Butler v. LeBouef
(California Court of Appeal) - In an attorney's appeal of a probate judgment invalidating a will and living trust that he drafted for a client and which named him as the principal beneficiary to a $5 million estate, the trial court's judgment and award of attorney fees pursuant to Probate Code section 21380 is affirmed where: 1) the court reasonably concluded that the probative value of the prior acts evidence substantially outweighed the potential for prejudice; 2) substantial evidence supports the finding that appellant drafted or transcribed decedent's Trust even though the original trust document was 'lost' in a burglary; and 3) the court reasonably concluded it would be inequitable to award defendant trustee fees and attorney fees for services that benefited no one other than defendant.
National Association for the Advancement of Multijurisdictional Practice v. Lynch
(United States Fourth Circuit) - In a challenge to the conditions placed on the privilege of admission to the Bar of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland in Local Rule 701, the District Court's grant of the Government's motion to dismiss is affirmed where Rule 701 violates neither the Constitution nor federal law.
City of Petaluma v. Super. Ct.
(California Court of Appeal) - In a labor and employment action, arising over a former, female firefighter's claims of harassment and discrimination against the City of Petaluma, the trial court's discovery orders are reversed where: 1) outside counsel's pure fact-finding role in the prelitigation investigation constituted legal services in anticipation of litigation and is privileged; and 2) defendant employer did not waive attorney-client privilege by asserting an avoidable consequences defense under the circumstances.
Osborne v. Todd Farm Service
(California Court of Appeal) - Trial court's dismissal with prejudice of complaint for personal injuries during jury trial, as a sanction for plaintiff's counsel's repeated violations of its orders excluding hearsay and opinion testimony, is affirmed where the trial court was within its discretion in granting the terminating sanction and did not err when it granted defendants' motions in limine because attorney is an officer of the court and he or she must respect and follow court orders, whether they are right or wrong, People v. Pigage (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 1359, 1374, Bus. & Prof. Code section 6068(b).
Schoenefeld v. Schneiderman
(United States Second Circuit) - In a challenge to a N.Y. Judiciary Law section 470, which requires nonresident attorneys to maintain an 'office for the transaction of law business' within New York State in order to practice law in that state's courts, the District Court's judgment declaring section 470 unconstitutional under the Privileges and Immunities Clause, is reversed where the law does not violate the Privileges and Immunities Clause because it was enacted not for a protectionist purpose to favor New York resident attorneys but, rather, to provide a means whereby nonresidents could establish a physical presence in the state akin to that of residents, thereby resolving a service concern while allowing nonresidents to practice law in the state's courts.
DP Pham v. Cheadle
(California Court of Appeal) - In an action brought by an estate administrator seeking to disqualify counsel of a party, contending disqualification was required because counsel at issue improperly obtained copies of privileged communications between estate principal and his attorney and used those communications to oppose another party's summary adjudication motion in this case, the trial court's denial of motion to disqualify is reversed and remanded to determine whether the receipt and use of the privileged communications by counsel warrants disqualification.
Scheer v. Kelly
(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action, brought by plaintiff attorney challenging California's procedures for attorney discipline, the district court's dismissal of the complaint is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff's as-applied challenge is barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine; 2) plaintiff's facial claims were not time-barred because the State Bar misread the relevant circuit precedent concerning the statute-of-limitations; 3) plaintiff's facial claims have already been rejected by the Supreme Court of California and plaintiff received adequate notice and opportunity for a hearing; and 4) California's decision to regulate lawyers principally through the State Bar of California is constitutional.
Brooks v. Yates
(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a habeas corpus action, the district court's dismissal of the petition as untimely is: 1) affirmed where petitioner failed to establish entitlement to F.R.Civ.P. 60(b) relief for actual innocence; but 2) reversed where the district court abused its discretion by finding that petitioner was not abandoned by his counsel, who failed to respond to the court's order to show cause and notify his client of the order's issuance.
Radcliffe v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc.
(United States Ninth Circuit) - In an ethics and professional responsibility action, arising out of a dispute between class plaintiffs over conflicts of interest among class counsel, the district court's rejection of the motion to disqualify counsel is affirmed where California does not apply a rule of automatic disqualification for conflicts of simultaneous representation in the class action context and the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that counsel will adequately represent the class.
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. v. Newsom
(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. The court found that Senate Bill No. 1107 directly conflicts with Political Reform Act of 1974 and does not further the purposes of the Act.
Amazon.com, Inc. v. CRI
(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Amazon filed a petition challenging the IRS’s valuation of assets. The panel concluded that the definition of “intangible” does not include residual-business assets, and that the definition is limited to independently transferrable assets.
