the GBPC was the inability of the member police departments to communicate with each other by radio. Of which Yefsky is president. CES was awarded a bid contract of $31. Which was available at a discount through a GBPC collective purchase contract. BAPERN was fully operational. Coogan was. Were charged with numerous criminal violations stemming from their involvement in the BAPERN project. The first scheme charged was a conspiracy involving all four defendants (Count 1). The goals of the conspiracy were to pay Coogan kickbacks for sending engineering work to CES and to help him hide that income from the IRS. The kickbacks were the payments ITS made to Coogan. The government explained that the kickbacks were financed by charging GBPC members for engineering services that were unnecessary or never were performed or by overcharging for work actually done. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="489"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may95/94-8393.opa.html">ALLEN V. UNITED STATES<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Allen v. The district court concluded that the Commissioner's action was proper and denied the refund. We agree and AFFIRM.<p> I.<p> <p> The material facts are not in dispute. Allen was convicted for willful failure to file federal income tax returns under the former 26 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="489"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may95/94-8393.opa.html">ALLEN V. UNITED STATES<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Allen v. The district court concluded that the Commissioner's action was proper and denied the refund. We agree and AFFIRM.<p> I.<p> <p> The material facts are not in dispute. Allen was convicted for willful failure to file federal income tax returns under the former 26 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="489"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/03/99-1287.htm">99-1287 -- STAFFORD V. U.S. -- 03/28/2000<BR></A><BR> Requested temporary and permanent injunctions against the United States to protect his various properties from federal income tax liens.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="489"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-1047.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Department of Justice were on brief for appellee. Zanghi argues that there was insufficient evidence to convict him on the money laundering counts. That our review should thus ask if the evidence was sufficient to meet the higher standard set by the erroneous instruction. This unusual contention is important to the outcome of this appeal because the evidence met the lower statutory standard but would not have met the higher standard proposed by the instruction. Indian was not authorized by its articles of incorporation to issue preferred shares. Which was authorized to issue only 10. (Zanghi was the sole shareholder of Indian. He was ultimately arrested in New York City. Zanghi was convicted on all counts. The indictment alleged that these funds were the proceeds of securities fraud. [is subject to fine. Making it appear that the check was a repayment of a personal loan from Zanghi to Indian. Making it appear that the check was in repayment of a loan by Brazeau to Indian. The jury was required to find that Zanghi had (1) engaged in a financial transaction. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="487"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTUxNTEtYWdfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-5151-ag_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We hold that investment advice fees incurred by a trust are not fully deductible in calculating adjusted gross income for purposes of the Internal Revenue Code under 26 U.S.C. § 67(e)(1). Instead are deductible only to the extent that they exceed two percent of the trust's adjusted gross income pursuant to § 67(a). Because the remaining members of the Panel are in agreement. Circuit Judge: The question presented on this appeal is whether investment advice fees incurred by a trust are fully deductible in calculating adjusted gross income for purposes of the Internal Revenue Code ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="487"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcU1VNXDA1LTU3MDFfc28ucGRm/05-5701_so.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="487"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/59368B79630DA39988256F86006EE4A8/$file/0316112.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: The issue in this case is the effect of a conversion from Chapter 11 to Chapter 13 bankruptcy proceedings on the priority status of a postpetition. They stated that they no longer operated their long term care facility and were now employed by others. To reflect additional interest and penalties which had accrued while the estate was still proceeding under Chapter 11. The bankruptcy court agreed and held that a tax claim filed during the pendency of a Chapter 13 petition must be prioritized as if the claim had arisen prepetition because § 1305(b) states that claims for taxes filed under § 1305(a) are allowed or disalUnless otherwise indicated. The bankruptcy court noted that filing a proof of claim under § 1305 is voluntary. Therefore the IRS could have avoided application of § 1305 by not filing a claim after the conversion. The district court found that § 348(d) is the only section that addresses the issue of administrative expenses in a conversion from one Chapter to another and that § 1305 did not apply. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="486"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/CC950FBD081A2BEF88256B510061BAFF/$file/9970805.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Opinion by Judge McKeown *This case was argued telephonically. 1449 No. 99 70805 Tax Ct. Who are co executors of the estate (collectively. Are the Estate's coexecutors and its only beneficiaries. The value of these shares is one of the key areas of disagreement between the Estate and the Internal Revenue Service ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="486"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/feb2001/99-2289.man.html">PORTER V. OGDEN, NEWELL & WELCH (2/15/2001, NO. 99-2289)<BR></A><BR> Also appealed are an order of a magistrate judge denying the Trustees' motion to compel and an order of the magistrate judge permitting the Trustees to obtain financial worth documents. Boone Porter's ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="486"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-5028.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. BCW and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) settled a tax dispute by entering into the Closing Agreement that is now before this court. The details of the dispute resolved by the Closing Agreement are discussed in the Court of Federal Claims' opinion. The taxpayer was an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="486"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//feb2001/99-2289.man.html">PORTER V. OGDEN, NEWELL & WELCH (2/15/2001, NO. 99-2289)<BR></A><BR> Also appealed are an order of a magistrate judge denying the Trustees' motion to compel and an order of the magistrate judge permitting the Trustees to obtain financial worth documents. Boone Porter's ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="485"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Feb1996/96a1267p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Defendant Michael David Alston ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="485"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/12/02-9006.htm">02-9006 -- UMBACH V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE -- 12/11/2003<BR></A><BR> These cases are therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> In these appeals we decide whether taxpayers Eric N. Hold that the compensation is not excludable under either section. 117 T.C. 95 (2001). <p> <center>BACKGROUND</center> <p> The parties have stipulated to the facts. Johnston Island is located approximately 700 miles west southwest of Honolulu. It is part of the Johnston Atoll. 000 of their wage income was excludable from gross income under </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="485"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/01/99-7144.htm">99-7144 -- U.S. V. SATHER -- 01/11/2001<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Ronald Herloph Sather appeals from his convictions under 26 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="484"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/061425p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Farnsworth's trial for tax evasion was scheduled to begin. The Government immediately appealed and obtained a stay of the proceedings after a jury was selected but before it was sworn. Because we hold that we do not have jurisdiction and that a writ of mandamus is not appropriate. We will dismiss the Government's appeal. 2 I. Farnsworth's trial was scheduled to begin on Monday. The District Court discussed whether the indictment charged Farnsworth with both methods of tax evasion attempted evasion of the assessment of taxes and attempted evasion of the payment of taxes as well as whether proof of an assessment is necessary to prove attempted evasion of payment.1 The District Court sought additional briefing on these issues. Which was provided by both parties on Sunday. The day before the trial was to begin. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="484"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug97/96-6415.opa.html">MORRISON RESTAURANTS, INC. V. UNITED STATES<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Morrison Restaurants. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Morrison Restaurants and held that the assessment of the employer's share of FICA taxes on unreported tips in the aggregate was invalid because the taxes did not relate to individual employees. Tipping is customary and the employees receive a portion of the tips either directly or indirectly through tip sharing. Morrison Restaurants routinely informs its restaurant employees that they are required to report all tips. 124 in employer FICA taxes for unreported tips in 1990 and 1991.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="484"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2B29D419749909BD88256C1C0080EDA9/$file/0110458.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The main issue on appeal is whether venue existed in the District of Arizona. ABC was headquartered in Tucson. One account was under the name of ABC. The other was under American Insurance Group (AIG changed its name to Pace American Group in 1993). ABC was not aware that these accounts existed. The check did not clear because it was made payable to ABC. C. Count 81 Pace's 1992 tax returns were prepared by accountant John Patton ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="484"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/93opinions/93-7188a.html">BENNETT ENT INC V. DOMINO PIZZA INC<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="484"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug97/96-6415.opa.html">MORRISON RESTAURANTS, INC. V. UNITED STATES<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Morrison Restaurants. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Morrison Restaurants and held that the assessment of the employer's share of FICA taxes on unreported tips in the aggregate was invalid because the taxes did not relate to individual employees. Tipping is customary and the employees receive a portion of the tips either directly or indirectly through tip sharing. Morrison Restaurants routinely informs its restaurant employees that they are required to report all tips. 124 in employer FICA taxes for unreported tips in 1990 and 1991.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="483"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1567.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. Were on brief. The claims are Massachusetts state law claims and jurisdiction is premised on diversity. They allege that the plan was managed by MassMutual in violation of the contract underlying the plan. McAdams and Odom allege that MassMutual unlawfully assessed a tax charge against participants' deferred compensation earnings that was designed to fully offset the tax costs to MassMutual from running the plan. The charge assessed by MassMutual was. MassMutual admits that such a tax charge was assessed but argues that the contract allowed it and that the amount of the charge was reasonable.</P> <P> After discovery. These general agents were not classified as employees of MassMutual and in fact were closer to independent contractors than to employees for example. The plan at issue here was created in 1970. All of the related plaintiffs (whose claims in the putative class have been joined in this consolidated appeal) were general agents who deferred compensation under this plan. At least 117 general agents were participants in this plan at some point. </P> <P> The deferred compensation plan was created and advertised as a perk for the general agents. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="483"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-9005.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. As will be shown in detail below. The appellants' allegations are premised on misrepresentation or mischaracterization of the tax court record and misunderstanding of the legal principles at issue. 1976 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="483"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/06/951185P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. BACKGROUND The facts in this case are not in dispute. married since 1988. The O'Hagans have been The IRS appeals. Which is their principal place of residence. The O'Hagans have owned the homestead property at all times In during their marriage as joint tenants with a right of survivorship. 1988. O'Hagan has not been assessed any income tax liability and is not obligated to pay any part of her husband's taxes. Which sale was to occur on November Mrs. DISCUSSION The question before us is whether the district court has subject matter jurisdiction to enjoin the government from selling Mr. The primary purpose of the Act is to See The § facilitate the expeditious collection of taxes by the government. The Supreme Court held that federal courts have jurisdiction to hear cases brought by an allegedly delinquent taxpayer in which the collection or assessment of taxes would be enjoined because: (1) the government cannot prevail on the merits even if the facts and law are examined in the light most favorable to the government. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="483"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199906/98-1454a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Perla was on brief for the appellants. Were on brief for the appellee. Seek review of a Tax Court opinion holding that they were not entitled to deduct expenditures for water and soil conservation expenditures made for property located in Australia. On appeal the appellants argue that IRC s 175(c)(3)(A)(ii) requires that expenditures simply be consis tent with any state soil conservation plan regardless whether the taxpayer's property is located within the jurisdiction of the agency with whose plan its water and soil conservation expenditures are consistent. We disagree and hold that IRC s 175(c)(3)(A)(ii) requires that the plan apply to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="483"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1684.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Dempsey & Brodigan were on brief for appellant. Pincus were on brief for appellee. Circuit Judge. loan proceeds embezzled with intent to repay are taxable in the year of the embezzlement. Sharon was designated sole trustee and Ronald received title to all transferable Trust stock. Applicants must have owned (or contracted to buy) the property before the proper ty damage occurred. Webb was required to submit receipts evidencing payments for marina repairs. The diverted funds were not reported on Webb's 1978 federal income tax return. Webb was indicted by a federal grand jury on three counts of making false statements on an SBA loan application. See 26 U.S.C. 1The loan was personally guaranteed by Webb and one John McNamara. 3 7422(a). That evidence of Webb's intent to repay the embezzled SBA loan proceeds was immaterial as a matter of law. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="481"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/DF46457E24BF27D5882570930054FEF1/$file/0471325.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> CIR COUNSEL Petitioner appellant was represented by Robert E. Respondent appellee was represented by Eileen J. This is an appeal by Charlotte's Office Boutique. Were actually wages and that appellant was liable for employment taxes on those wages and penalties. Which was first raised before the Tax Court by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="480"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-5026.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. The deficiency was due in part to the IRS's unfavorable treatment of certain partnership income and losses reflected in the Riggles' form 1040. Because the jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims is limited to actions for the recovery of money damages or unlawful exactions. The Riggles argue that they were not required to pay the tax due before contesting the deficiency. Because prepayment was not required by the notice of deficiency. That argument is also incorrect. Which does have jurisdiction to consider tax disputes before the amount in dispute is remitted and a request for a refund is made. 26 U.S.C. § 6213. The Court of Federal Claims was also correct in holding that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the Riggles' due process violation claims. The due process clause of the Fifth Amendment is not a money mandating provision. They are left without legal recourse to contest the deficiency. Proceed in the Court of Federal Claims if the IRS denies that request. 05 5026 4 In their reply brief in this court the Riggles make additional arguments that were not made in their opening brief or in the Court of Federal Claims. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="480"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/may96/95-3108.wpd.html">FINLEY V. UNITED STATES<BR></A><BR> This case arises out of the United States' claim under 26 U.S.C. 6672 that Floyd Johnson was a responsible person who willfully failed to pay over payroll taxes and is therefore liable for </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="480"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcU1VNXDA0LTEzMjVfc28ucGRm/04-1325_so.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="479"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/02/99-3096.htm">99-3096 -- U.S. V. MOUNKES -- 02/22/2000<BR></A><BR> 000 transaction reporting requirement but did not comply because he was concerned that filling out the reports would lengthen his already lengthy workdays. <p> Mr. and Mrs. Mounkes reported that BMI's cash on hand was $1000 at the beginning and $296 at the end of the year. Mounkes testified that he had told Buss that certain land and jewelry he purchased were corporate assets. Arguing that the evidence of beginning on hand cash balances was insufficient to support a guilty verdict. It is sufficient for a reasonable jury to find the defendants guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. <u>United States v. Motions for new trial are disfavored. The Mounkeses argue that there was insufficient evidence to prove the first element. <p> To establish the first element. This </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="479"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19983562.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Diesel fuel used in vehicles traveling on public highways ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="479"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19983562.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Diesel fuel used in vehicles traveling on public highways ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="479"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19983562.MA2.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Diesel fuel used in vehicles traveling on public highways ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="479"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19944214.