Case Summaries

Tax Law

[01/24] TIFD III-E, Inc. v. US
In a suit by a taxpayer partner challenging IRS notices of adjustment reallocating a large percentage of the partnership's income for the years 1993 to 1998 to the taxpayer away from two Dutch banks that had purchased an interest in the partnership, and imposing a penalty for underpayment, the district court's judgment in favor of the taxpayer is reversed, where: 1) the banks' interest was not a capital interest for purposes of qualifying them as partners within the meaning of IRC section 704(e)(1); and 2) the taxpayer failed to point to substantial authority supporting its position, so that the government was entitled to impose a penalty on the taxpayer for substantial understatement of income.

[01/23] Goldman v. California Franchise Tax Board
In a suit seeking a refund of interest a husband and wife paid in 2004 on a state income tax deficiency for the 2000 tax year, the trial court's denial of the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and grant of summary judgment for the Franchise Tax Board (FTB) is affirmed, where under Revenue and Taxation Code section 19116(e) the interest on the amount paid with their return was not suspended because they were obligated to report federal tax adjustments to the FTB under Revenue and Taxation Code section 18622(a).

[01/20] In re US
In a case in which a taxpayer sought and was granted discovery of protected tax return information of non-parties, the government's petition for a writ of mandamus directing the Court of Federal Claims to vacate its order compelling disclosure is granted, where: 1) the Claims Court was generally without statutory authority to compel disclosure of confidential taxpayer information; and 2) an exception to the statutory prohibition for situations in which the treatment of an item reflected on the tax return is directly related to the resolution of an issue in the proceeding was inapplicable.

[01/19] US v. Brown
On consolidated appeals of a husband and wife convicted of various offenses stemming from their refusal to surrender after conviction on tax-evasion charges, their convictions are affirmed, where: 1) there was no reasonable cause to believe that the husband was mentally incompetent, and therefore the district court was not required to sua sponte order a formal competency hearing and evaluation; 2) evidence of the husband's beliefs that his previous tax trial was a sham and that tax laws are unconstitutional was properly disallowed, and thus his constitutional right to present a defense was not impaired; 3) the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding evidence alleged to be hearsay; 4) there was no merit in any of the wife's assertions of evidentiary error, and thus her trial was not tainted by cumulative error; 5) there was no reversible error in the jury instructions or the verdict form in articulating the offense at 18 USC section 924(c); 6) the trial judge's decision to question jurors in chambers did not violate the wife's constitutional right to be present at trial or her right to a public trial.

[01/19] Western States Petroleum Ass'n v. State Board of Equalization
In an action for declaratory relief seeking to invalidate a regulation of the State Board of Equalization (SBE) that adopted new valuation formulas for petroleum refineries, the trial court's judgment in favor of the plaintiffs on cross-motions for summary judgment is affirmed, where: 1) the trial court did not err in declaring the regulation to be inconsistent with Rev. and Tax. Code section 51(d); and 2) the trial court did not err in ruling that SBE's economic impact statement did not comply with requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act.

[01/06] US v. Allen
Conviction and sentencing of husband-wife defendants for tax evasion are upheld where the district court correctly charged the jury that defendants were entitled to an acquittal if it found that defendants held their belief that they were not liable for taxes in good faith.

More...

Corporation & Enterprise Law

[02/03] Lawson v. FMR, LLC
In two separate but related cases under the whistleblower protection provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, alleging unlawful retaliation by employers that are private companies that act under contract as advisers to and managers of mutual funds organized under the Investment Company Act of 1940, the district court's denial of motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim is reversed, as the whistleblower protection afforded by section 806(a) of the Act applies only to the employees of public companies as defined in the Act, and not to an employee of a contractor or subcontractor of a public company reporting suspected violations relating to fraud against shareholders of the public company.

[01/26] The DIRECTV Group, Inc. v. US
In a case involving the calculation and payment of segment closing adjustments associated with a corporation's sale of certain business units that included the transfer of defined benefit pension plans, the decision of the United States Court of Federal Claims granting summary judgment in favor of the corporation is affirmed, where: 1) the Claims Court did not err by calculating segment closing adjustments based on the assets and liabilities of the entire segment, rather than only the assets and liabilities that the corporation retained; and 2) the Claims Court correctly determined that the corporation's segment closing obligations could be satisfied by the cost savings realized by the government in the successor contracts.

[01/24] TIFD III-E, Inc. v. US
In a suit by a taxpayer partner challenging IRS notices of adjustment reallocating a large percentage of the partnership's income for the years 1993 to 1998 to the taxpayer away from two Dutch banks that had purchased an interest in the partnership, and imposing a penalty for underpayment, the district court's judgment in favor of the taxpayer is reversed, where: 1) the banks' interest was not a capital interest for purposes of qualifying them as partners within the meaning of IRC section 704(e)(1); and 2) the taxpayer failed to point to substantial authority supporting its position, so that the government was entitled to impose a penalty on the taxpayer for substantial understatement of income.

[01/20] Huppe v. WPCS International Inc.
In a shareholder derivative action seeking disgorgement of short-swing profits realized by two limited partnerships that were beneficial owners of more than 10 percent of the shares of the issuer, the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff is affirmed, where: 1) the stock purchases were not exempt from Section 16(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or SEC Rule 16b-3(d) even though they were made at the issuer's request and with the board’s approval; and 2) under the definition of "person" in Section 16(b) and basic principles of agency law, the limited partnerships were beneficial owners for the purposes of determining ten percent holder status under Section 16(b), notwithstanding their delegation of voting and investment control over their securities portfolios to their general partners' agents.

[12/30] Payne v. Lampe
In an appeal from an order of the district court affirming the Bankruptcy Court's order dismissing an action against the former custodian for the shares owned by a minor, order is vacated where defendant-custodian breached his fiduciary duties when he secured and retained an amount in partial satisfaction of a judgment that he obtained against a family business of which he was a director and in which he and the minor-beneficiary were the shareholders of record.

[12/29] In Re: Nortel Networks, Inc.
In an appeal from a judgment of the district court upholding the bankruptcy court's enforcement of a Section 362(b)(4) automatic stay against appellants, judgment is affirmed where appellants failed to show that they fall within the police power exception to the stay.

More...

Sentencing

More...