Justia Tax Law Opinion Summaries

Petitioners, natives and citizens of Japan who have been lawful permanent residents of the United States since 1984, appealed a removal order after husband pleaded guilty to one count of willfully making and subscribing a false tax return in violation of 26 U.S.C. 7206(1) and wife pleaded guilty to one count of aiding and assisting in the preparation of a false tax return in violation of 26 U.S.C. 7206(2). At issue was whether aliens who commit certain federal tax crimes were subject to deportation as aliens who have been convicted of an aggravated felony. The Court held that violations of section 7206(1) and (2) were crimes "involv[ing] fraud or deceit" under 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(M)(i) and were therefore aggravated felonies as that term was defined in the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq., when the loss to the Government exceeded $10,000. Because petitioners were subject to deportation as aliens who have been convicted of aggravated felonies, the Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals.View "Kawashima v. Holder" on Justia Law

Respondents filed a complaint against AT&T Mobility LLC ("AT&T"), which was later consolidated with a putative class action, alleging that AT&T had engaged in false advertising and fraud by charging sales tax on phones it advertised as free. AT&T moved to compel arbitration under the terms of its contract with respondents and respondents opposed the motion contending that the arbitration agreement was unconscionable and unlawfully exculpatory under California law because it disallowed classwide procedures. The district court denied AT&T's motion in light of Discover Bank v. Superior Court and the Ninth Circuit affirmed. At issue was whether the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA"), 9 U.S.C. 2, prohibited states from conditioning the enforceability of certain arbitration agreements on the availability of classwide arbitration procedures. The Court held that, because it "stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress," quoting Hines v. Davidowitz, California's Discover Bank rule was preempted by the FAA. Therefore, the Court reversed the Ninth Circuit's ruling and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.View "AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion" on Justia Law

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued summonses to four individuals, seeking information and records relevant to the tax obligations of Dynamo, 26 U.S.C.7602. When they failed to comply, the IRS brought an enforcement action. The individuals challenged the IRS’s motives in issuing the summonses and sought to question the responsible agents. The district court denied the request and ordered the summonses enforced. The Eleventh Circuit reversed, holding that refusal to allow questioning of the agents was an abuse of discretion. A unanimous Supreme Court vacated and remanded. A taxpayer has a right to examine IRS officials regarding reasons for issuing a summons when the taxpayer points to specific facts or circumstances plausibly raising an inference of bad faith. The proceedings at issue are “summary in nature,” and the only relevant question is whether the summons was issued in good faith. Prior cases support a requirement that a summons objector offer not just naked allegations, but some credible evidence to support a claim of improper motive. Circumstantial evidence can suffice; a fleshed out case is not required. The objector need only present a plausible basis for the charge. The Eleventh Circuit erroneously applied a categorical rule demanding the examination of IRS agents without assessing the plausibility of the claims. View "United States v. Clarke" on Justia Law

Defendant Kevin Hartshorn appealed a district court's issuance of an injunction against him, arguing the court erred in concluding he promoted an abusive tax shelter in violation of 26 U.S.C. 6700. Defendant organized and was appointed head minister of the Church of Compassionate Service in 2004. At that time, the church had approximately fifty active ministers. To become a minister, an individual is required to take a vow of obedience and a vow of poverty. Upon taking the vow of poverty, ministers transferred title to all of their property to the church. They also assigned to the church all income that was earned as part of their normal employment, either endorsing their employment checks in favor of the church or directing their employers to deposit their earnings directly into various church accounts. According to internal church documents, 90% of the money ministers earned and assigned to the church was "available for local ministry funding." Defendant testified that the church’s "policy [of trying] to make 90 percent available to fund ministries for their compassionate service projects [is] not tied to how much money they make." However, ministers who were deposed in the course of this litigation indicated that it was their understanding they would “get back 90 percent of whatever funds [they] generate[d] for the church.” Ministers deposed for the litigation had not filed tax returns for numerous years though the income they earned at their jobs outside the church was taxable income. The district court agreed with the government that Defendant was promoting abusive tax shelters through his church, and particularly through his representations that individuals who took vows of poverty and obedience and became ministers of his church would not be required to pay taxes on income they earned and assigned to the church. The court accordingly granted summary judgment in favor of the government and issued an injunction prohibiting Defendant from promoting or selling "the use of church-based tax-fraud schemes." On appeal, Defendant argued that the Tenth Circuit should reverse the district court’s summary judgment decision because: (1) Defendant’s statements regarding the tax benefits for vow-of-poverty ministers were correct; and (2) if any of his statements were false or fraudulent, he did not know or have reason to know of this fact. The Tenth Circuit agreed with the district court that Defendant’s representations to the ministers regarding the tax consequences of becoming a minister of the church were false or fraudulent. With respect to reversal of summary judgment because of statements Defendant made to the ministers, the Tenth Circuit found none of his arguments persuasive: "the test for injunctive relief under [26 U.S.C. 7408] is satisfied if the defendant had reason to know his statements were false or fraudulent, regardless of what he actually knew or believed. And we conclude that, whether or not Defendant actually knew his purported interpretation of federal tax law was incorrect, 'a reasonable person in [his] subjective position would have discovered' the falsity of his representations." View "United States v. Hartshorn" on Justia Law

Between 2008 and 2011, Viacom Inc. paid three senior executives more than $100 million in bonus or incentive compensation. Compensation exceeding $1 million paid by a corporation to senior executives is not normally deductible under federal tax law, but a corporate taxpayer may deduct an executive’s otherwise nondeductible compensation over $1 million if an independent committee its board of directors approves the compensation on the basis of objective performance standards and the compensation is “approved by a majority of the vote in a separate shareholder vote” before being paid. In 2007, a majority of Viacom’s voting shareholders approved such a plan. Shareholder Freedman sued, claiming that Viacom’s Board failed to comply with the terms of the Plan and that, instead of using quantitative performance measures, the Board partially based its awards on qualitative, subjective factors, destroying the basis for their tax deductibility. Freedman claimed that this caused the Board to award executives more than $36 million of excess compensation. The plan was reauthorized in 2012. The district court dismissed. The Third Circuit affirmed. With respect to his derivative claim, Freedman did not make a pre-suit demand to the Board or present sufficient allegations explaining why a demand would have been futile. With respect to his direct claim regarding participation by stockholders without voting rights, federal law does not confer voting rights on shareholders not otherwise authorized to vote or affect Delaware law permit ting corporations to issue shares without voting rights. View "Freedman v. Redstone" on Justia Law

The government appealed the district court's Final Judgment which rejected the government's efforts to tax Burnett Ranches as a "farming syndicate" tax shelter per I.R.C. 464. The court agreed with the district court that an otherwise qualified individual who has participated in management of the farming operation for not less than five years comes within the Active Participation Exception in section 464(c)(2)(A), irrespective of the fact that the legal title of such individual's attributable interest happens to be held in the name of her wholly owned S corp. rather than in her own name. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's lift of the stay of its earlier ruling and made final judgment in favor of Burnett Ranches. View "Burnett Ranches, Ltd. v. United States" on Justia Law

Petitioners appealed the judgment of the Tax Court rendered pursuant to I.R.C. 7483. The court affirmed the Tax Court's judgment sustaining the Commissioner's determination that petitioners had an income tax deficiency and an accuracy-related addition to tax for 2007 as the result of unreported income and disallowed deductions for charitable contributions. View "Gunkle, et al. v. CIR" on Justia Law

