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

Morpho, a California-based corporation that designs and builds explosives and other threat detection technology, contracted with the FAA on behalf of its then-newly established TSA, to supply its Explosive Detection System (EDS) to United States airports. Morpho subsequently sought an increase of the contract price to compensate for state assessments as "after-imposed taxes" pursuant to Clause 3.4.2-7(c) of the Acquisition Management System (AMS). The court denied Morpho's petition for review, agreeing with the TSA's rejection of Morpho's claim on the ground that the taxes at issue did not satisfy the after-imposed tax exception's precise terms. View "Morpho Detection, Inc. v. TSA" on Justia Law

Appellants challenged the IRS's deficiency finding, as well as an accuracy-related penalty. On appeal, appellants argued that the Tax Court misunderstood relevant law when it affirmed the IRS's calculation of their remaining basis in their S corporation. They also challenged the factual basis for the Tax Court's decisions affirming the Service's rejection of their over-reporting claim and upholding its imposition of the penalty. The court rejected defendant's first challenge, concluding that a shareholder's basis was decreased "for any period" by the amount of that shareholder's pro rata share of the corporation's losses, and a shareholder incurred previously unabsorbed losses in the first year the shareholder had adequate basis to do so. In regards to the over-reporting claim, the court held that the Tax Court made no clear error when it upheld the IRS's determination not to reduce the sole proprietorship's income. Consequently, there was no dispute that appellants' 2003 tax return understated their taxes by an amount that qualified as substantial. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Barnes, et al v. Commissioner, IRS" on Justia Law

This appeal stemmed from plaintiffs' suit against the government after the government alleged that plaintiffs failed to file adequate tax returns. The court understood plaintiffs' pro se appeal to contend that the government had waived the limitations defense by failing to raise it in its first dispositive motion. The court expressed no opinion on the government's jurisdictional argument and concluded instead that the government had not forfeited its limitations defense. The court also found plaintiffs' argument that the statute of limitations should have been tolled was without merit. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiffs' complaint in its entirety. View "Kim, et al v. United States, et al" on Justia Law

When an employee's name and Social Security number listed on Form W-2 do not match in the SSA's database and this happens to a sufficient number of employees, the SSA sends the employer a "no-match" letter. In 2006, Judicial Watch filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552, request with the SSA seeking the names of the 100 U.S. employers that generated the most no-matches from 2001 through 2006. The agency declined to produce such records, concluding that they were exempt under FOIA Exemption 3. The district court agreed with the SSA. The court affirmed the district court's judgment and held that the records sought by Judicial Watch would disclose "return information" and were protected from disclosure by the Tax Code, 26 U.S.C. 6103(a). Moreover, the Haskell Amendment was not applicable here because Judicial Watch sought data that could be associated with a particular taxpayer, the employer. View "Judicial Watch, Inc. v. SSA" on Justia Law

106 Ltd. (Partnership), a limited partnership, appearing through its tax matters partner David Palmlund, appealed a decision of the United States Tax Court upholding the imposition of a forty per cent accuracy-related penalty by the IRS. The IRS determined that the Partnership had utilized a so-called "Son of BOSS" tax shelter to overstate its basis in Partnership interests by approximately $3 million and to thereby reduce Palmlund's individual federal income tax liability by nearly $400,000. The sole issue before the D.C. Circuit was whether the Tax Court erred in determining that the Partnership failed to establish a reasonable cause defense to the accuracy-related penalty pursuant to 26 U.S.C. 6664(c)(1). The D.C. Circuit affirmed, holding that the Tax Court did not err in concluding that the Partnership failed to establish the reasonable cause defense to the forty per cent accuracy-related penalty. View "106 Ltd. v. Comm'r of IRS" on Justia Law

Taxpayer appealed a judgment of the Tax Court rejecting two contentions: first, a constitutional claim that certain employees of the IRS's Office of Appeals were "Officers of the United States," so that their appointments must conform to the Constitution's Appointments Clause, art. II, section 2, cl. 2, and second, an argument that the employees in question abused their discretion in rejecting his proposed compromise of the collection of his tax liability. Because the authority exercised by the Appeals Office employees whose status was challenged here appeared insufficient to rank them even as "inferior Officers," the court rejected the constitutional claims. Furthermore, the court found no abuse of discretion in those employee's decision in this case. View "Tucker v. Commissioner, IRS" on Justia Law

In three challenged orders, the Commission addressed a "traffic pumping" scheme in which the holder of the filed tariff entered into contractual arrangements with conference calling companies and charged the interexchange carrier the tariff rate for providing switched access service. Farmers, the holder of the tariff, petitioned for review. As a threshold matter, Farmers, joined by intervenor, contended that the Commission lacked authority to overturn its decision in Farmers I because it failed, as 47 U.S.C. 405(b) required, to act within 90 days on Qwest's petition for partial reconsideration and consequently, Farmers I became a final appealable order. The court held that the contention was based on a misreading of the statute. The merits question was whether the Commission properly determined that Farmers was not entitled to bill Qwest for access service under Farmers' tariff because Farmers had not provided interstate "switched access service" as that term was defined in Farmers' federal access tariff. The court held that the Commission, upon considering factors within its expertise, could reasonably conclude that Farmers' relationships with the conference calling companies had been deliberately structured to fall outside the terms of Farmers' tariff and therefore reasonably rejected such services as tariffed services. Therefore, deference to the Commission's determination was appropriate. Accordingly, the court denied the petition. View "Farmers and Merchants Mutual Telephone Co. v. FCC, et al." on Justia Law

Appellant appealed his conviction and sentence on two counts of attempted tax evasion. Appellant argued that the government failed to prove the element of tax loss because it relied upon a flawed calculation under the "cash method of proof" and attributed to appellant $1.9 million of alleged gain when those funds, as a matter of law, belonged to his two corporations. Appellant challenged his sentence to the extent it rested upon the allegedly incorrect calculation of tax loss. The court found no error in the district court's denial of defendant's motions for judgment of acquittal. The court also held that, because a rational trier of fact could find beyond a reasonable doubt a tax was due and owing on $300,000 of income, the court left for another day how best to interpret the dictum in James v. United States. The court affirmed the sentence because the district court made sufficient factual findings at sentencing to support the inclusion of the $1.9 million in the calculation of tax loss. View "United States v. Khanu" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, retired U.S. Airways pilots, each received pensions from the U.S. Airways pension plan (the plan) and each opted to receive his pension in a single lump sum rather than as an annuity. Plaintiffs subsequently sued U.S. Airways claiming that the plan owed them interest for its 45-day delay. The court reversed the judgment of the district court with respect to plaintiffs' actuarial equivalence claim where the amount of plaintiffs' lump sum benefit was equal to the actuarial present value of the annuity payments plaintiffs would have received under the plan's default payment option. Even so, U.S. Airway's 45-day delay in paying plaintiffs was unrelated to the calculation of plaintiffs' benefits and therefore, not reasonable under existing IRS regulations. The court remanded to the district court to calculate the appropriate amounts due to plaintiffs and affirmed the judgment of the district court that plaintiffs were not entitled to attorney's fees.

After illegally collecting a three percent excise tax, the IRS created a refund procedure for taxpayers to recoup their money. Appellants argued that the procedure was unlawful. At issue was whether the court had jurisdiction and whether appellants stated a valid claim upon which relief could be granted. The court held that it had federal question jurisdiction and neither the Anti Injunction Act, 26 U.S.C. 7421(a), nor the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. 2201(a), provided a limitation on the court's exercise of its jurisdiction. Therefore, because appellants had no other adequate remedy at law, the district court should consider the merits of their Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq., claim on remand.