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was a prominent criminal He was indicted for. Defense lawyer in Florida. conspiracy to import and distribute marijuana and conspiracy to defraud the Internal Revenue Service ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="479"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19983562.OP2.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Diesel fuel used in vehicles traveling on public highways ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="478"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/08/063244P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Fifty Below is a Minnesota corporation that provides Internet marketing services and designs web pages. Was properly issued. The district court's review of a collection due process decision rendered by an appeals officer under section 6330 is limited to the administrative record before the appeals officer. Subject to exceptions that are not applicable here. Review of the administrative decision is markedly deferential: if the amount of tax owed is not in dispute. The courts so far have not established a test for deciding when the IRS has committed </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="478"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/062019np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will affirm the Tax Court's decision. Hattman was sent a notice of deficiency from the IRS which informed him of his tax deficiency and other penalties and additions imposed against him pursuant to 26 U.S.C. §§ 6651(a)(1) and 6654(a). Hattman filed a timely petition in the United States Tax Court contesting the IRS determinations on the theory that he was not subject to federal income taxation. Hattman asserted that he is a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="478"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0190p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> United States was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan. United States was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. Both lawsuits were certified as class actions and differ only in minor respects not relevant here. Were tenured public school teachers employed by the Dowagiac Union Public School District (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="477"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/07/042587P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was CEO of both companies. RCC was party to collective bargaining agreements with several unions. SSI was not party to any such agreements. Douglas Radtke's son Scott Radtke was vice president and minority owner of SSI. Michael Donohoe was a field operations manager with SSI. Whether to pay an employee with a cash check or through the normal payroll system was decided on a case by case basis after the work had been performed. She was promoted to chief financial officer in 1997. Galston testified at trial that she had believed at the time she worked for SSI that paying workers who were not </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="474"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=97-2437.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With whom Mann & Mitchell was on brief. Forrester and Sidley & Austin were on brief. This case presents a question of first impression in this circuit: Are a trial court's published findings of attorney misconduct. Notwithstanding that the monetary sanctions imposed by the court for that conduct have been nullified? Our sister circuits are divided on this important question. Are not appealable. The settlement proposal was coincident with the resolution of Tax Court proceedings involving the Arbitrage Management Partnerships (the partnerships). Because the parties were trying to settle the adversary action. ANALYSIS The threshold question in this matter is whether the bankruptcy judge's published findings of fact. Are appealable. There are no longer any monetary sanctions extant in this case. Both because they received insufficient process and because their conduct was not sanctionable. Having satisfied herself that they were supported by the record. Imposing sanctions against counsel is a serious matter. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="474"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/98opinions/98-5083.html">AMP V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> With him on the brief were Robert J. Of counsel was John D. With him on the brief were Loretta C. Cl. 172 (1998) (AMP I).1 The court held that AMP is not entitled to a redetermination of the foreign tax <p> credit claimed in its 1981 and 1982 tax returns for additional foreign taxes paid by its wholly owned Brazilian subsidiary. Because AMP is entitled to a foreign tax credit redetermination for such additional payments. We reverse.<p> BACKGROUND<p> AMP is a United States corporation which owned 100% of the stock of AMP do Brasil Conectores Eletricos E Eletronicos Limitada (AMP Brasil). AMP Brasil's taxable years at issue here are the twelve month periods ending January 2. AMP was required to file Brazilian tax returns for these years in February 1983 and February 1984. The Brazilian tax liability was payable in twelve monthly installments. Eleven of these installments were advance payments which commenced in March following the end of the tax year and which were equal to one twelfth of the company's prior year tax liability. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="474"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/00a0179p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We believe that the district court was correct in finding that this doctrine did not apply. Plaintiff won the Super Lotto Jackpot prize pool when the six numbers on one of the plaintiff's tickets were drawn. The prize pool for a cash option winner was worth $8. All of these funds are commingled. Plaintiffs' award was not placed in an irrevocable fund because it was subject to the claims of other lottery winners. They were each entitled to a fixed sum in that fund that was not subject to the rights of the other taxpayers. Plaintiffs' rights to the money in the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="474"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0188n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Despite repeated warnings from their financial advisers and the IRS that their activities were illegal. Karen Ouwenga was served with subpoenas requiring her to appear before a grand jury in Grand Rapids. To the courthouse claiming that the order was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="473"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/11/952289P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) filed an unsecured priority claim with the bankruptcy court for a reversion tax against Juvenile Shoe pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 4980.2 The IRS asserted that the assessment constitutes an excise tax and therefore is entitled to in the amount of $2.3 million remained. Juvenile Section 4980 defines an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="473"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1190.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: On page 19. Robinson & White was on brief. Was on brief. Was convicted of three counts of making false statements on his federal workers' compensation claims. He was acquitted on other charges. Including bankruptcy fraud.1 Edgar was sentenced to one year and one day plus two years of supervised release and was fined $5000. Workers' compensation fraud and insurance fraud was improper. As was the refusal to sever. He also argues that the issue of materiality of the alleged false statements should have been submitted to the jury under the rule established later in United States v. That denying him discovery was error. That the evidence was insufficient to convict in any event. Edgar argues that it was improper and harmful for the government to have 1. Saying the common allegation of fraud is too weak a thread to sew them all together. That the counts should have been severed. He was acquitted on the bankruptcy charge and we find no harm to him from its joinder with the other charges. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="472"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/feb96/94-4214.opa.html">RYAN V. UNITED STATES<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Ryan v. Was a prominent criminal defense lawyer in Florida. He was indicted for. He was convicted on two of the three counts pending against him and sentenced to a period of imprisonment which he served. In addition he was charged with providing </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="472"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-6186.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> It had neither paid the taxes it was disputing nor sought administrative relief before the Internal Revenue Service. Arguing that the judgment is void because the jurisdictional defect that existed when the suit began was incurable. Whether a district court had subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law that we review de novo. Were the only children of S. One of their businesses was Primco Management Company. An Oklahoma corporation whose stock was held equally by the brothers' revocable living trusts. Primco was the nerve center for the Goldmans' other businesses: it performed administrative services such as bookkeeping. The complaint and stipulation were amended as follows: 1. Goldman for the tax (1) The district court said that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="472"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/02/00-9002.htm">00-9002 -- HARMER V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE -- 02/16/2001<BR></A><BR> 7482 and affirm. <p> Section 7430 of the Internal Revenue Code provides in pertinent part that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="472"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//feb96/94-4214.opa.html">RYAN V. UNITED STATES<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Ryan v. Was a prominent criminal defense lawyer in Florida. He was indicted for. He was convicted on two of the three counts pending against him and sentenced to a period of imprisonment which he served. In addition he was charged with providing </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="471"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/12/97-9003.htm">97-9003 -- TWENTY MILE JOINT VENTURE, PND, LTD. V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE - - 12/27/1999<BR></A><BR> The primary individuals in the group of investors were Mr. Which is one of the Appellants in these matters. Is the Appellant in No. 97 9003. As was the case with Parker Properties. These details are unimportant to the issues presented in these appeals. We have ignored these intermediate entities and have referred to the investors as if they individually were partners of Parker Properties and Twenty Mile. <p> The parent company of Empire. Commercial was also influenced by the fact that the real estate market was on the decline. Commercial's goal was to receive as much cash as possible and to be indemnified from all continuing liabilities associated with the joint venture partnerships. It was willing to accept less than the outstanding balance of the loans in order to liquidate its interests and to avoid future liabilities associated with the projects. <p> In early 1988. 