Justia U.S. D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Michael Boulware, the president and sole owner of two companies, was convicted of tax evasion and tax fraud. The companies paid for his legal and professional fees in the criminal trial and other litigation. The IRS subsequently issued deficiency notices because Boulware did not report the payments, which totaled approximately $2 million, as income. The Tax Court held that the payments were taxable as corporate distributions. The Ninth Circuit affirmed and the Supreme Court denied certiorari. Because Boulware did not post a bond while pursuing his appeals, the IRS immediately collected on his liability. In this appeal, Boulware challenges a Settlement Officer's rejection of his proposed installment agreement and refusal of his request for a face-to-face hearing. The Tax Court upheld the determination. The court concluded that the Settlement Officer did not abuse her discretion by denying a request for an installment agreement when Boulware is not in compliance with his current tax obligations. The court need not decide whether the aggregation of Boulware’s particular circumstances were “special,” Boulware failed to raise the argument during his CDP hearing. Further, nothing in the record supports Boulware's contention that the Settlement Officer improperly considered his criminal conviction for tax evasion in rejecting his proposed installment agreement. Finally, given that Boulware’s failure to comply with his tax obligations made him generally ineligible for a collection alternative, the Settlement Officer's denial of a face-to-face hearing was reasonable. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Boulware v. Commissioner" on Justia Law

The Authority faced a funding shortfall for at least the period immediately after its opening in 2014. To cover the shortfall, the Authority, with emergency authorization from the District’s Council, levied a charge on all insurance policies above a certain premium threshold sold by health carriers in the District. American Council raised statutory and constitutional challenges to that charge and the district court rejected Council's arguments, dismissing the complaint for failure to state a claim. The court agreed with the District that the district court lacked jurisdiction to hear this case because the charge levied by the Authority was a tax rather than a fee. Therefore, the court vacated the district court's judgment for lack of jurisdiction and remanded with instructions to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction because the assessment is a tax. View "American Council of Life Ins. v. District of Columbia Health" on Justia Law

Appellant received his 2006 income tax refund twice and the IRS sought to recover the erroneous refund by levy. At the tax court stage, the IRS conceded that the levy was an improper collection method, zeroed out appellant's disputed tax liability and moved to dismiss the case as moot. Appellant objected to the dismissal. Appellant argued that, because he paid $5,100 to the IRS during the course of the administrative proceedings and he is entitled to a return of those funds, this controversy precludes dismissal on mootness grounds. The court affirmed the tax court's rejection of appellant's argument, concluding that the abeyance of a pending levy meant that no case or controversy remained. In this case, appellant has received all the relief that 26 U.S.C. 6330 authorizes the tax court to grant him, and he must seek relief in the Court of Federal Claims for the disputed $5,100. View "Willson v. Commissioner" on Justia Law

The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, a professional association of certified public accountants and their firms, challenged an IRS program that allows previously uncredentialed tax return preparers who take required courses and fulfill other prerequisites to obtain a “Record of Completion.” The program also requires them to have their names listed in the IRS’s online “Directory of Federal Tax Return Preparers.” The district court dismissed the complaint for lack of Article III standing, finding that the Institute lacks actual or imminent harm. The court concluded that the Institute has adequately alleged the program will subject its members to an actual or imminent increase in competition and that it therefore has standing to pursue its challenge. Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment. View "American Institute of Certified Public Accountants v. IRS" on Justia Law

This case concerns an IRS regulation that imposes a “penalty” on U.S. banks that fail to report interest paid to certain foreign account-holders. Two Bankers Associations challenged the legality of the regulation. At issue was whether a challenge to a tax-related statutory or regulatory requirement that is enforced by a “penalty” – as opposed to a challenge to a statute or regulation that imposes a tax – is covered by the Anti-Injunction Act, 26 U.S.C. 7421. The court concluded that the Tax Code defines some penalties as taxes for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act. In those cases, such as the one here, the Anti-Injunction Act ordinarily applies because the suit, if successful, would invalidate the regulation and thereby directly prevent collection of the tax. The penalty at issue here is located in Chapter 68, Subchapter B of the Tax Code. The Tax Code provides that penalties in Chapter 68, Subchapter B are treated as taxes under the Anti-Injunction Act. Accordingly, the Anti-Injunction Act bars this suit as premature. The court vacated the district court's judgment and remanded with directions to dismiss the case. View "Florida Bankers Ass'n v. US Dep't of the Treasury" on Justia Law

