Case Summaries

Tax Law

[09/02] Bale Chevrolet Co. v. US
In a petition for review of intentional disregard penalties issued against petitioner for failing to file required Forms 8300 information returns with the IRS, the petition is denied where the government's positions were substantially justified.

[09/01] Hongsermeier v. Comm'r of Internal Rev.
The tax court's determination of petitioners' federal income tax deficiencies and liability for underpayment of interest is affirmed where: 1) the tax court's determination of the percentage deduction in the taxpayers' deficiencies, plus other benefits, accorded with the court's mandate in Dixon and was not an abuse of discretion; 2) the IRS Commissioner's position did not constitute fraud on the court or bad faith; and 3) the Tax Court did not abuse its discretion in relying on the materials available to determine a settlement fraction.

[08/30] US v. Blanchard
Conviction of defendant for failure to account for and pay over-withholding and FICA taxes and making and causing the making of a false claim for a tax refund is affirmed where: 1) offenses under section 7202 are covered by section 6531(4)'s six-year limitations period; 2) district court did not err in admitting evidence regarding discretionary expenditures; 3) while a defendant's inability to pay taxes when due bears on the willfulness of his act, it is not an element of the offense under 26 U.S.C. section 7202; 4) district court did not err in refusing to give defendant's proposed jury instructions; 5) sufficient evidence supported defendant's convictions under section 287; and 6) district court's restitution order is vacated and remanded.

[08/30] US v. Kloehn
Defendant's conviction and sentence for four counts of causing tax evasion are reversed where the district court abused its discretion and prejudiced defendant's ability to present his defense when it refused to continue the trial for two days to allow him to see his dying son.

[08/27] US v. Pfaff
In a tax evasion prosecution, the fine imposed on one defendant is vacated where the district court plainly erred in imposing a fine, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 3571(d), based on the court's finding that defendant caused a certain pecuniary loss, when that fine exceeded the maximum fine that would have been permitted absent the finding.

[08/27] Russell v. Comm'r of Internal Rev.
In taxpayers' appeal from the tax court’s decision that several loans did not constitute "indebtedness of the S corporation to the shareholder" such that taxpayers could claim losses incurred by the Missouri River Royalty Corporation (MMRC), the order is affirmed where the court's review of the record revealed no error in the tax court's rulings.

More...

Corporation & Enterprise Law

[09/03] Superior Seafoods, Inc. v. Tyson Foods, Inc.
District court's denial of plaintiff's Rule 60(d)(3) motion to vacate an underlying consent judgment involving a series of trademark-related actions stemming from plaintiff's sale of a seafood-products business to defendant is affirmed as, given the facts, and given the equitable requirement that the party seeking relief be free from negligence and fault, the district court clearly did not abuse its discretion in finding equitable relief inappropriate in this case.

[08/30] Metavante Corp. v. Emigrant Savings Bank
In plaintiff's suit for breach of contract against defendant-bank for nonpayment of fees under the parties' Technology Outsourcing Agreement, judgment of the district court is affirmed where: 1) an expert's testimony was both relevant and reliable; 2) district court correctly determined that plaintiff did not breach the Agreement's performance warranty and its duty of good faith; 3) district court did not err in concluding that any reliance by defendant on the alleged misrepresentations of plaintiff was not reasonable; 3) district court committed no reversible error in determining that defendant's fraud claims were without merit; 4) district court determined correctly that defendant's success on the in-house issue does not render it a "prevailing party" within the meaning of the contract; and 5) the district court acted within the bounds of its discretion in determining that no additional guarantee of reasonableness was required.

[08/30] Flood v. ClearOne Communications, Inc.
In defendant's appeal from a preliminary injunction requiring defendant-corporation to advance attorney fees and costs to its former CEO, who was then facing a criminal trial, the order is vacated where the district court misread the parties' contract as a matter of law, disregarding express conditions to advancement specified in their agreement.

[08/30] HCM Healthcare, Inc. v. California Ins. Guarantee Ass'n
In a residential nursing facility's suit against California Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA) for breach of contract and for violating the Insurance Code for refusing to provide plaintiffs with defense counsel and indemnification for underlying lawsuits for elder abuse, judgment in favor of defendant is affirmed where: 1) as a creature of statute, and not of contract, in some instances CIGA may not be responsible for an insured loss to the same extent as the insolvent insurer might be under the terms of its insurance contract; and 2) Pennsylvania's liquidation order imposed a June 30, 2005 deadline for filing against an insurer and because plaintiff did not meet the deadline, CIGA may not honor their claims.

[08/27] Paloian v. Lasalle Bank, N.A.
In a debtor-hospital's trustee's action to recover, as fraudulent conveyances, some loan payments made during the last years before hospital entered bankruptcy, judgment of the district court is vacated and remanded where: 1) LaSalle Bank is an "initial transferee" as an entity that receives funds for use in paying down a loan, or passing money to investors in a pool, is an "initial transferee" even though the recipient is obliged by contract to apply the funds according to a formula; 2) because the hospital was solvent in August 1997, the ensuing months' debt service cannot be recaptured as a fraudulent conveyance; and 3) on remand, the bankruptcy court is instructed to determine whether the transfer of the accounts receivable to MMA Funding was a true sale, such that MMA Funding served as the bankruptcy-proofing intermediary that the lenders desired.

[08/27] Russell v. Comm'r of Internal Rev.
In taxpayers' appeal from the tax court’s decision that several loans did not constitute "indebtedness of the S corporation to the shareholder" such that taxpayers could claim losses incurred by the Missouri River Royalty Corporation (MMRC), the order is affirmed where the court's review of the record revealed no error in the tax court's rulings.

More...

Sentencing

More...