910.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="471"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0601E24B9193FD928825713A00014DF3/$file/0455838.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> NOVAK trict court held that such a garnishment was prohibited by ERISA's anti alienation provision. I The criminal information filed against Novak alleged that between 1995 and 1999 he transported certain valuable telephone boards in interstate commerce knowing that the boards were stolen. His then wife was employed by Nestle U.S.A. Novak was also charged with failing to report the income he received from selling the stolen telephone boards on his 1997 federal income tax returns. He earned pension benefits that were fully vested at the time of his plea. NOVAK 3177 The writ was issued pursuant to the garnishment provisions of the Federal Debt Collection Procedures Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="471"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Apr1996/96a1284p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Michigan bankruptcy petition was dismissed on August 26. [fn2] to which Taylor objected on the ground that the taxes at issue were not entitled to priority status because his petition in bankruptcy was filed more than three years after the due date of the relevant tax returns.[fn3] The IRS replied that the three year lookback period under 11 U.S.C. § 507(a)(7)(A)(i) was suspended during the pendency of Taylor's Michigan bankruptcy. The IRS's tax claims are no longer entitled to priority under § 507(a). Section 108(c) of the Bankruptcy Code suspends the limitations periods of certain nonbankruptcy statutes which create claims against a debtor in bankruptcy. 11 U.S.C. § 108(c).[fn6] Taylor urges that it is erroneous to apply § 108(c) and 26 U.S.C. § 6503(h)[fn7] to a concept other than collection or assessment and notes that § 507(a) solely addresses priority among claims. It would have done so explicitly. If a bankruptcy were dismissed. Those expenses yet unpaid would lose their priority status upon the debtor's subsequent filing of a second bankruptcy petition.[fn8] It is asserted that the government should enjoy no such advantage. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="471"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/AD1CE308F027099D88256C980079A699/$file/0110458.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The main issue on appeal is whether venue existed in the District of Arizona. ABC was headquartered in Tucson. One account was under the name of ABC. The other was under American Insurance Group (AIG changed its name to Pace American Group in 1993). ABC was not aware that these accounts existed. The check did not clear because it was made payable to ABC. This fax was sent on letterhead from ABC's Pasadena office. C. Count 81 Pace's 1992 tax returns were prepared by accountant John Patton ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="470"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june2000/99-12803.opn.html">CRAVEN V. UNITED STATES (6/19/2000, NO. 99-12803)<BR></A><BR> Linda had sued the Internal Revenue Service ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="470"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june2000/99-12803.opn.html">CRAVEN V. UNITED STATES (6/19/2000, NO. 99-12803)<BR></A><BR> Linda had sued the Internal Revenue Service ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="470"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/05/983648P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The decedent executed a will and a trust agreement. Article I of the will </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="467"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/041893np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Thorne McCarty and appellant Mary Lynne Robertson were married in the Republic of Fiji. McCarty stated that his and Robertson's marriage was null and void because the parties failed to understand the tax consequences of their marriage. The change in filing status resulted in tax liability that was $4. The Registrar General of Fiji responded to McCarty's letter and explained that McCarty's marriage to Robertson was legal under Fiji law. The reason given by the IRS for the disallowance was that McCarty could not change his filing status from joint to separate. The IRS further explained that McCarty's refund claim was denied because he did not prove that he was not legally married when he filed a joint tax return for 1997. McCarty was not satisfied with the IRS's explanations for the denial of his refund claim. 1 It appears that only McCarty filed a refund claim for the 1997 tax year. 2 In October 2007. The gravamen of the complaint was that the IRS violated section 3505 of the Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="467"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-4788_016.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The taxes are attributable to a spouse's income and an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="467"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1365.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> P.C. were on brief for appellants. Were on brief for appellee. From which it might have paid a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="466"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1916.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Tax liabilities had previously been assessed against Gardell for these years and the purpose of the summons was to determine the collectability of these liabilities. Gardell's contention that as a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="466"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0220n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Mark May was convicted of tax evasion for violating 26 U.S.C. § 7201 and willful failure to account for and pay over payroll taxes for violating 26 U.S.C. § 7202. The taxes May claimed to have withheld from his and his employees' paychecks remained in Maranatha's bank account. If the taxes are actually withheld from the employee's wages. May contends that the evidence at trial was insufficient to prove that federal income taxes were not actually withheld from his wages. He adds that because the evidence proves that the taxes were actually withheld. As proof that the taxes were actually withheld. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="466"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E6C74EBA1558CF09882570BC00779208/$file/0357052.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Eisenhower's fascinating written account of World War II is the subject of a more mundane. I was approached by representatives of various publishing houses. Are often inclined to use contemporary accounts as source materials . . . . Certain of these books on the African and European campaigns were riddled with inaccuracies. They contained conclusions that had slight basis in fact and were the hasty conceptions or mis 15370 TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX v. Who were functioning partners for the proposal. Pointed out errors in these publications and said that since these were written during my lifetime and were not denied or corrected by me. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="466"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/04/982104P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. During 1990 Larry Bergman was the president and owner of three S corporations: Advanced Flex. AFI was started in 1976. AF3 was established in 1989. AF3 manufactured flexible printed circuit boards and was never profitable. Bergman was advised that he would not be able to deduct all of AF3's losses on his personal income tax return because his basis in the corporation was insufficient. It appears that his sons owned additional non voting stock in AFI and AF2 but that there was no non voting stock in AF3. 2 1 increase his basis in an S corporation by adding capital or loaning money to it. When all the transactions were concluded. All of the December 20 checks were drawn on accounts maintained at Marquette Bank by Bergman and the two corporations. At the end of the day the same amount of funds was in each account as at the beginning of the day. Interest was accrued on the loan but not paid. Interest was also accrued on the AF2 loans and was eventually paid off in full in 1992. AF3's remaining debt to Bergman was $214. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="465"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2EFFDC8EDB9D01668825729C0052C35D/$file/0472672.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The opinion is withdrawn and a substituted opinion is filed concurrently with this order. The petition for rehearing is DENIED. When he was fired. UTA alleged that Polone was terminated for </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="464"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/05/01-9006.htm">01-9006 -- MADRID V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE -- 05/01/2002<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Taxpayers Henry and Juanita Madrid. The amount was $22. The offer was rejected and the Madrids' administrative appeal of that rejection was denied. <p> Subsequently. The Madrids contend that the stipulation was not enforceable because they withdrew their consent before entry of the Tax Court decision. <p> <center><strong>DISCUSSION</strong></center> <p> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="464"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/964666.