The IRS Appeals Office denied appellant a Collection Due Process hearing based on its unexplained determination that all the reasons he gave for requesting a hearing were frivolous. Further, the Appeals office contends that its frivolousness determination is not subject to judicial review. However, the tax court held that it has jurisdiction to conduct a review limited to whether the IRS correctly treated appellant’s arguments as frivolous. The court affirmed the tax court’s conclusion regarding jurisdiction; the court also affirmed the tax court’s assessment that the IRS’s boilerplate letter rejecting appellant’s arguments as frivolous was inadequate; and, after remand, the Appeals Office held a Collection Due Process hearing, and the tax court correctly decided that the Office did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the IRS could proceed with collection actions. Accordingly, the court affirmed the tax court’s decision in its entirety. View "Ryskamp v. Commissioner" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a mutual fund, challenged the Commission's denial of an exemption from rules governing the calculation and reporting of petitioner's deferred tax liability. The court concluded that petitioner’s attacks on the Commission’s “hypothetical speculation” affords no basis for setting aside the Commission’s reasonable conclusion that petitioner’s proposal to provide for only a small fraction of its full potential tax liability may result in inequitable treatment of redeeming and non-redeeming shareholders, contradicting a primary purpose of the Investment Company Act of 1940, 15 U.S.C. 80a-22(a). The court rejected petitioner's remaining claims. Accordingly, petitioner's arguments fail to carry the high burden required to overturn the Commission’s denial of an exemption and, therefore, the court denied the petition for review. View "Copley Fund, Inc. v. SEC" on Justia Law

This case arose out of the Tax Court’s determination that Petaluma was a sham entity and so would be disregarded for tax purposes, resulting in the potential imposition of penalties against individual partners for underreporting their taxable income. At issue in this third appeal was whether the Tax Court had jurisdiction at the current, partnership-level stage to determine the applicability of the penalties to the individual partners, or whether that determination instead must await the commencement of separate, partner-level proceedings against each partner. Assuming that a regulation in fact is necessary to create jurisdiction in the Tax Court, the court concluded that a different (and permanent) regulation is the operative one for purposes of conferring jurisdiction. Therefore, the court concluded that the Tax Court had jurisdiction to decide the applicability of penalties to Petaluma's partners. View "Petaluma FX Partners v. Commissioner" on Justia Law

This appeal involves a Son of BOSS tax shelter, which abuses the partnership form of doing business by “employ[ing] a series of transactions to create artificial financial losses that are used to offset real financial gains, thereby reducing tax liability.” At issue was whether and when the Tax Court may apply a penalty to a taxpayer who underpays his taxes by participating in a partnership that was nothing more than an intricate tax shelter. In this case, the parties recognize that United States v. Woods answered the questions about the Tax Court’s jurisdiction over penalties and outside basis. Taxpayer concedes rightly that the Tax Court properly applied his penalty when that court conducted its review of the partnership and its items, and the court affirmed the Tax Court on this point. In turn, the IRS acknowledges correctly that the Tax Court lacked jurisdiction to determine that the Tigers Eye partners had no basis in the partnership, and the court reversed the portion of the Tax Court’s decision that did so. The court remanded for further proceedings. View "Logan Trust v. Commissioner" on Justia Law

Z Street filed suit against the Commissioner, alleging that the “Israel Special Policy” violates the First Amendment. Z Street alleges that the agency has an “Israel Special Policy” under which applications from organizations holding “political views inconsistent with those espoused by the Obama administration” receive increased “scrutin[y]” that results in such applications “tak[ing] longer to process than those made by organizations without that characteristic.” The court agreed with the district court that Z Street seeks not to restrain “the assessment or collection” of a tax, but rather to obtain relief from unconstitutional delay, the effects of which it is now suffering. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's denial of the Commissioner's motion to dismiss. View "Z Street v. Koskinen" on Justia Law