Court Procedure Matters Archives | Page 12 of 37

Court Procedure Matters

Recent Developments in US Federal Income Tax Litigation

by McDermott Will & Emery | Jul 12, 2018 | Appellate Courts, Court Procedure Matters, Trial Courts, Uncategorized

Presented below is a roundup of significant tax cases from the last month.

Tax Court

Van Lanes Recreation Center Corp. v. Commissioner, TC Memo. 2018-92 (June 26, 2018): Judge Paris determined the IRS abused its discretion when the agency revoked a prior favorable determination letter regarding the status of the taxpayer’s employee stock ownership plan under Code section 401(a). The opinion can be found here.
Endeavor Partners Fund, LLC v. Commissioner, TC Memo. 2018-96 (June 28, 2018): In Endeavor, Judge Lauber added to the list of decisions disallowing partnership losses due to lack of economic substance. Penalties were avoided, despite an assessment by the Court that “the partnerships’ conduct is plainly deserving” since the IRS failed to secure supervisory approval of the penalties prior to issuance of the FPAAs as required by Code section 6751(b)(1).
- For prior Tax Controversy 360 commentary on the issue of supervisory approval in penalty cases please see: IRS Required to Obtain Supervisory Approval to Assert Penalties and Graev v. Commissioner: Tax Court Divided on Penalty Procedural Rules.
Donald Guess v. Commissioner, TC. Memo 2018-97 (June 28, 2018): Judge Jacobs removed the guesswork from the statute of limitations questions in Guess, finding that the clearly established elements of fraud warranted an exception to the three-year limitations period, opening the door for assessments and penalties. The fraudulent activity was related to the 2001 and 2002 tax years. The taxpayer was previously convicted of two counts of filing false tax returns for those years.

Federal District Court

Scott Logan v. United States, 2:18-cv-00099-JES-MRM (M.D. Fla. June 21, 2018): The US Attorney’s Office in the Middle District of Florida recently invoked the variance doctrine to gain dismissal of two counts in an individual’s attempt to secure a refund of a $2.5 million gross valuation misstatement penalty previously assessed against him. The judgment can be found here: Logan v. United States; No. 2:18-cv-00099.

Appellate Court

Alpenglow Botanicals, LLC v. United States, No. 17-1223 (10th Cir. July 3, 2018): The Tenth Circuit confirmed a finding that the IRS has the authority to determine if a taxpayer is engaged in trafficking of a controlled substances for purposes of denying related deductions under Code section 280E. Owners of a medical marijuana dispensary were denied refund claims that would have resulted if the expense deductions were allowed.
Hohman v. Eadie, et al, No. 17-1869 (6th Cir. 2018): The Sixth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of claims challenging John Doe summonses seeking certain financial information for individuals and related LLCs, holding the claims are barred by sovereign immunity.

Supreme Court Justice Kennedy Retires in Wake of Wayfair

by Kevin Hall and Kevin Spencer | Jun 28, 2018 | Appellate Courts, Court Procedure Matters, Trial Courts, Uncategorized

On June 27, Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement, effective July 31, 2018. This announcement follows last week’s 5-4 decision in South Dakota v. Wayfair, authored by Justice Kennedy, which reversed the physical presence requirement originally established in National Bellas Hess and reaffirmed in Quill. Other important tax (and tax-related) cases have decided by the Supreme Court during Justice Kennedy’s tenure include: Commissioner v. Clark, 489 US 726 (1989); United States v. Goodyear, 493 US 132 (1989); Commissioner v. Soliman, 506 US 168 (1993); Commissioner v. Banks, 543 US 426 (2005); United States v. Home Concrete & Supply, LLC, 566 US 478 (2012); Obergefell v. Hodges, Sup. Ct. Dkt. No. 14-566 (2015); and Pereira v. Sessions, No. 17-459 (2018).

Justice Kennedy was appointed by President Ronald Reagan, and sworn in on February 18, 1988. He won unanimous confirmation. Although considered a conservative jurist, he was also the swing vote in favor of various social issues including same-sex marriage and the right to seek an abortion.

President Trump has already begun the search for Justice Kennedy’s replacement, but confirmation of the president’s nomination will not come without a serious fight. Indeed, whomever President Trump nominates, we can expect the same level of bipartisan animosity for the confirmation hearings as has marred his presidency thus far. Of course, any confirmation will require the Senate’s approval, and given the erosion of a conservative majority in the Senate, confirmation will be no small feat!

Don’t File Fraudulent Returns Because Amending Them Will Not Help

by Kevin Hall, Kevin Spencer and McDermott Will & Schulte | Jun 22, 2018 | Court Procedure Matters, IRS Guidance, Trial Courts, Uncategorized

The US Tax Court (Tax Court), in a short opinion, provided a reminder to taxpayers that penalties for filing fraudulent returns cannot be avoided by subsequently filing amended returns. In Gaskin v. Commissioner, TC Memo 2018-89, the taxpayer admitted his original returns were fraudulent. While under criminal investigation, he attempted to cure the fraudulent filings by filing amended returns, reporting more than $100,000 of additional tax. Ultimately, the tax due exceeded the amount reported on the amended returns.

Despite admitting his original fraud, the taxpayer argued that the fraud penalty did not apply because the tax due only modestly exceeded the tax reported on his amended returns. The Tax Court disagreed. Relying on the regulations and Supreme Court precedent, the court held that the amount of the underpayment and the fraudulent intent are both determined by reference to original—not amended—returns. It therefore upheld imposition of the fraud penalty.

Practice Point: Don’t file fraudulent returns! All joking aside, this case reminds us that although filing an amended return can cure some infirmities on your return, you have to be very careful in choosing whether to amend a return. As long as you did your best to accurately calculate your tax due on your original return, you are not required to amend that return if you later find out you were wrong. This is true even if the statute of limitations is still open. Indeed, there is no requirement to amend a return. However, there may be reasons to file an amended return; for example, if you know that you will need to base a future return’s position on a previous return’s position (e.g., the amount of earnings and profits stated on the return). Taxpayers need to be mindful, however, that if you amend your return, it must be accurate to the best of your knowledge when you sign it as to all items and any other errors discovered after the original return was filed must also be corrected. Accordingly, you cannot amend only the favorable positions discovered after you filed your original return.

SOL and the 1603 Cash Grant – File Now or Forever Hold Your Peace

by Kevin Spencer, Natalie Colvin and Philip Tingle | May 10, 2018 | Appellate Courts, Court Procedure Matters, Tax Refunds, Uncategorized

Taxpayers are running out of time to file refund claims against the government. If the government reduced or denied your Section 1603 cash grant, you can file suit in the Court of Federal Claims against the government to reclaim your lost grant money. Don’t worry, you will not be alone. There are numerous taxpayers lining up actions against the government and seeking refunds from this mismanaged renewable energy incentive program. Indeed, the government lost in round one of Alta Wind I Owner-Lessor C. v. United States, 128 Fed. Cl. 702 (2016). In that case, the trial court awarded the plaintiffs more than $206 million in damages ruling that the government unreasonably reduced their Section 1603 cash grants.

Access the full article.

Tax Court Judge Holmes Reappointed

by Kevin Spencer and McDermott Will & Schulte | Apr 25, 2018 | Court Procedure Matters, Trial Courts, Uncategorized

In a press release on April 24, 2018, the White House stated that President Trump has reappointed Tax Court Judge Mark Holmes for a second 15-year term. Judge Holmes was originally appointed by President George W. Bush on June 30, 2003, for a term ending June 29, 2018. Instead of seeking “senior status” on the Tax Court, Judge Holmes sought to be reappointed for a second term.

Corporate Tax Newsletter: Are Changes Looming Over Tax Court’s Procedure Rules?

by Kevin Spencer and McDermott Will & Schulte | Apr 16, 2018 | Court Procedure Matters, Trial Courts, Uncategorized

Our recent post on potential changes to the Tax Court’s procedure rules has been republished in the Corporate Tax Newsletter – USA by The International Law Office. See here for the article.

Are Changes Looming over the Tax Court’s Procedure Rules?

by Kevin Spencer and McDermott Will & Schulte | Apr 3, 2018 | Court Procedure Matters, Trial Courts, Uncategorized

Tax controversy practitioners are undoubtedly aware of the gradual movement over the years to conform certain Tax Court procedure rules (Tax Court Rules) to those of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In many ways, this makes sense to ensure uniformity of tax cases regardless of whether a taxpayer litigates his tax dispute in a refund forum in the US District Court or the US Court of Federal Claims, or prior to payment of tax in the Tax Court. Below we note a few important areas of divergence between the different rules, and point out situations where the Tax Court Rules do not address a particular matter. These matters were discussed at the recent Tax Court Judicial Conference held in Chicago last week.

