You may forward this e-mail in its entirety.
Table of Contents
- In re: Texas Pig Stands, Inc.
- US v. Perez
- Bluetooth SIG Inc. v. US
- City of Alhambra v. County of Los Angeles
- Roden v. Amerisourcebergen Corp.
FindLaw's case summaries are copyrighted material and are not intended for republication without prior approval. You may, however, freely redistribute this e-mail in its entirety. To view the full-text of cases you must sign in
Tax LawUnited States Fifth Circuit, 07/07/2010
In re: Texas Pig Stands, Inc.
In a bankruptcy trustee's appeal from a district court's reversal of the bankruptcy court's order refusing to hold the trustee liable for a tax deficiency incurred in running the debtor's business, the district court's order is affirmed where the trustee exceeded his authority, violated the plan, and committed willful misconduct, and therefore the Trust Agreement did not limit his liability. Read more...United States Seventh Circuit, 07/06/2010
US v. Perez
Conviction of defendant for filing false federal income tax returns and sentence to 33 months' imprisonment are affirmed where: 1) the district court did not violate defendant's right to be present at trial by conducting a jury instruction conference in his absence because such a conference concerns questions of law which is exempt from Fed. Rule of Crim. Proc. 43; 2) defendant waived any challenge to the district court's failure to provide a jury instruction on the government's net worth and expenditure method of proof; 3) defendant waived any challenge to the district court's limitation on his expert witness's testimony; and 4) the evidence was more than sufficient to support jury finding that defendant willfully filed false income tax returns in violation of section 7206(1). Read more...United States Ninth Circuit, 07/08/2010
Bluetooth SIG Inc. v. US
In an action seeking a refund of income tax, penalties, additions, and interest paid for 2000-2002 under 28 U.S.C. section 1346(a) and I.R.C. section 7422, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where plaintiff engaged in a business of the sort ordinarily engaged in for profit, and provided non-incidental services for particular members, and therefore was not entitled to the I.R.C. section 501(c)(6) exemption. Read more...
California Court of Appeal, 07/07/2010
City of Alhambra v. County of Los Angeles
In a petition for a writ of administrative mandate challenging a county's method of calculating property tax administration fee (PTAF) charged to plaintiffs starting in fiscal year 2006-2007, claiming that the PTAF the county charged each plaintiff and retained by the county was in excess of that permitted by Revenue and Taxation Code section 97.75, the trial court's entry of a referee's judgment that the county's interpretation did not violate section 97.75 is reversed and remanded as the statute is clear on its face and the county's method of calculating its fee under section 97.75 was unlawful. Read more...California Court of Appeal, 07/08/2010
Roden v. Amerisourcebergen Corp.
In a dispute concerning plaintiff-former CEO's entitlements arising out of his employment termination, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded where: 1) portion of the trial court's order overturning the review official's award and awarding plaintiff a $14,432,141.74 change in control benefit is reversed as the review official properly followed actuarial principles, methods and assumptions found to be appropriate by the plan actuary; 2) trial court was correct in affirming the decision of the review official to the effect the plaintiff is not, at this time, entitled to any payment with respect to potential excise tax liability; 3) the trial court was correct in affirming the decision of the review official as to the application of prejudgment interest at the federal bank discount rate; 4) the trial court did not err in applying the state statutory postjudgment interest rate, and in applying postjudgment interest from the date of the order that is subject of this fourth appeal; 5) the trial court did not err in providing that payments made pursuant to the order are to be applied first to interest and then to principal; and 6) the trial court did not err in declining to award plaintiff attorney fees and costs as the court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that neither party was the prevailing party at trial. Read more...
FindLaw includes summaries of all Supreme and Appellate Court slip opinions posted on the official Illinois Courts site. FindLaw summaries include opinions that have not yet been released for publication and may be subject to modification, correction or withdrawal. Check the Illinois Courts site to determine if a specific opinion has been released before relying on that case as precedent.
We value your comments! Please take a moment to tell us what you think by sending us an e-mail.
Click here to subscribe to a FindLaw Newsletter. To unsubscribe, click here.
For more information about advertising in FindLaw Newsletters, click here.