In 2008 the Kathreins challenged Evanston’s Affordable Housing Demolition Tax under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Tax required a property owner seeking to demolish any residential building to pay the greater of $10,000 per building, or $3,000 per unit. The measure is to “provide a source of funding for the creation, maintenance, and improvement of safe and decent affordable housing; proceeds go to the city’s Affordable Housing Fund. The Kathreins alleged that a developer, learning of the Tax, lowered his bid on their property. The sale fell through. The Kathreins also alleged the unconstitutionality of the Tax Injunction Act (TIA), 28 U.S.C. 1341, which forbids federal courts to enjoin assessment or collection “of any tax under State law,” so long as there is a remedy in state court. The district court dismissed. A Seventh Circuit panel reversed in part, holding that the Demolition Tax was a regulatory device, not a tax under the TIA, because it provided a deterrent against demolition of residential buildings and raised little revenue. Before the district court could resolve remaining claims on remand, the Seventh Circuit, en banc, rejected the approach to identifying a tax taken in the Kathrein case, holding that an “exaction[] designed to generate revenue” was a tax, contrasted to fines “designed … to punish,” and fees that “compensate for a service,” but did not directly overrule the Kathrein decision. The district court applied the new holding and again dismissed. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, stating that the decision of the en banc court did effect an intervening change in the law. View "Kathrein v. City of Evanston, IL" on Justia Law

Sir John Thouron died in 2007 at the age of 99, leaving a substantial estate. Thouron’s grandchildren are his only heirs. His named executor retained Smith, an experienced tax attorney. The Estate’s tax return and payment were due November 6, 2007. On that date, the Estate requested an extension of time and made a payment of $6.5 million, much less than it would ultimately owe. The Estate timely filed its return in May 2008 and requested an extension of time to pay. It made no election to defer taxes under 26 U.S.C. 6166, it had conclusively determined it did not qualify. The provision allows qualifying estates to elect to pay tax liability in installments over several years. The IRS denied as untimely the Estate’s request for an extension and notified the Estate that it was imposing a failure-to-pay penalty. The Estate unsuccessfully appealed administratively. The Estate then filed an appropriate form and paid all outstanding amounts, including a penalty of $999,072, plus accrued interest, then filed a request with the IRS for a refund. After not receiving a response from the IRS, the Estate filed a complaint, alleging that its failure to pay resulted from reasonable cause, reliance on Smith’s advice, and not willful neglect and was not subject to penalty. The district court granted the government summary judgment, holding that under Supreme Court precedent the Estate could not show reasonable cause. The Third Circuit vacated, reasoning that the precedent did not apply to reliance on expert advice. View "Estate of Thouron v. United States" on Justia Law

Ogletree ran a tax preparation service. Robtrel and Larryl provided Ogletree with birth dates and social security numbers of individuals unlikely to file tax returns; Ogletree filed false returns using that information and her Electronic Filers Identification Number. They also generated false W2 statements to support the claims. In 2006 Ogletree filed 200 fraudulent returns, seeking refunds of $834,548. The actual loss to the IRS was $652,730.In 2007, Robtrel established a tax business and obtained EFINs for new tax preparation entities. Ogletree claims she withdrew from the conspiracy and did not file fraudulent tax returns in 2007 or later. Robtrel and Larryl continued the scheme into 2008, when they were caught. Charged with conspiracy to defraud the U.S. government, 18 U.S.C. 286, and presenting a false claim against the IRS, 18 U.S.C. 287 and 2, Robtrel and Larryl pleaded guilty, but Ogletree went to trial. Her attorney did not present any witnesses, but argued that the government did not establish that Ogletree had joined the conspiracy or knowingly filed false returns, noting that the witnesses all identified Robtrel and Larryl and that no one had identified Ogletree. She was convicted and sentenced to 51 months imprisonment, the low end of the sentencing range. The Seventh Circuit affirmed her sentence, rejecting challenges to the loss calculation, to a finding that she participated in the tax fraud scheme in 2007, and that the district court did not adequately consider the section 3553 sentencing factors. View "United States v. Williams-Ogletree" on Justia Law