Amicus Briefs

As we have discussed before, amicus briefs are not uncommon in other courts. However, the Tax Court does not have specific rules on the topic and, instead, permits each judge to decide a case-by-case basis whether to permit the filing of an amicus brief. Although the Tax Court has discussed standards for filing amicus briefs in unpublished orders, given the nationwide importance of many issues that arise in Tax Court litigation, it may be time for the court to issue specific rules addressing the issue. (more…)

The Fifth Circuit Puts an End to the Madness with its March Opinion

by McDermott Will & Emery and McDermott Will & Schulte | Mar 21, 2018 | Appellate Courts, Court Procedure Matters, Trial Courts, Uncategorized

We have all heard the famous quote about doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit applied this concept in its March 8 opinion in Annamalai v. Comm’r, No. 17-60255. There, the issue was whether the taxpayers could extend into perpetuity the 90-day deadline to file an appeal by filing successive motions to vacate a Tax Court decision. Under the facts presented, the answer was no.

Taxpayers have 90 days after a decision of the Tax Court to file an appeal. If a party makes a timely motion to vacate or revise the Tax Court’s decision, the 90 days runs from the later of either entry of the order disposing the motion or entry of a new decision.

In Annamalai, the taxpayers filed successive motions to vacate a Tax Court decision. After the Tax Court entered a final decision in favor of the government, the taxpayers unsuccessfully moved to vacate the decision. Rather than filing a notice of appeal within 90 days after the denial, the taxpayers filed another motion to vacate that did not raise any substantially new grounds or arguments. After the Tax Court denied the second motion, the taxpayers filed the notice of appeal. The notice of appeal was filed 117 days after the ruling on the first motion and 83 days after the ruling on the second motion.

The Fifth Circuit dismissed the taxpayers’ appeal, which it noted involved a jurisdictional issue of first impression. The court agreed with the general principle that tolling motions may not be tacked together to perpetuate the prescribed time for appeal. As such, the 90-day period ran from the ruling on the first motion, and the appeal was thereby untimely and dismissed.

The Fifth Circuit declined to address the issue of whether a second motion to vacate on substantially different grounds and new arguments would be acceptable. The court noted that it is acceptable in the civil context, suggesting it may be permitted.

Practice Point: Absent intervening events such as new case law directly on point, motions to vacate or reconsider are rarely granted in tax cases. Indeed, filing a motion to vacate or reconsider may provide an opportunity for the court to bolster its prior opinion and lessen the chances of success on appeal. In a situation where a motion to vacate or reconsider is pursued, taxpayers should take care to ensure that all arguments supporting such a motion are properly placed before the court and that an appeal is filed within the statutory-prescribed period if the motion is denied.

Law360: US District Court To French Tax Authorities: Pas De Probleme

by Kevin Spencer and Robin L. Greenhouse | Mar 15, 2018 | Court Procedure Matters, IRS Guidance, Trial Courts, Uncategorized

Robin Greenhouse and Kevin Spencer recently authored, “US District Court To French Tax Authorities: Pas De Probleme” for Law360. The article discusses a case involving IRS summons and taxpayers’ rights in context of the US-France Treaty.

Read the full coverage on Law360.

White House Intends to Nominate Michael J. Desmond to High-Level Roles in the IRS and the Department of Treasury

by Kevin Spencer, Macdonald Norman and McDermott Will & Schulte | Mar 5, 2018 | Court Procedure Matters, IRS Guidance, Trial Courts, Uncategorized

The White House announced on March 2 that the president intends to nominate Michael J. Desmond, a prominent tax lawyer, to be the Chief Counsel for the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and Assistant General Counsel in the Department of Treasury. Subject to approval by the Senate, Mr. Desmond’s new roles will entail providing legal guidance and interpretive advice to taxpayers, the IRS, and the Department of Treasury.

Mr. Desmond clerked for Judge Ronald S.W. Lew of the United States District Court from 1994 until 1995. Mr. Desmond went on to serve as a trial attorney for the Department of Justice Tax Division and as tax legislative counsel for the Department of Treasury’s Office of Tax Policy. After leaving the public sector, Mr. Desmond became a partner with Bingham McCutchen LLP in the Washington, DC office until he opened the Law Offices of Michael J. Desmond in 2012. While operating his own practice, Mr. Desmond has represented clients at every stage of the tax controversy process. He has been a frequent author and speaker on tax topics. More information about Mr. Desmond can be found at his firm’s website.

Mr. Desmond is a very well-known and respected tax practitioner. He is a fixture in the tax community. We congratulate him on his nomination.