Case Summaries

Tax Law

[08/26] Estate of Lisle v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
In a tax case in which the IRS sought payment of back taxes by decedents' estates, opinion of the Tax Court holding the estates liable for underpaid taxes and fraud penalties is vacated and remanded where: 1) a presumption of correctness applied to the findings of a Special Trial Judge; and 2) in this case there was insufficient contrary evidence produced to overcome those findings.

[08/26] US v. Leveto
Conviction for federal income tax fraud is affirmed where: 1) defendant had knowingly and voluntarily waived his Sixth Amendment right to counsel and, once properly waived, this right is no longer absolute; and 2) there was no reversible error in several rulings regarding a warrant and summons.

[08/22] US v. Easterday
A conviction for willful failure to pay over employee payroll taxes is affirmed where: 1) US v. Poll, 521 F.2d 329 (9th Cir. 1975), is no longer good law; 2) willfulness does not require the government to prove that a defendant had the ability to meet his tax obligations; 3) thus, the district court's refusal to give a Poll instruction to the jury and the instruction it did give on willfulness were proper; and 4) for similar reasons, the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to admit evidence proffered by defendant in order to show how and why he spent money owed to the IRS to pay other business expenses.

[08/21] Pac. Fisheries Inc. v. US
In an action claiming that the IRS improperly withheld or redacted certain documents responsive to plaintiff-company's Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, summary judgment for the IRS is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for a determination as to whether the treaty exemption applies and whether factual portions of certain documents subject to the deliberative process privilege were properly segregated and disclosed.

[08/19] US v. Farr
A conviction for tax fraud is reversed where during trial the government constructively amended the indictment against her, trying her not just for the crime described in the indictment (failure to pay quarterly employment taxes for a medical clinic) but also for a separate and additional offense (failure to pay a trust fund recovery penalty assessed against her personally). The circuit court does, however, reject a claim that there was insufficient evidence in the record to sustain her conviction, and that consequently she could not be subjected to retrial under a lawful indictment.

More...

Corporation & Enterprise Law

[08/26] Brady v. UBS Fin. Servs., Inc.
In a suit brought against one company and another which plaintiff contended was its alter ego for payment on certain bonds issued by defendant, dismissal of the claims is reversed where: 1) plaintiff acquired a right to sue on the Stated Maturity of his bond and that remedy was not time barred; and 2) furthermore, plaintiff's claims are not barred by res judicata.

[08/26] Grynberg v. Total S.A.
In two suits against oil companies raising tort claims for breach of fiduciary duty and equitable claims for unjust enrichment involving potential oil and gas reserves in Kazakhstan, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where the claims were barred by the applicable statute of limitations and laches.

[08/26] Mamot Feed Lot & Trucking v. Hobson
In a class action raising federal usury and antitying claims against a bank, its holding company, and various shareholders, officers, and employees of the bank, following the criminal indictment of the bank's president for defrauding the bank of nearly one million dollars, dismissal of the claim is affirmed where: 1) as sections 85 and 86 do not apply to state-chartered banks, the district court properly dismissed those claims brought under the National Bank Act for want of jurisdiction; 2) the district court properly dismissed a claim under 12 U.S.C. section 1831d for failure to state a claim; and 3) the complaint provided absolutely no facts to support an illegal tying claim.

[08/26] Ley v. Visteon Corp.
In a class action securities violation case, dismissal of the action is affirmed where: 1) plaintiffs failed to allege a misrepresentation or omission of material fact regarding claims arising from a spin-off; 2) plaintiffs failed to allege a strong inference of scienter regarding claims arising from a Restatement filed with the SEC; 3) plaintiffs failed to allege a strong inference of scienter on the part of defendant-CPA firm, and thus dismissal of a section 10(b) claim was appropriate; and 4) dismissal of plaintiffs' section 20(a) claim was proper as there was no predicate violation of the securities laws.

[08/25] Swiger v. Allegheny Energy, Inc.
In a tort suit asserting numerous state-law claims, dismissal for lack of federal diversity jurisdiction is affirmed where a federal district court lacks diversity jurisdiction over a lawsuit involving a partnership where one of its partners is a dual American-British citizen domiciled in a foreign state.

More...

Sentencing

[08/27] US v. Hogan
A conviction and sentence for conspiracy to distribute meth, possession with intent to distribute meth, and distribution of meth, is affirmed over claims that the district court erred in denying his motions to suppress and for acquittal, and in sentencing him to 188 months' imprisonment.

[08/27] US v. Espinosa
A sentence for drug- and firearm-related offenses is affirmed over defendant's claim that the district court erred when, for purposes of determining the advisory sentencing range, it grouped only conspiracy and manufacturing counts, but not firearms counts.

[08/27] US v. Wessels
In a case wherein defendant was convicted and sentenced for unauthorized use of a credit card, and later had her supervised release revoked and was sentenced again, the judgment is affirmed over a Fifth Amendment due process challenge.

[08/27] US v. Azure
Revocation of defendant's supervised release and imposition of a 24-month sentence are affirmed over claims that the judgment of the district court should be vacated and the case remanded because: 1) the magistrate judge lacked jurisdiction to conduct the revocation hearing; 2) the district court failed to undertake the requisite de novo review of the entire record; 3) defendant was not present at the time the district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and sentenced him; and 4) his sentence was unconstitutionally imposed to punish him for the offense underlying his revocation, rather than for his original offense.

[08/27] US v. Wright
A conviction and sentence for aggravated sexual abuse of a child is affirmed over claims of error regarding: 1) subject matter jurisdiction; 2) the sufficiency of the evidence on an attempted aggravated sexual assault conviction; 3) constructive amendment to the indictment; 4) Jencks Act violation; 5) erroneous admission of hearsay evidence; 6) erroneous admission of leading questions; and 7) sentencing issues.

More...