Recently in Tax Law Category

In a partnership-taxation case involving Marriott, United States Court of Federal Claims' grant of summary judgment in favor of the government is affirmed in its determination that in 1994 the obligation to close a short sale qualified as a liability under I.R.C. section 753 and that the IRS properly adjusted the outside basis of the Marriott partners for the 1994 tax year to account for the partnership's assumption of the obligation to close certain short sales.    

Read Marriott Int'l. Resorts, LP. v. US, No. 09-5007

Appellate Information

Appeal from:  United States Court of Federal Claims

Decided October 28, 2009

Judges

Before Mayer, Rader, and Moore, Circuit Judges

Per Curium Opinion 

Counsel

For Appellant: Robert L. Willmore, Crowell & Moring LLP, Washington, DC 

For Appellee: Joan I. Oppenheimer, Appellate Section, Tax Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC.

Judgment of the United States Court of International Trade sustaining the United States Customs Service's classification of laminated flooring panels imported by Faus Group, Inc. as fiberboard under heading 4411 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedules of the United States (HTSUS), subjecting to a duty rate of 6% ad valorem, is reversed as the flooring panels should be classified within subheading 4418.90.40, the residual category for builders' joinery where it is  subject to a duty of 3.2% ad valorem.     

Read Faus Group Inc., v. US, No. 08-1605

Appeal from:  United States Court of International Trade

Decided September 25, 2009

Judges

Before Schall, Plager, and Prost, Circuit Judges

Opinion by Plager, Circuit Judge.   

Counsel

For Appellant:  Daniel G. Jarcho, McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP

For Appellee:  Amy M. Rubin, United States Department of Justice

In a breach of contract action against the United States, Court of Federal Claims' final judgment of dismissal is affirmed where: 1) the court erred in dismissing the plaintiff's breach of contract claims for all years prior to 2001 as the claims were not barred by the statute of limitations; 2) the court properly dismissed plaintiff's breach of express contract claim as plaintiff cannot establish that its express United States government obligations (USGO) contract included a duty exempting the USGOs from taxation by the Guam Territorial Income Tax and thus the government did not breach the USGO contract by imposing the tax; 3) the court properly dismissed the breach of implied-in-fact contract claim as plaintiff cannot prove the existence of an implied-in-fact contract entitling it to the requested relief; 4) the court properly dismissed plaintiff's reformation claim; and 5) since all of plaintiff's claims are dismissed, it is impossible for plaintiff to prevail on its request for declaratory relief. 

Read Bank of Guam v. US, No. 08-5078

Appellate Information
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
Decided August 12, 2009

Judges
Before LOURIE, SCHALL, and GAJARSA, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by SCHALL, Circuit Judge.

Counsel
For Plaintiff: Kurt W. Melchior, Nossaman LLP, San Francisco, California.

For Defendant: Brian A. Mizoguchi, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC.  

In a dispute involving a Final Partnership Administrative Adjustment issued by the IRS, Court of Federal Claims judgment is reversed where the court erred in holding that the IRS was entitled to the benefit of the six-year statute of limitations under I.R.C. sec. 6501(e)(1)(A), as the alleged overstatement of the basis of the property in question by plaintiff did not constitute an omission from gross income under the statute. Accordingly, the three-year limitations period of the statute controls, and the Final Partnership Administrative Adjustment is untimely, and therefore invalid.    

Read Salman Ranch Ltd. v. US, No. 08-5053

Appellate Information
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims.
Decided: July 30, 2009

Judges
Before NEWMAN and SCHALL, Circuit Judges, and PATEL, District Judge.
Opinion by SCHALL, Circuit Judge.
Dissenting opinion filed by Circuit Judge NEWMAN

Counsel
For Plaintiff: Alan Poe, Holland & Hart LLP, Greenwood Village, Colorado.

For Defendant: Joan I. Oppenheimer, United States Department of Justice, Washington, Dc.

In a dispute involving a request for a tax refund, Court of Federal Claims' judgment is affirmed where the government's interpretation of the law is entitled to deference as its denial of plaintiff's refund claim on grounds that the assessment period under 26 U.S.C. sec. 6501 had expired was reasonable and not inconsistent with any prior interpretation that was entitled to deference.    

Read Abbott Labs. v. US, No. 09-5014

Appellate Information
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
Decided July 29, 2009

Judges
Before LINN, DYK, and PROST, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by PROST, Circuit Judge.

Counsel
For Plaintiff: Thomas V. Linguanti, Baker & McKenzie LLP, Chicago, Illinois.

For Defendant: Francesca U. Tamami, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC.