Case Summaries
Tax Law
[05/13] S&M Brands, Inc. v. Cooper
In an action involving the Tennessee's Attorney General's enforcement of an amended escrow provision in the Master Settlement Agreement between various states and tobacco manufacturers alleging an impermissible retroactive effect in violation of due process, a summary judgment ruling is reversed and remanded with instructions to dismiss the case without prejudice on grounds of sovereign immunity where: 1) continuous application of the retroactive statute is unlikely; 2) states enjoy immunity in federal court for tax-related claims; 3) the inherent dignity of the sovereign state favors immunity; and 4) the semi-tax nature of the escrow system would better lend itself to a suit in state court.
[05/12] Kornman & Assocs. Inc. v. US
In a proceeding under the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA) in which plaintiffs were alleged to have attempted to create an artificial tax loss through the short sale of Treasury Notes and the transfer of partnership interests, summary judgment for the government and dismissal with prejudice of a petition for readjustment of partnership items is affirmed where the obligation to close a short sale is a liability for purposes of I.R.C. section 752.
[05/08] US v. Mendoza
A conviction for subscribing to a false income tax return is reversed and remanded due to a violation of defendant's Sixth Amendment speedy-trial right where, despite defendant's departure to the Philippines, an eight-year delay between defendant's indictment and arrest was a result of the government's negligence, and prejudice is presumed. (Superseding opinion)
[04/29] Lewis v. Cir.
Tax Court's decision against plaintiff based on a failure to file a timely return, failure to timely pay the amount of tax shown on a federal income tax return, and underpayment of estimated income tax is affirmed where: 1) IRS Form 1040 satisfies the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA); 2) OMB #1545-0074 is currently valid; 3) the PRA does not require an expiration date to be printed on any tax information collection forms; 4) the PRA does not require disclosure information to be printed on Form 1040; and 5) sanctions on appeal were unwarranted as to either party.
[04/29] Bay Area Cellular Tel. Co. v. City of Union City
A fee imposed on telephone lines by a city to fund its 911 emergency communication is a "special tax" which must be approved by two-thirds of the voters in the city under Proposition 218.
More...
Corporation & Enterprise Law
[05/13] Roemmich v. Eagle Eye Dev., LLC
In an action brought by shareholder-plaintiff alleging various violations of his rights as a minority shareholder, partial summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff's claim for breach of fiduciary duty to a minority shareholder was time barred by North Dakota's statute of limitations; 2) the continuing wrong doctrine did not toll the limitations period; 3) there was no error in findings of fact concerning freeze-out of a minority shareholder, breach of fiduciary duty, and unfair deprivation of reasonable expectations; and 4) in applying North Dakota state law, the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorney's fees and expenses to defendant.
[05/13] Estate of Pew v. Cardarelli
In an appeal primarily addressing whether a claim fell within the exception to the Class Action Fairness Act's ("CAFA") grant of original and appellate jurisdiction for class actions which solely involve claims concerning certain rights and duties related to any security, the circuit court: 1) rules that the suit at hand does not fall within such exception to CAFA jurisdiction, and thus it has authority to accept an appeal from a remand order; 2) grants defendant's petition for leave to appeal; and 3) reverses the district court's remand order on the merits.
[05/12] Kornman & Assocs. Inc. v. US
In a proceeding under the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA) in which plaintiffs were alleged to have attempted to create an artificial tax loss through the short sale of Treasury Notes and the transfer of partnership interests, summary judgment for the government and dismissal with prejudice of a petition for readjustment of partnership items is affirmed where the obligation to close a short sale is a liability for purposes of I.R.C. section 752.
[05/09] Wolf v. Walt Disney Pictures and Television
In a breach of contract action involving Disney's alleged failure to fully compensate for its exploitation of the cartoon characters depicted in plaintiff's novel "Who Censored Roger Rabbit?", judgment for plaintiff including the amount of damages awarded is reversed in part and remanded where: 1) the trial court erroneously allowed the jury to interpret the term "purchaser" in a 1983 agreement when the meaning of that term was not dependent on the credibility of conflicting extrinsic evidence, and thus there was no factual issue for the jury to resolve; and 2) because plaintiff's royalty payments under the agreement did not include any entitlement to the gross receipt of Disney's subsidiaries, the trial court's award of that amount was erroneous.
[05/08] In re: Straightline Invs., Inc.
A judgment under 11 U.S.C. section 549(a) avoiding the transfer to appellant of corporate bankruptcy debtor's accounts receivable which had a face value of approximately $200,600 is affirmed over appellant's claims that: 1) the transfer of accounts receivable was not an avoidable transfer because there was no depletion or diminution of debtor's estate; 2) the transfer was an outright sale of receivables in the ordinary course of business, and the defenses of recoupment and earmarking should apply to bar recovery by the trustee; and 3) even if it was avoidable, the wrong measure of recovery was awarded.
More...
Tax-exempt Organizations
[05/06] Estate of Coll-Monge v. Inner Peace Movement
In an action for trademark infringement and related claims, summary judgment for defendants-non-profits is reversed in part and remanded where: 1) the district court erred in holding that a non-profit corporation cannot be a related company whose use of the trademark is controlled by the mark's registrant; and 2) there remain disputed issues of fact regarding both the doctrine's applicability in this case, and the capacity in which testator registered the marks with the USPTO.
[04/29] BB&T Corp. v. U.S.
In a suit against the government for a tax refund originating from a "lease-in/lease-out" (LILO) transaction, summary judgment for the government is affirmed where: 1) the transaction is not a genuine lease and sublease since it does not allocate rights, obligations, and risks as in a traditional lease which disallows plaintiff from making rental deductions; and 2) plaintiff is not entitled to deduct interests paid on a loan from its taxable income since the loan does not constitute genuine indebtedness.
[04/15] Platt Elec. Supply, Inc. v. EOFF Elec., Inc.
In an action alleging defendant, a non-profit consumer safety group, negligently misrepresented and fraudulently concealed that defective in-wall heaters were safe, grant of defendant's motion to dismiss and motion for judgment on the pleadings is affirmed where the district court properly dismissed negligent misrepresentation and fraudulent concealment claims as barred by the statutes of limitations, and did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the claims without leave to amend.
[03/25] US v. City of Houston
In a False Claims Act action brought on behalf of the United States against the City of Houston and a non-profit organization, alleging that defendants unlawfully received federal funds from HUD based on false and fraudulent information, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where plaintiff was unable to show that either defendant acted with knowledge of any falsity or that defendants agreed with each other to defraud the government.
[12/28] The Most Worshipful Grand Lodge of Ancient Free and Accepted Masons of The State of Illinois v. The Dep't of Revenue
In a complaint for administrative review, denial of plaintiff's application for a nonhomestead property-tax exemption is affirmed where: 1) the defendant's decision to reject the plaintiff's petition for a property-tax exemption was not clearly erroneous; and 2) the plaintiff failed to carry its burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the exemption applied.
More...
|
