News

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.

Read More

International Trade

[12/22] US v. Twenty Miljam-350 IED Jammers
In a case seeking civil in rem forfeiture, pursuant to 22 U.S.C. Section 401(a), of certain communication-jamming devices that the owner was charged with illegally attempting to export, the district court's judgment ordering forfeiture is affirmed where: 1) the claimant's stipulation not to contest forfeiture in exchange for dismissal of a criminal complaint was enforceable; and 2) the claimant lacked Article III standing to oppose the forfeiture because it could not cause him injury.

[12/19] GPX International Tire Corp. v. US
In an appeal from an order of the Court of International Trade sustaining a decision by the Commerce Department not to impose countervailing duties on certain Chinese tire manufacturers, judgment is affirmed where Congress, when amending and reenacting countervailing duty laws in 1988 and 1994, legislatively ratified earlier consistent administrative and judicial interpretations that government payments cannot be characterized as "subsidies" in a non-market economy (NME) context, and thus that the countervailing duty statute, 19 USC section 1671, does not apply to NME countries such as The People's Republic of China.

[10/31] Hitachi Home Electronics (America), Inc. v. US
In an appeal from a judgment of the trial court dismissing plaintiff's action for duty-free treatment of certain plasma flat panel television imports from Mexico, judgment is affirmed where the trial court correctly determined that it lacked jurisdiction.

[10/24] US v. Banki
In an appeal from a judgment of the district court convicting defendant of violating the Iranian Transactions Regulations and several related offenses, conviction and sentencing are vacated with respect to the counts for operating, and aiding and abetting an unlicensed money-transmitting business in violation of 18 U.S.C. section 1660, but otherwise upheld.

Read More