Justia Tax Law Opinion Summaries

Defendants appealed from a judgment of the district court awarding the United States $112,324.18, plus statutory additions and interest, in connection with an unpaid tax assessment from 2007. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the government, notwithstanding the fact that the Internal Revenue Service (the “IRS”) referred the assessment to the Department of Justice (the “DOJ”) before formally rejecting Defendants’ proposed installment agreement. Defendants contended that this referral violated the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code and the implementing Treasury Regulations that curb the IRS’s collection activities while a proposed installment agreement remains on the table.   The Second Circuit affirmed. The court explained that as their plain terms indicate, the suspension provisions of Section 6331(i) and (k) prohibit the commencement of a collection action in court during specified periods, not the IRS’s antecedent request that the DOJ file such an action. The court wrote that the Internal Revenue Code is silent on when the IRS may refer an action to the DOJ, and a Treasury Regulation that limits the IRS’s referral power cannot read into the statute something that is not there. Further, this conclusion is not altered because authorization from the Treasury Secretary is a prerequisite to commencing an in-court proceeding.   Further, the court explained that Defendants have not claimed a violation of their constitutional rights and the regulatory limits on IRS referrals of collection actions are not statutorily derived. As a result, Defendants must demonstrate prejudice for the government’s regulatory violation to invalidate the instant collection action. The court found that Defendants have failed to do so. View "United States v. Schiller" on Justia Law

Petitioners challenged he post-trial rulings of the United States Tax Court regarding their tax obligations for the 2004 tax year. Petitioners argued that the Tax Court erroneously concluded that (1) they filed a valid joint return, (2) the Internal Revenue Service issued a statutory notice of deficiency before the limitations period for a tax assessment under I.R.C. Sections 6501(a) and (c)(4) expired, (3) they owed a $28,836 penalty pursuant to I.R.C. Section 6651(a)(1) for filing a late tax return, and (4) they owed a $128,526 penalty pursuant to I.R.C. Section 6662 for filing an inaccurate tax return.   The Second Circuit affirmed. The court held that the Tax Court did not clearly err in its finding that Petitioners intended to jointly file the Return. Further, the court wrote that the IRS issued the Deficiency Notice within the limitations period for the tax assessment. Moreover, the court held that Petitioners are subject to a $28,836 late-filing penalty under I.R.C. Section 6651(a)(1). Finally, the court held that Petitioners are subject to a $128,526 accuracy-related penalty under I.R.C. Section 6662. View "Soni v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue" on Justia Law

Petitioners challenged the post-trial rulings of the United States Tax Court regarding their tax obligations for the 2004 tax year. Petitioners argued that the Tax Court erroneously concluded that (1) they filed a valid joint return, (2) the Internal Revenue Service issued a statutory notice of deficiency before the limitations period for a tax assessment under I.R.C. Sections 6501(a) and (c)(4) expired, (3) they owed a $28,836 penalty pursuant to I.R.C. Section 6651(a)(1) for filing a late tax return, and (4) they owed a $128,526 penalty pursuant to I.R.C. Section 6662 for filing an inaccurate tax return.   The Second Circuit affirmed. The court held that the Tax Court did not clearly err in its finding that Petitioners intended to jointly file the Return. Further, the court concluded that the IRS issued the Deficiency Notice within the limitations period for the tax assessment. The court held that Petitioners are subject to a $28,836 late-filing penalty under I.R.C. Section 6651(a)(1). Finally, the court held that Petitioners are subject to a $128,526 accuracy-related penalty under I.R.C. Section 6662. The court explained that Petitioner’s inaccuracy was not the product of reasonable reliance upon the advice of a tax professional. As the Tax Court also found, Petitioners failed to provide their accountants “necessary and accurate information.” Moreover, the record includes evidence that Petitioner disregarded the advice of accountants who warned him that he would need proof to substantiate the claimed loss. View "Soni v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a franchisor of tax preparation services, appeals from the district court’s denying its motion for preliminary injunctive relief to enforce, among other things, covenants not to compete or solicit former clients against Defendants, its former franchisees. On appeal, Plaintiff argues that the district court erroneously applied a heightened standard for obtaining preliminary injunctive relief, failed to credit an undisputed fact that Plaintiff had grounds to terminate the franchise agreements because Defendants were violating federal tax laws, and was compelled as a matter of law to find that it would suffer irreparable harm to its goodwill and client relationships in the absence of an injunction.   The Second Circuit affirmed the order denying preliminary relief. The court concluded that the district court applied the appropriate standard, permissibly credited Defendants’ denials that they violated federal tax laws, and acted well within its discretion in concluding that Plaintiff would not suffer irreparable harm. The court reasoned that nothing in the court’s precedents compels a district court to find irreparable harm to goodwill and client relationships in covenant-not-to-compete or -solicit cases simply because irreparable harm is often found in such cases. Instead, a plaintiff must present the district court with actual evidence. On that record, the court wrote it cannot conclude that the district court’s finding that Plaintiff had failed to make a strong showing of irreparable injury represented a clear error or exceeded the court’s discretion. View "JTH Tax d/b/a Liberty Tax Service v. Agnant" on Justia Law

