Justia Tax Law Opinion Summaries

Kenin Edwards was sentenced to 21 months’ imprisonment for tax fraud after a series of procedural complications. Edwards, who was represented by four different attorneys throughout the process, delayed his trial multiple times before pleading guilty. After his guilty plea, he fired his final attorney, decided to represent himself, recanted his admission of guilt, sought to vacate his plea, and filed numerous frivolous motions. The government, which had initially agreed to recommend a five-month split sentence, sought a 21-month sentence due to Edwards's conduct.The United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois handled the case. Edwards's initial attorneys withdrew due to a breakdown in strategy, and his subsequent attorney was disqualified due to a conflict of interest. Edwards then retained a fourth attorney, with whom he eventually reached a plea agreement. However, Edwards later discharged this attorney as well and chose to represent himself. The district court conducted a Faretta hearing to ensure Edwards's waiver of counsel was knowing and intelligent. Despite Edwards's numerous pro se filings and attempts to withdraw his guilty plea, the district court denied his motions and sentenced him to 21 months.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. Edwards argued that his Sixth Amendment rights were violated when the district court disqualified his attorney and allegedly forced him to proceed pro se at sentencing. He also claimed the government breached the plea agreement by recommending a higher sentence. The Seventh Circuit dismissed Edwards's appeal, finding that he had waived his right to appeal in his plea agreement. The court held that Edwards's claims did not fall within the exceptions to the appeal waiver and that the government did not breach the plea agreement. View "United States v. Edwards" on Justia Law

David Swartz was charged with wire fraud and aiding and assisting the filing of a false tax return. He pleaded guilty to both counts. The probation department prepared a presentence investigation report (PSR) that incorrectly calculated Swartz's net worth. Despite Swartz's correction of his assets, the PSR did not update his net worth. At sentencing, the district court imposed a $10,000 fine, relying on the PSR's recommendations.Swartz objected to the PSR's net worth calculation and filed a memorandum noting the correct figure. The district court adopted the PSR's recommendations, including the fine, and ordered restitution and a special assessment. Swartz argued that the district court violated his due process rights by relying on inaccurate financial information and failed to comply with statutory requirements in imposing the fine.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the district court did not rely on the incorrect net worth figure when imposing the fine. The district court considered Swartz's significant assets, limited liabilities, and positive monthly cash flow, which were accurately stated in the PSR. The court also found that the district court properly considered the relevant factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3572(a) and did not err in determining Swartz's ability to pay the fine.The Seventh Circuit held that the district court did not commit procedural error or violate Swartz's due process rights. The court affirmed the district court's judgment, including the imposition of the $10,000 fine. View "United States v. Swartz" on Justia Law

Employee stock options, when exercised, constitute compensation, on which the employer must remit taxes under the Railroad Retirement Tax Act. Beginning in 1996, the railway began including stock options in the compensation plans of some employees, taking the position that income from the exercise of those stock options was not a form of “money remuneration” that would be taxable to the railway under the Act, 26 U.S.C. 3231(e)(1), which defines “compensation” as “any form of money remuneration paid to an individual for services rendered as an employee.” The Act requires the railroad to pay an excise tax equal to a specified percentage of its employees’ wages, and to withhold a percentage of employee wages as their share of the tax. The railroad retirement tax rates are much higher than social security tax rates. The IRS, the district court, and the Seventh Circuit concluded that the exercise of the stock options was compensation. The equivalence of stock to cash is actually signaled in the statutory exceptions for qualified stock options and for other forms of noncash employee benefits. View "Grand Trunk Western Railroad Co. v. United States" on Justia Law

Unreliable corporate meeting minutes were properly excluded in tax fraud trial. Petrunak was the sole proprietor of Abyss, a fireworks business regulated by ATF. In 2001, ATF inspectors inspected Abyss and reported violations. An ALJ revoked Abyss’s explosives license. Abyss went out of business. Five years later, Petrunak mailed the inspectors IRS W-9 forms requesting identifying information and then sent them 1099s, alleging that Abyss had paid each of them $250,000. Because the inspector’s tax return did not include the fictional $250,000, the IRS audited her and informed her that she owed $101,114 in taxes; she spent significant time and energy unraveling the situation. Petrunak submitted those sham “payments” as business expenses; he reported a loss exceeding $500,000 in his personal taxes. Petrunak admitted to filing the forms and was charged with making and subscribing false and fraudulent IRS forms, 26 U.S.C. 7206(1). He sought to introduce corporate meeting minutes under the business records exception, claiming that the records would have demonstrated his state of mind in preparing the forms. The minutes included statements bemoaning that the IRS was not more helpful, and declarations that the ATF agents perjured themselves. The Seventh Circuit upheld exclusion of the records, noting that the records contained multiple instances of hearsay and had no indicia of reliability. View "United States v. Petrunak" on Justia Law

Taxpayer, having challenged a penalty in a pre-assessment hearing, may not again contest its liability in a CDP hearing. The employer had an employee‐benefit plan with one employee-participant and took tax deductions for its payments into the plan. The employee claimed no income. The IRS proposed a section 6707A penalty for the company’s failure to report its participation in the plan; deficiency penalties; a section 6662(a) penalty, for making a substantial understatement and acting with negligence or disregard of the rules or regulations; and a section 6662A penalty, for making an understatement related to a reportable transaction that was disclosed inadequately. An appeals officer sustained a $200,000 penalty. After the IRS assessed the penalty and issued a final notice of intent to levy, the company requested a Collection Due Process (CDP) hearing. An appeals officer reviewed transcripts from the earlier pre-assessment hearing and determined that the Appeals Office had already considered a liability challenge to the same penalty, so that section 6330(c)(2)(B) precluded another liability challenge. The Federal Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the government. Under section 6330(c)(4)(A)’s plain language, because the company raised the issue of its liability in a prior hearing before the Appeals Office, and participated meaningfully in that hearing, the company could not contest its liability again in its CDP hearing. View "Our Country Home Enterprises, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue" on Justia Law

Musa owns and operates a restaurant in Milwaukee. The IRS determined that Musa made misrepresentations on his tax returns, including underreporting his federal income taxes by more than $500,000 for the years 2006-2010. The Tax Court upheld that determination, plus a civil fraud penalty of more than $380,000. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting, as “heavy on chutzpah but light on reasoning or any sense of basic fairness,” Musa’s argument that after his fraud was discovered, the Commissioner should have allowed him additional deductions on his individual tax returns based on amended employment tax returns in which Musa had corrected earlier false underreporting of wages. The court noted that he made those corrections after the statute of limitations had run on the Commissioner’s ability to collect the correct amounts of employment taxes that Musa’s amended returns admitted were due. The court also rejected Musa’s argument that the Tax Court erred by permitting the Commissioner to amend his answer to add the affirmative defense of the duty of consistency under tax law, and then erred by granting partial summary judgment to the Commissioner on that defense. View "Musa v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue" on Justia Law

Medical College of Wisconsin, a nonprofit corporation, received a refund of Social Security (FICA) taxes after the IRS ruled that medical residents were exempt from them until April 2005. The IRS added to the refund approximately $13 million in interest but later demanded $6.7 million back, claiming to have used too high a rate. Medical College returned the money and filed suit under 28 U.S.C. 1346(a)(1), asking to have the disputed sum restored. The district court and Seventh Circuit denied the request, rejecting Medical College’s argument that, under 26 U.S.C. 6621, a nonprofit is not the sort of corporation to which a lower rate in paragraph (a)(1)(B) refers. View "Medical College of Wisconsin v. United States" on Justia Law

After the IRS assessed tax deficiencies and penalties, the taxpayers filed a pro se petition for review. Acting on advice from Niehus, a lawyer who was not authorized to practice in Illinois, the couple stipulated that only half of the tax relief they sought was appropriate. Upon discovering that Niehus was not a member of the Illinois bar, they asked the court to set aside the stipulation. The Tax Court refused and entered judgment against the couple. On remand, with the couple represented by a CPA, Drobny, who was authorized to practice before the Tax Court, the court held that the couple had not been prejudiced by Niehus’s ineligibility to practice and that the advice he had given them had been valid. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, agreeing that Niehus provided “competent, valuable, diligent, and effective” assistance, and noting that there is no right to counsel in a Tax Court proceeding. View "Shamrock v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue" on Justia Law

Bey, a self-described “Aboriginal Indigenous Moorish-American,” sought to enjoin state and county officials from taxing his Marion County real estate, a refund of taxes he has paid, and $11.5 billion in compensation. The Seventh Circuit affirmed dismissal, rejecting Bey’s claim to be a “sovereign citizen” who cannot lawfully be taxed by Indiana or its subdivisions in the absence of a contract between them and him. The court explored the history of the “sovereign citizen” movement and its connection to some members the Moorish Science Temple of America (MSTA). Proponents argue, “without any basis in fact,” that as a result of eighteenth-century treaties the United States has no jurisdiction over its Moorish inhabitants, who are therefore under no obligation to pay taxes. Bey “is a U.S. citizen and therefore unlike foreign diplomats has no immunity from U.S. law … his suit is frivolous and … he was lucky to be spared sanctions.” View "Bey v. Indiana" on Justia Law

Tilden received an IRS notice of deficiency covering his tax years 2005, 2010, 2011, and 2012. The last day to seek review (26 U.S.C. 6213(a)) was April 21, 2015. The Tax Court received Tilden’s petition on April 29, 2015, and dismissed it as untimely. Although section 6213(a) requires petitions to be filed within 90 days, 26 U.S.C. 7502(a) makes the date of the postmark dispositive. Tilden’s lawyer’s staff did not put a stamp on the envelope, and the Postal Service did not apply a postmark. Staff purchased postage from Stamps.com, which supplies print‑at-home postage. The purchase was dated April 21, 2015, and a staff member states that she delivered the envelope to the Postal Service on that date. The Seventh Circuit reversed, finding that the IRS properly conceded error. The parties cannot stipulate to jurisdiction, but can stipulate to facts underlying jurisdiction. The court expressed "astonishment" at the law firm's risk-taking. View "Tilden v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue" on Justia Law