Justia U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs appealed an order of the district court granting in part and denying in part the motion of defendant to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. Plaintiffs contended that the IRS wrongfully withheld tax refunds to which plaintiffs were entitled as the result of the IRS's misinterpretation of contractual language in Offer-in-Compromise (OIC) agreements that plaintiffs entered into with the IRS. The principal issue on appeal was whether specialized tax terms in an OIC agreement derived their meaning from the Internal Revenue Code or from ordinary "plain English." The court held that, when used in IRS standard form documents, specialized tax terms such as "refund" and "overpayment" were interpreted in light of the Internal Revenue Code. Further, tax refunds made pursuant to the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008, I.R.C. 6428, related to the 2007 tax year, and so those refunds fell with the OIC agreements' temporal limitation. Finally, plaintiffs' agreement to forfeit their interest in "any" tax refund for the 2007 tax year encompassed anticipated as well as unanticipated tax refunds. Based on these holdings, the court concluded that the IRS correctly withheld the tax refunds at issue in this action from plaintiffs under the express terms of the OIC agreements. View "Sarmiento v. United States" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed her conviction of one count of mail fraud and three counts of tax evasion for calendar years 1995-1997. On appeal, defendant contended that the trial evidence was insufficient to support her convictions and that the mail fraud and the tax evasion counts were improperly joined. The court agreed with the sufficiency challenges relating to the tax evasion counts for 1996 and 1997 and reversed her convictions on those counts. The court vacated defendant's convictions for mail fraud and tax evasion for 1995 on the ground that those counts were improperly joined, and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings. View "United States v. Litwok" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a registered representative and principal with various brokerage firms over the years, sought review of a final order of the Commission, which concluded that he willfully failed to disclose the existence of certain tax liens filed against him. The Commission's conclusion that petitioner acted willfully, which followed his appeal of various determinations of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) and its predecessor, the National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD), subjected him to statutory disqualification from the securities industry. The court concluded that there was substantial evidence supporting the SEC's factual finding that petitioner failed to disclose the liens on his Forms U-4 and that the liens were material. Moreover, the SEC did not abuse its discretion when it determined that petitioner's conduct constituted a willful violation of the securities provisions relating to applications and registration. Therefore, the court denied the petition and affirmed the Commission's order.

The United States appealed from a judgment of the district court invalidating two notices of Final Partnership Administrative Adjustments issued by the IRS. The district court so ruled because it concluded that the taxpayer's characterization of two tax-exempt Dutch banks as its partners in Castle Harbour LLC was proper under Internal Revenue Code 704(e)(1). The district court also concluded that, even if the banks did not qualify as partners under section 704(e)(1), the government was not entitled to impose a penalty pursuant to Internal Revenue Code 6662. The court held that the evidence compelled the conclusion that the banks did not qualify as partners under section 704(e)(1), and that the government was entitled to impose a penalty on the taxpayer for substantial understatement of income. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court was reversed.

Defendant appealed from a conviction of 16 counts of aiding and assisting in the preparation of false federal income tax returns and was sentenced to concurrent terms of 41 months incarceration, three years' supervised release, and restitution and a special assessment. The court affirmed the conviction except with respect to certain aspects of the sentence, as to which the judgment was vacated and remanded for: (1) resentencing within the range authorized by statute, and (2) amendment of the restitution order to: (a) determine whether the State and the City of New York were victims entitled to restitution, (b) exclude payments already made by the five taxpayer-clients to the IRS, and (c) exclude losses associated with a 2001 tax return that did not serve as a basis for any of the 16 counts of conviction.

Plaintiff appealed from a judgment of the district court granting defendant's motion to dismiss her complaint. On appeal, plaintiff principally contended that the dismissal of her claim brought pursuant to section 7434 of the Internal Revenue Code, a provision that created a civil damages remedy for the willful filing of fraudulent "information return[s]," was in error. The court held that plaintiff's allegations of an intentional failure to file required information returns did not state a claim under this provision, which by its terms required an allegation that a fraudulent information return was willfully filed by defendant. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment.

These consolidated appeals, which have been returned to the court on remand from the United States Supreme Court, once again called upon the court to consider whether - and, if so, on what grounds - the Oneida Indian Nation of New York (OIN) was entitled to restrain the Counties from foreclosing upon certain fee-title properties, acquired on the open market by the OIN in the 1990's, for which the OIN had refused to pay property tax. The court held that the OIN had abandoned its claims premised on tribal sovereign immunity from suit as well as its claims based upon the Nonintercourse Act, 25 U.S.C. 177. The court also held that the district court erred in ruling that the Counties' redemption-notice procedures failed to comport with due process. The court further held that the district court should not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the OIN's state-law claims. The court finally affirmed as to several ancillary matters.

Appellants sued New York City and the State, along with a number of city and state officials, challenging a tax scheme that exempted New York City residents from a tax levied on parking services rendered in Manhattan. Appellees subsequently filed a motion to dismiss, arguing, among other things, that comity barred the federal courts from hearing appellants' challenge to the state law. The district court granted the motion and the court affirmed, holding that because New York state courts have the ability to implement a remedy that the federal courts could not, Levin v. Commerce Energy, Inc. counseled in favor of dismissing the complaint pursuant to comity.

The government appealed from an order of the district court granting a preliminary injunction to stay enforcement of provisions of the Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking Act (PACT Act), Pub. L. No. 111-154, section 2(a), 124 Stat. 1087, 1088, requiring mail-order cigarette sellers to pay state excise taxes. The government argued that the district court erred in concluding that plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that the PACT Act's provision requiring out-of-state tobacco sellers to pay state excise taxes, regardless of their contact with that state, violated the Due Process Clause. The court held that because the district court's entry of the preliminary injunction was not an abuse of discretion, the court affirmed the judgment.

This appeal concerned tax deductions that Altria claimed in 1996 and 1997, and which the IRS disallowed. The claimed deductions resulted from Altria's participation in nine leveraged lease transactions with tax-indifferent entities. The jury found that Altria was not entitled to the claimed tax deductions. Applying the substance over form doctrine, the jury rejected Altria's contention that it retained a genuine ownership or leasehold interest in the assets and therefore was entitled to the tax deductions. The district court denied Altria's motion for judgment as a matter of law or for a new trial and entered judgment for the government. The court affirmed and held that Altria had not shown that the district court erred in instructing the jury regarding the substance over form doctrine.