Petitioner petitioned the United States Tax Court to redetermine her income tax deficiency after the Commissioner of Internal Revenue concluded that she was subject to a 10-percent exaction under 26 U.S.C. Section 72(t) of the Internal Revenue Code for early distributions she made from her pension plan. Petitioner argued that she is not liable for the 10-percent exaction under Section 72(t) because it is a penalty, an additional amount, or an addition to tax within the meaning of Section 6751(c) of the Internal Revenue Code and that the Commissioner failed to obtain written supervisory approval for the initial determination to impose the exaction, as required by Section 6751(b). The United States Tax Court ruled that the 10-percent exaction under Section 72(t) is not subject to the written supervisory requirement because it is a tax, not a penalty, an additional amount, or an addition to tax, and Petitioner is liable for the 10-percent exaction.   The Second Circuit affirmed the Tax Court’s judgment. The court explained that the plain and unambiguous language of Section 72(t) establishes that the Exaction is a tax, not a penalty, an additional amount, or an addition to tax within the meaning of Section 6751(c) that requires written supervisory approval. Thus, Petitioner is liable for the Exaction. View "Grajales v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue" on Justia Law

Under 26 U.S.C. 7345, if a court determines that a "seriously delinquent" certification was erroneous, it may order the Secretary of the Treasury to notify the Secretary of State of that fact. No other relief is authorized. The Second Circuit affirmed the tax court's dismissal in part insofar as it dismissed certain of petitioner's claims as moot, and vacated and remanded in part with instructions to the tax court court to dismiss all the remaining claims as moot insofar as it dismissed those claims for lack of statutory jurisdiction.In 2019, petitioner filed a petition with the tax court challenging the Commissioner's certification that she had a "seriously delinquent tax debt" under 26 U.S.C. 7345. While her challenge was pending, the Commissioner reversed the certification as erroneous and so notified the Secretary of State. In 2020, the tax court dismissed the petition, holding that it lacked jurisdiction to assess the validity of her underlying liability for the penalties the IRS had assessed against her, which formed the basis for her debt, and that her challenge to her certification was moot in light of the IRS's reversal. In this case, petitioner has received all the relief to which she is entitled by statute and, to the extent that the voluntary cessation doctrine exists primarily to keep parties from acting strategically to avoid judicial review, that is not a concern here. Finally, petitioner's challenge, under section 7345, to the underlying penalties assessed against her was moot at the time the tax court issued its order. View "Ruesch v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue" on Justia Law

The Plaintiff States filed suit alleging that the $10,000 cap on the federal income tax deduction for money paid in state and local taxes (SALT), enacted as part of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, violates the United States Constitution.The Second Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and denial of the States' cross-motion for summary judgment. The court concluded that the States had standing and that their claims were not barred by the Anti-Injunction Act (AIA). However, the court rejected the States' contention that the SALT deduction is constitutionally required by the text of Article I, Section 8 and the Sixteenth Amendment of the Constitution, and thus the SALT deduction cap effectively eliminates a constitutionally mandated deduction for taxpayers. Rather, the court concluded that the Constitution itself does not limit Congress's authority to impose a cap. In this case, the States' arguments mimic those that the Supreme Court rejected in South Carolina v. Baker, 485 U.S. 505, 515–27 9 (1988). In Baker, the Court held that Congress had the power to tax interest earned on state-issued bonds even though it had not previously done so. The court also concluded that the SALT deduction cap is not coercive in violation of the Tenth Amendment or the principle of equal sovereignty. View "New York v. Yellen" on Justia Law

Joseph Wilson, the sole owner and beneficiary of a foreign trust, filed his returns for tax year 2007 late, the IRS assessed a 35% penalty that applies to beneficiaries of foreign trusts, and Wilson paid the penalty. After his death, plaintiffs filed suit on behalf of Wilson's estate for a refund, arguing that the IRS should have imposed only a 5% penalty that applies to owners of foreign trusts. The district court granted partial summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs.The Second Circuit vacated the district court's judgment, holding that when an individual is both the sole owner and beneficiary of a foreign trust and fails to timely report distributions she received from the trust, the government has the authority under the Internal Revenue Code to impose a 35% penalty. Accordingly, the court remanded for further proceedings. The court denied motions for leave to file a supplemental appendix that includes documents outside the record on appeal and for leave to file a sur-reply brief as moot. View "Wilson v. United States" on Justia Law

The Second Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for the Cayuga Indian Nation of New York and the district court's permanent injunction enjoining the County from foreclosing on the Cayuga Indian Nation's real property for nonpayment of taxes. The court agreed with the district court that tribal sovereign immunity from suit bars the County from pursuing tax enforcement actions under Article 11 of the New York Real Property Tax Law against the Cayuga Indian Nation. The court explained that the County's foreclosure proceedings are not permitted by the traditional common law exception to sovereign immunity that covers certain actions related to immovable property. In this case, the foreclosure actions fall outside the purview of the common law version of the immovable-property exception. The court also rejected the County's reading of City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York, 544 U.S. 197 (2005), as abrogating a tribe's immunity from suit. View "Cayuga Indian Nation of New York v. Seneca County" on Justia Law

New York State appealed from the district court's consolidated judgments invalidating the State's Opioid Stewardship Act (OSA), which requires opioid manufacturers and distributors to make an annual payment to fund statewide opioid-related services but prohibits them from passing the costs of those payments through to their customers.The Second Circuit held that the OSA's opioid stewardship payment is a tax within the meaning of the Tax Injunction Act (TIA), and that the district court should have dismissed plaintiff's challenges to the payment under the TIA for lack of jurisdiction. After considering the factors in Entergy Nuclear Vt. Yankee, LLC v. Shumlin, 737 F.3d 228, 232–33 (2d Cir. 2013), and San Juan Cellular Telephone Co. v. Public Service Commission, 967 F.2d 683, 685 (1st Cir. 1992), the court concluded that the primary purpose of the opioid stewardship payment is to raise revenue, not to punish or regulate plaintiffs and other licensees who are required to make the payment. Accordingly, the court reversed the judgments, except insofar as they relate to the pass-through prohibition, which is not before the court. View "Association for Accessible Medicines v. James" on Justia Law