TAX LAW CASES

• US v. Davenport
• Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
• Littriello v. US
• US v. Sriram

U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, April 09, 2007
US v. Davenport, No. 06-40466
In an action in which the government sought to collect an unpaid gift tax from defendant-inter vivos transferee, a judgment holding that defendant was not bound by the doctrine of res judicata to certain key determinations previously made by a tax court is reversed where the case at hand involved the same nucleus of operative facts as the earlier proceeding, and consequently, res judicata applied. Read more...

U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, April 10, 2007
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, No. 06-60276
In a taxpayer dispute over the rate at which the government paid interest on overpayments of taxes by Exxon corporation, a ruling against Exxon is affirmed where, based on the plain language of the GATT Amendment, the tax court correctly concluded that the reduced GATT rate applies to accrued interest on tax overpayments over $10,000, as well as to the principal tax overpayment, after the effective date of the amendment. Read more...

U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, April 13, 2007
Littriello v. US, No. 05-6494
In a challenge to the Treasury Department's so-called "check-the-box" regulations, which were promulgated in 1996 to simplify the classification of business entities for tax purposes, summary judgment for the government is affirmed where the district court: 1) correctly held that the regulations were "a reasonable response to the changes in the state law industry of business formation"; 2) upheld them under Chevron analysis; and 3) held that plaintiff was individually liable for the employment taxes at issue. Read more...

U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, April 09, 2007
US v. Sriram, No. 05-2752
Sentence for Medicare and tax fraud is reversed and remanded where the sentencing judge erred in: 1) calculating the loss estimate and restitution amount; 2) ruling that one of the victims of the fraud was not a health insurer; and 3) sentencing the defendant to mere probation. Read more...