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Gormley was indicted on one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 286 (West Supp. 1999) and nineteen counts of filing fraudulent claims in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 287 (West Supp. 1999). Gormley was convicted of the conspiracy charge and 16 counts of making fraudulent claims. Gormley is not an accountant and has no special training in the area of tax preparation. MDP was owned by Michael Pahutski. MDP Quick Tax was in the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="463"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-1266.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> P.C.</U> was on brief for appellant.</FONT> <P><FONT FACE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="463"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200410309.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We hold that property owned by a Chapter 13 bankruptcy debtor as tenancy by the entireties with a non debtor under Florida law is not part of the bankruptcy estate and therefore cannot be reached by creditors. It is exempt from bankruptcy administration under Section 522(b)(2)(B) of the Bankruptcy Code. Claiming that certain real estate property and household goods and furnishings held with his non debtor wife as tenants by the entireties under Florida law was exempt from his creditors pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 522(b). An interest as a tenant by the entirety or joint tenant to the extent that such interest as a tenant by the entirety or joint tenant is exempt from process under applicable nonbankruptcy law. 11 U.S.C. § 522(b)(2)(B). The nature of a bankrupt's interest in property is determined by state law. Each spouse is seized of the whole. . . . [W]hen property is held as a tenancy by the entireties. The property is not divisible on behalf of one spouse alone. The Supreme Court then examined the IRS's powers granted by 26 U.S.C. § 6321 to determine if the IRS may pull any of the individual right </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="463"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/022288.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Pfister ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="463"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1315.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> BACKGROUND This is the second appeal to this court in connection with the Hanleys' 1986 income taxes. Although the complaint is notably lacking in factual detail. The central allegation is that the IRS failed to process a partnership schedule attached to the Hanleys' 1986 tax return. It is barred by the Hanleys' failure to allege. Although there is no evidence in the record whether the IRS sent the Hanleys a notice of deficiency before assessing them $1. It is undisputed that the IRS at some point determined that an additional amount was due for that taxable year and sent the Hanleys a notice of deficiency in the amount of $1. It was after receiving this notice of deficiency in January 1990 for $1. Although the Hanleys contend that this pension is exempt from levy. Coast Guard Medal of Honor roll are exempt from levy. Appellants have never alleged that Keith Hanley has been entered on this honor roll or receives such a special pension. 3. The government argued that such a suit is barred by 26 U.S.C. 6512(a). </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="461"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-1021.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 1996 is corrected as follows: On page 5. Shaheen & Gordon were on brief for appellants. Were on brief for appellee. We hold that a sentence in a tax evasion case must be predicated on findings as to amounts that the government has proven were willfully evaded and that it is unlikely the requisite findings were made here. We also hold that there is no categorical imperative prohibiting the very consideration of whether a case is so unusual as to warrant a downward departure based on the loss of jobs to innocent employees occasioned by the imprisonment of the defendant owner of a small business. Who is president of the company. Olbres were indicted on three counts of criminal tax evasion related to the income tax returns they filed for the years 1986. From business customers that were deposited directly into a business savings account and not recorded in the cash receipts journal provided to the Olbres' accountant. Olbres conceded all the understatements but defended on the basis 3 3 that none were willful. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="461"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/EBAADF46C3462AFD8825718400562140/$file/0472672.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> When he was fired. UTA alleged that Polone was terminated for </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="461"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/002488.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Section 1 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="461"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/002488.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="460"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/011887.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Estate contends that the Tax Court should have applied a minority discount by discounting Godley's interest in the partnerships because he lacked control over them. Whether a minority discount is appropriate in a given situation is part of the larger factual question of valuation. Inasmuch as the Tax Court's valuation of Godley's interest was not clearly erroneous. The remaining fifty percent was owned by Godley's son Frank D. Were formed in 1978 and owned and operated housing projects for elderly tenants. Was formed in 1980 for the purpose of managing the operations of the Housing Partnerships. Housing Assistance payments are made to the Housing Partnerships to cover the difference between the rental rates agreed to under the HAP contracts and the portion of the rent paid by eligible families. Rocky Mount was thirty years and the term for Clinton was twenty years. Jr. was the managing partner for the Housing Partnerships. Jr. was the managing partner. Godley was actively involved in the Housing Partnerships. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="460"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200315328.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> D. This was followed by two notices of intent to levy to collect the penalty. The IRS determined that Barnett's 1997 tax return was frivolous and that the $500 penalty was properly assessed. Which was denied. Barnett does not dispute the district court's finding that her 1997 tax return was frivolous under 26 U.S.C. § 6702(a) or that the $500 penalty was properly assessed under 26 U.S.C. § 6671(a). Barnett argues that the IRS' notice and demand for payment was invalid because it did not conform to the requirements of Treasury Decision 1995­­dated 12 June 1914­­which required that a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="460"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/08/033559P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Arguing that the Internal Revenue Service would have applied the present version of § 1374 in determining his tax liability. The parties stipulated that the tax loss for restitution purposes was $125. Arguing that the government based his prosecution on the wrong version of § 1374 and therefore he is actually innocent and the victim of a Brady violation and entitled to withdraw his guilty plea. Tucker first argues that he is actually innocent of the offense because it was legally impossible to conspire to impede the collection of a non existent tax. That is. The essence of the charge was a conspiracy to avoid corporate level tax on the profitable sale of the Plantation Cable System. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="460"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/08/03-4286.htm">03-4286 -- LISTER V. U.S. -- 08/03/2004<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Plaintiffs LaMar and Gayle Lister. We affirm. <p> The facts of this case are fully and accurately set forth in the district court's order and we only briefly summarize them here. LaMar Lister filed tax returns for the years 1991 through 1995 and 1998 indicating that his wages were not income and advancing frivolous arguments as to why he was not liable for federal income taxes. Arguments that their wages were not income and that they were not liable for any federal income taxes. 1997 income tax returns were frivolous on their face. Concluded that plaintiffs' remaining claims were barred by a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Or the Anti Injunction Act. <p> We have reviewed the parties' briefs. The government's request for sanctions is DENIED. Mandate shall issue forthwith. <p> Entered for the Court <p> <a name= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="459"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/00a0020p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Recovery for personal injury is ordinarily not taxable under § 104(a)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code. The interest on the award is. There was no purpose to shift tax liability among members of a family. The assignees were the object of gifts and not subject to income taxation themselves if the income was taxed to their assignor or donor. Here the lawyer is taxed on the full amount of the payment. Under the government's theory both the lawyer and the client are taxable. The present transaction under scrutiny is more like a division of property than an assignment of income. Here the lawyer's income is the result of his own personal skill and judgment. The situation is no different from the transfer of a one third interest in real estate that is thereafter leased to a tenant. Both claimed that they should not have to include the assignment as income. The Supreme Court concluded that the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="458"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/mar96/95-6314.wpd.html">UNITED STATES V. GASSAWAY<BR></A><BR> The case therefore is ordered submitted without oral argument. If the offense was committed in order to facilitate evasion of a tax. The </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="458"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-2558.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Holding that Howard's non compliance with the bankruptcy court's order to file state tax returns by a specified date provided an adequate ground for the court to dismiss her Chapter 13 petition and renders moot the issue of whether Lexington's proof of claim was valid in the Chapter 13 proceeding.</SPAN></P> <UL> <LI><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="457"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/11/003958P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> MidAmerican claimed in that suit that it was being double taxed at the end of the year because the Commissioner incorrectly rejected its method of accounting. That it was entitled The Honorable Richard H. I. The Tax Court concluded that although MidAmerican's contention that it was being double taxed was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="457"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/02/981121P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Alternatively that he is entitled to a shareholder's deduction for the passthrough losses of M & L. Parrish is a doctor of psychiatry. Which during this period was promising to pay investors interest rates ranging from 24% to 520%. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="456"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-9002.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Tax Court upheld those (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case. The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <hr> assessments. There is no requirement to file an income tax return. As copies of 1040s from the relevant years were not included in the record for our review. It is therefore denied. The IRS determined that Pond had failed to report any income from 1995 to 2001 and was liable for penalties under 26 U.S.C. 6651(f). That finding is not challenged on appeal. Therefore he cannot be assessed penalties because he is protected by the Act's self help provision found at 44 U.S.C. 3512. He insists that 6012(a)(1) only requires the filing of a federal tax return when gross income equals or exceeds the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="455"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-2517.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Outboard Marine Corporation is in Chapter 7 bankruptcy. Among its holdings are the assets. In what is known as a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="455"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-4302_017.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service adopted the position that any such deductions had to be taken when the interest payments were actually made. We will sketch the relevant tax code sections and regulations1 because these provisions supply not only the frame. Corporations with gross receipts of more than $5 million are accrual basis taxpayers that must use the accrual method of accounting. A taxpayer must include income and deductions in the taxable year in which the income or liability is fixed and can be determined with </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="455"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/055334np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will affirm the Tax Court's decision. This figure was the amount of tax withheld by BNP Paribas. Hattman received a notice of deficiency from the IRS which informed him of his tax deficiency for 2001 and other penalties and additions which were imposed against him pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 6651(a)(1) and § 6662. Hattman stated that he is a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="455"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=97-1927.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Sullivan was on brief for appellant. Were on brief for appellee. Smith was acquitted of drug conspiracy and therefore forfeited no property. Smith was then tried for tax conspiracy. Evidence of drug trafficking was admitted in the tax conspiracy trial to demonstrate receipt of revenue that was not reported to the IRS. Smith was convicted and now appeals. Smith contends that the district court should have instructed the jury that failure to file tax returns was an insufficient basis upon which to convict him of tax conspiracy. I. Relevant Facts We have described the procedural background of this case before. The government's theory was that during this period Smith derived substantial income from distributing marijuana and had a tacit agreement with the others involved in the drug distribution activity not to report this income to the IRS. Testified that she had never seen evidence that he was involved in a drug conspiracy. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="454"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/Locator/3d/Jan2000/981482.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Green was president and chairman of the board of Fidelity America Financial Corporation and its three subsidiaries. The loans were used to start new limited partnership syndications. Which were not financially viable. During the years that Green's business scheme was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="454"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/oct2002/01-16536.opn.html">ESTATE OF ATKINSON V. COMMISSIONER (10/16/2002, NO. 01-16536)<BR></A><BR> The Tax Court held that no charitable deduction was allowable. Because the law is clear. Atkinson signed a will and created two trusts: the Melvine B. Any applicable estate taxes. </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="454"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//oct2002/01-16536.opn.html">ESTATE OF ATKINSON V. COMMISSIONER (10/16/2002, NO. 01-16536)<BR></A><BR> The Tax Court held that no charitable deduction was allowable. Because the law is clear. Atkinson signed a will and created two trusts: the Melvine B. Any applicable estate taxes. </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="454"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/063007p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We are asked to determine whether Internal Revenue Code ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="454"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-2124.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The cases are therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Was not required to pay taxes on the income derived from sources within the United States. Boyd final notices of (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. Boyd's appeal concerning that penalty is the subject of Appeal No. 04 2124. <hr> intent to levy and of the right to a collection due process hearing under 26 U.S.C. 6330.(2) Mr. He specifically argued that the requested collection due process hearing should have been held. That he should have been allowed to record it. Boyd argues that the tax court: (1) should have set aside the notice of determination for lack of a 6330 hearing. Show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that a decision may be rendered as a matter of law. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="453"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/09/043307P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Delano Koski was charged with four counts of mailing threatening communications. Contending that the district court1 abused its discretion by admitting evidence of a prior conviction for mailing threatening communications and that there was insufficient evidence for one of the counts of which he was convicted. In September 1978 he was audited by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). He has complained ever since that the IRS unlawfully taxed income and assets he did not have. Koski claims that the former girlfriend and her attorney sold the home without his permission after having him </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="453"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/03/971404P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because American State's failure to disclose a pending Internal Revenue Service (IRS) audit was material to First Dakota's decision to purchase American State's assets. Told American State's president that it was likely American State would receive a refund of approximately $25. This </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="453"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/05/01-4208.htm">01-4208 -- U.S. V. PRICE -- 05/16/2002<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Defendant Ellen Price pled guilty to two counts of aiding and assisting in the filing of false tax returns. She was sentenced. We affirm. <p> Price was employed by the Internal Revenue Service from 1976 to 1986 as a taxpayer service representative. She was convicted of soliciting a bribe from a . Taxpayer and was fired from the IRS. Arguing that her conduct was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="453"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/04/976088P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because we determine that 2 the bankruptcy court was without subject matter jurisdiction to determine the federal income tax liability for the 1990 through 1994 taxable years. The opinion below will be vacated. This Chapter 11 bankruptcy case was filed by the debtor on August 24. The taxes were based upon the additional $500. The debtor objected to the proof of claim on the basis that the funds were not income. An evidentiary hearing was held on the objection after which the bankruptcy court found. The IRS proof of claim was allowed in its entirety. That the debtor may have made restitution in subsequent tax years. No years were specified and the opinion does not indicate what tax years the Court believed would be in issue.1 Payments in the nature of restitution are deductible with respect to the tax years in which they are made. 26 U.S.C. § 165. He was entitled to claim a deductions of the amounts paid on his 1040 return for the 1991 taxable year. It appears that the delay was occasioned by settlement negotiations between the parties. 