Case Summaries
Tax Law
Tax Law
[10/19] CUNO v.
DAIMLER CHRYSLER, INC.
The investment tax credit provision of Ohio Rev. Code Ann. section 5733.33 runs afoul of
the Commerce Clause and is unconstitutional.
[10/15] US v.
PENSYL
Defendant's conviction for attempted tax evasion is affirmed over his challenge that the
district court erred in its instructions to the jury when it allowed them to consider the
reasonableness of defendant's beliefs in their deliberations on willfulness.
[10/14] CCPA
NO. 1 v. COUNTY OF SONOMA
Summary judgment in favor of plaintiff's complaint for refund of taxes is affirmed over
defendant's contentions that the trial court employed an improper valuation method in
applying section 11 of article XIII of the California Constitution.
[10/13] COSO
ENERGY DEVELOPERS v. COUNTY OF INYO
In suit for a refund of property taxes, Statutes 1891, chapter 181, section 1 does not
preclude defendant-County from taxing a portion of plaintiff's geothermal energy operation
located within the China Lake Naval Weapons Center.
[10/12] RONALD
MORAN CADILLAC, INC. v. US
In a claim for refund of income taxes, the district court properly determined that
plaintiff is not entitled to a net operating loss carry back under I.R.C. section
267(a)(2).
[09/28] REYNOLDS
TOBACCO CO. v. SHEWRY
Plaintiff's suit, claiming that a California surtax on cigarettes which paid for
advertisements criticizing the tobacco industry violated the First Amendment, is dismissed
where it is unsupported by the Constitution and so unlimited in principle as to threaten a
wide range of legitimate government activity.
[09/28] CEMEX v. US
Defendants' unsuccessfully appeal the decision of the US Court of International Trade
denying its motion to enforce the judgment entered against plaintiff, which was supposed
to increase the amount of antidumping duties in which it was required to pay.
[09/28] MERRILL
LYNCH & CO. v. COMM'R OF INTERNAL REVENUE
In assessing deficiencies for the payment of income tax, the firm and fixed plan test is
the appropriate method for determining whether two transactions conducted at different
times may be integrated for the purposes of I.R.C section 302(b)(3).
[09/27] GENERAL ELEC. CO. v.
US
In a suit concerning the amount of interest the government owes for corporate tax
overpayment, rejection of plaintiff's claim is reversed and the case is remanded to
determine whether plaintiff is entitled to any additional interest attributable to the
first $10,000 of its original overpayment for 1978.
[09/27] AMMEX, INC. v. US
In an import taxation case, plaintiff's appeal of the US Court of Federal Claims'
judgment, which held that plaintiff lacked standing to pursue a claim under either the
Export Clause or 26 U.S.C. section 6416(c), is dismissed on grounds of collateral estoppel
since the Sixth Circuit already decided the precise issues involved in plaintiff's appeal.
[09/24] MCGRAW v.
COMM'R
Plaintiff unsuccessfully appeals the Tax Court's decision finding him liable for tax
deficiencies where the evidence supported a finding of fraudulent intent.
More...
|