4 2 response objecting to the motion. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="453"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/02/02-60062.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> For essentially the same reasons as are set forth in the Tax Court's ruling. The court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. 865 miles were for business. Passenger automobiles are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="453"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1E84BB06CA720555882572A600811EB3/$file/0571894.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> District Judge: This is an appeal from a decision of the United States Tax Court upholding a tax deficiency determination of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="453"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/02/02-2087.htm">02-2087 -- MARCH V. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE -- 02/25/2003<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="452"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/10/953537P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The government was not liable in civil damages. Who were later granted </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="452"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F49EBF92F700915488256E66007A414B/$file/0310032.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Pang was charged in an information. He was sentenced to twenty four months imprisonment. Pang was asked about his businesses practices and records. The agents remained seated until the interview was completed. One of my functions is to investigate the possibility of criminal violations of the Internal Revenue laws and related offenses. Pang testified that he was never read his rights and that he was coerced into talking to the agents or induced into doing so by the agents' deceit and misrepresentations. He also claimed that he was particularly vulnerable to intimidation. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="452"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0768n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> A self described tax protestor who believes that income taxes are illegitimate. Beck was indicted on three counts of failure to file a tax return for the calendar years 1997. The case was assigned to Magistrate Judge Gregory Wehrman. Growse also opined that based on the many cases that he is required to supervise at the prison. Beck's conditions are not </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="452"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-5036.html">PRINCIPAL MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> Argued for defendant appellee.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="452"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA2LTAxMTItY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/06-0112-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The District Court granted Swede partial summary judgment on his claim under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="451"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sept1997/97a1705p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Whether the obligors on unmatured promissory notes can obtain declaratory relief against the obligees of those notes and have the notes declared void and unenforceable. Whether transactions involving investment securities are covered under section 9.2(a) of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade 2 Practices and Consumer Protection Law ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="450"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200116536.opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Tax Court held that no charitable deduction was allowable. Because the law is clear. Atkinson signed a will and created two trusts: the Melvine B. The Tax Court found that no annuity payments were ever actually made to Atkinson from the assets of the annuity trust. The estate continues to claim that checks 2 were sent to Atkinson. That Atkinson saw no need to cash them because her material needs were amply met by non trust assets. This claim is undercut by the fact that the estate produced no copies of these checks or the cover letters that supposedly accompanied the checks to Atkinson. The non charitable beneficiaries next in line to the annuity trust's assets were compelled to make an election. The estate was required to file its federal estate tax return. Found that the estate was not entitled to take any charitable deduction because the annuity trust failed to comply with certain statutory procedures applicable to the deductibility of charitable remainders. Which agreed with the IRS that a charitable deduction was not appropriate. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="450"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Dec2002a/013467.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Dishonoring the levy is not justified. He was its president and a director. He and his wife were its sole shareholders. Was also the 100% owner of our former customer. LIV was embroiled in litigation with the Virgin Islands Bureau of Internal Revenue ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="450"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/20689F25B17CA82988256AD20058CE7D/$file/9971369.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> At issue is the taxpayer's liability for attorneys' fees paid pursuant to court order approving the settlement of two class actions brought under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (the ADEA). Holding that such fees paid on the taxpayer's behalf are income to the taxpayer. FACTS In the 1980's James Sinyard was the division manager in Mobile. He was allegedly forced to resign. Winthrop & Weinstine will be paid one third (1/3) of the amount you obtain in the lawsuit. The suits were settled. The payment was to be made </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="450"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1E2F54076AAB649588256A53005D36A2/$file/9971518.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He argues that a 26 U.S.C. § 481 adjustment was improper because the IRS failed to describe § 481 as a basis for tax due in its notice of deficiency as required by 26 U.S.C. § 7522. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7482 and AFFIRM. I Emert is the sole shareholder and president of Addison Engineering. Determining after trial that AEI was required to use the accrual method of accounting. The parties are not in agreement as to the amount of the deficiency. In computing the taxpayer's taxable income for any taxable year (referred to in this section as the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="450"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-5016.html">WASHINGTON V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="450"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/DD6AB0C527B2573988256E5A00707CE8/$file/9971369.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> At issue is the taxpayer's liability for attorneys' fees paid pursuant to court order approving the settlement of two class actions brought under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (the ADEA). Holding that such fees paid on the taxpayer's behalf are income to the taxpayer. FACTS In the 1980's James Sinyard was the division manager in Mobile. He was allegedly forced to resign. Winthrop & Weinstine will be paid one third (1/3) of the amount you obtain in the lawsuit. The suits were settled. The payment was to be made </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="450"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F429E2BB705B194988256E5A00707B55/$file/9971518.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He argues that a 26 U.S.C. § 481 adjustment was improper because the IRS failed to describe § 481 as a basis for tax due in its notice of deficiency as required by 26 U.S.C. § 7522. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7482 and AFFIRM. I Emert is the sole shareholder and president of Addison Engineering. Determining after trial that AEI was required to use the accrual method of accounting. The parties are not in agreement as to the amount of the deficiency. In computing the taxpayer's taxable income for any taxable year (referred to in this section as the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="448"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may2002/01-15648.opn.html">MCDONALD V. S. FARM BUREAU LIFE INS. CO. (5/13/2002, NO. 01-15648)<BR></A><BR> Because FICA is silent as to whether an employee can sue his employer for the proper payment of FICA taxes. We conclude that the district court properly dismissed McDonald's action and therefore affirm.</SPAN></P> <P ALIGN= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="448"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/dec95/94-4169.html">FOUTZ V. UNITED STATES<BR></A><BR> The sole issue on appeal is whether the district court erred in finding that 1990 amendments to the statute of limitations on collections. I The facts are fully set out in the district court's published decision. Only if the levy is made or the proceeding begun (1) within 6 years after the assessment of the tax. Shortly before the six year limitations period would have expired. 303.93 of which she sought to have refunded to her in the instant suit. Taxpayer's argument was. Is. That the six years and the agreed upon extension period having both expired the levy was untimely and barred by the statute of limitations. The levy was made within ten years after the assessment of the tax. The collection was timely. Is a question of law. If </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="448"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3311B758B7A8A283882572B100560C0D/$file/0530215.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> They contend that the district court erred in four ways: (1) by allowing expert testimony that certain financial transactions were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="448"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1027.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Who are employees of Haggert's employer. Alleging that Haggert was challenging the levy procedure established in the Internal Revenue Code and that the court therefore had federal question 1. When he unsuccessfully attempted to have them sign a receipt for the complaint. When the summons and complaint were served together on appellees as required under Maine R. 1993 (the record does not show when the answer was filed). We conclude that their answer was timely. Claiming that they were required by law to comply with the notice of levy and that they were immune from being sued by Haggert for their compliance. Haggert filed a motion for remand on the ground that the appellees' notice of removal was untimely.2 In affidavits. Of a copy of the initial pleading setting forth the claim for relief upon which such action or proceeding is based. They claimed that their notice of removal on September 24 was timely. Discussion We need not determine whether it is proper service or receipt of the complaint that triggers the removal period under section 1446(b). </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="448"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/12/061201P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The transfer was not a bona fide sale for consideration. When Edna was sixty eight and Austin seventy nine years old. The Korbys filed gift tax returns in 1995 claiming a discount of 43.61% on the book value of each gift because the limited partnership interests were minority interests. Their transfer was restricted. In February 1993 when she was diagnosed with severe Alzheimer's dementia. Were intended to pay for the limited partners' income taxes.3 Edna Korby died on July 3. Rejecting the claim that payments from KPLP to the living trust were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="448"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may2002/01-15648.opn.html">MCDONALD V. S. FARM BUREAU LIFE INS. CO. (5/13/2002, NO. 01-15648)<BR></A><BR> Because FICA is silent as to whether an employee can sue his employer for the proper payment of FICA taxes. We conclude that the district court properly dismissed McDonald's action and therefore affirm.</SPAN></P> <P ALIGN= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="448"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C4B287CF80E85E5288257348005755CD/$file/0576004.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> California courts have recognized that an employee spouse like John might attempt to defeat a nonemployee spouse's community interest in a pension by continuing to work. Julie was not required to await John's actual retirement and instead demanded monthly payments in lieu of her community pension interest pursuant to In re Marriage of Gillmore. We must decide whether John was entitled to reduce his taxable income by the amount paid over to Julie in 2000.1 We conclude that he was not and reverse the Tax Court's contrary holding. Were divorced on August 19. John was employed by the Los Angeles Police Department ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="447"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-2180.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Hardman were on brief for petitioner. Were on brief for respondent. In the spotlight is Section 104(a)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="447"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0448p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This complicated case involves a merger agreement in which Fifth Third guaranteed that the participants in Suburban Bancorporation's pre merger employee benefit plan would receive funds from Fifth Third's general assets if certain conditions were met. Hutchison and other members of the proposed class were participants in the ESOP. Because Suburban and Fifth Third were concerned about the tax implications associated with distributing ESOP funds prematurely. The meaning of which is in dispute. Employee Stock Ownership Plan ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="446"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/052307np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will affirm the Order of the District Court.1 I. The Mollos filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition that was later converted to Chapter 7. No timely objection to the exemptions was filed and the property at issue became exempt as a matter of law. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="446"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200117249op2.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We now remand the case to the Tax Court with the following instructions: (1) The </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="445"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/042679np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have plenary review over the Tax Court's findings of law. The parties have stipulated to the key facts of this case. Which was owned and primarily operated by Charles N. Investors were told that CNC used their money to purchase food products each month for resale to food wholesalers and supermarket chains. Who were told that the distributions constituted one half of the company's profits. CNC was a Ponzi scheme. The IRS may seek a penalty for fraudulent underpayment of 3 taxes </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="445"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-1109.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief was Tina Potuto Kimble. With him on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel on the brief was Jeffrey Kahn. The pertinent statutory scheme operates as follows: A group of producers of a particular agricultural commodity who feel they have been adversely affected by imports of agricultural products are entitled to file a petition with the Secretary of Agriculture seeking certification of eligibility for adjustment assistance. The Secretary is required to certify the commodity producers for adjustment assistance if the Secretary determines (1) that the national average price for the particular commodity in the most recent marketing year is less than 80 percent of the national average price for that commodity for the five previous years and (2) that increases in imports of that commodity or of goods directly competitive with it have contributed importantly to the price decline. 19 U.S.C. § 2401a(c). In the event a producer group is certified. Any individual producer covered by that group certification is eligible for certain non monetary benefits. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="445"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/00/00-4004.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because we agree that the conveyance was indeed fraudulent. Herbert Engh (we need not refer to Carol any more as she is just in this case for the ride) bought into the tax protest movement. Including an assertion that the federal tax on income is unconstitutional. Although his pilot's salary was in the neighborhood of $100. It was in this climate that Engh created an Illinois land trust which he called </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="445"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200512/04-5421a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the briefs were Eileen J. With her on the brief were Shane T. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="444"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/002247.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Line 12 the reference to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="443"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/98opinions/98-5563a.html">AMERICAN SOCIETY OF ASSOCIATION EXECUTIVES V. USA<BR></A><BR> With her on </p> <p>the briefs were Bruce J. With him on the brief were </p> <p>Loretta C. A tax exempt organization that en </p> <p>gages in lobbying activities and is funded in part by member </p> <p>ship dues and other contributions may either pay a tax on its </p> <p>lobbying activities (the so called ". Falls on all lobbying expenses as defined in s 162(e)(1) </p> <p>and is imposed at the highest marginal rate of the corporate </p> <p>income tax under I.R.C. s 11. It is required to provide donors. Of the portion of the dues </p> <p>or contributions that is allocable to s 162(e)(1) expenditures. </p> <p> . Donors are not allowed to take a </p> <p>deduction for the portion of their dues and contributions </p> <p>allocable to such expenditures. This provision dic </p> <p>tates that lobbying expenditures will be considered paid out </p> <p>of membership dues or ". Thereby artificially increasing the deductions </p> <p>for which its members are eligible). Provision </p> <p>dictates that any lobbying expenditures in excess of the dues </p> <p>or other amounts paid to the organization in one year will be </p> <p>treated as expenditures incurred during the following year </p> <p>and payable out of dues received during that year. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="443"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199911/98-5563a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the briefs were Bruce J. With him on the brief were Loretta C. A tax exempt organization that en gages in lobbying activities and is funded in part by member ship dues and other contributions may either pay a tax on its lobbying activities (the so called </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="443"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-2066.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Inc. were on brief for petitioners. Were on brief for respondent. 000 settlement recovery in a tort based action for personal injuries is subject to federal income tax as statutory prejudgment interest. Without deciding whether prejudgment interest is ever excludable as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="442"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-4091.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> David Cardon and Noel Vallejo entered into a (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. Their partnership was governed by the United Education Centers Partnership Agreement ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="442"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Dec2003/02338