Mass v. Franchise Tax Bd.
(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Plaintiffs bought shares in a company that invests in government bonds. Plaintiffs contend that the dividends they received are exempt from taxation per the California Constitution. The trial court disagreed, and the appellate court upheld the ruling.
In Re: Sealed Case
(United States DC Circuit) - Remanded. The Tax Court abused its discretion in denying a whistleblower award to an anonymous informant. Remanded to consider whether the appellant had made out a fact-specific basis for protecting his identity.
Nguyen v. Nissan North America, Inc.
(United States Ninth Circuit) - Reversed. District court’s denial of plaintiff’s motion for class certification met the predominance requirement of FRCP 23(b)(3). Plaintiff’s proposed damages model was consistent with his theory of liability, where cost-of-repair damages could be used in claims arising from a defective hydraulic clutch system.
Dixon v. Ryan
(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed. Defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights were not violated when trial counsel failed to challenge his competency to waive counsel. Defendant’s due process right was not violated by state trial court’s refusal to hold a competency hearing sua sponte. Defendant’s Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights were not violated by being shackled and restrained during trial.
Myers v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Service
(United States DC Circuit) - Reversed and remanded. The Tax Court improperly dismissed a case involving a man's application to the IRS for a whistleblower award because although his application was untimely the filing period was not jurisdictional and is subject to equitable tolling.
Interior Glass Systems, Inc. v. US
(United States Ninth Circuit) - Upheld federal tax penalties imposed on a company for failing to disclose its participation in a so-called listed transaction. Affirmed summary judgment against the company's tax refund claim, unpersuaded by procedural due process and other arguments.
North Carolina Dept. of Revenue v. Kimberley Rice Kaestner 1992 Family Trust
(United States Supreme Court) - Clarified the limits of a State's power to tax a trust. Struck down a North Carolina requirement that a trust must pay income tax to the State whenever the trust's beneficiaries live in the State -- regardless of whether the beneficiaries have received, can demand, or will ever receive a distribution of trust income. Justice Sotomayor delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court, in this due process challenge brought by a family trust.
City and County of San Francisco v. Regents of the University of California
(Supreme Court of California) - Held that it is constitutional for San Francisco to impose a tax on drivers who park their cars in paid parking lots, even when the parking lot is operated by a state university.
Moss v. Duncan
(California Court of Appeal) - Revived a business owner's lawsuit accusing a certified public accountant of professional negligence. Held that the statute of limitations did not bar this suit concerning alleged erroneous tax advice about how to structure a business deal. Reversed a summary judgment ruling.
Altera Corp. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
(United States Ninth Circuit) - Upheld the validity of a Treasury Department regulation. The provision's focus is that related business entities must share the cost of employee stock compensation in order for their cost-sharing arrangements to be classified as qualified cost-sharing arrangements. Reversed the judgment of the U.S. Tax Court.
SSL Landlord LLC v. County of San Mateo
(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a plaintiff in a tax refund lawsuit was not entitled to an award of attorney fees. Affirmed the ruling below.
SSL Landlord LLC v. County of San Mateo
(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a plaintiff in a tax refund lawsuit was not entitled to an award of attorney fees. Affirmed the ruling below.
US v. Z Investment Properties LLC
(United States Fifth Circuit) - Appeals court affirmed district court's decision that the federal tax lien was enforceable even though it had errors on the document. The appeals court held that even with the errors there was adequate notice of the lien, because it conformed to the IRS code.
Baldwin v. US
(United States Ninth Circuit) - Reversed a judgment in favor of taxpayers in a tax refund action. Remanded with instructions to dismiss because the taxpayers had not filed a timely claim for a refund with the Internal Revenue Service, in this case involving the so-called mailbox rule.
Borenstein v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
(United States Second Circuit) - Held that the U.S. Tax Court could order a refund of a taxpayer's income tax overpayment. The Tax Court had concluded that it lacked jurisdiction under the particular circumstances here, even though all parties agreed that the taxpayer had overpaid. Disagreeing, the Second Circuit reversed and remanded, characterizing the issue as one of first impression in any court.
US v. Taffaro
(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed a probation-only sentence imposed on a law enforcement officer who was convicted of tax evasion and filing false income tax returns. The government had appealed the sentence as substantively unreasonable.
Wright v. County of San Mateo
(California Court of Appeal) - Held that homeowners were not disqualified from taking a tax break. California has a special tax provision benefitting homeowners over 55 years of age when they relocate to a replacement dwelling in the same county. Reversed the trial court.
Washington State Dept. of Licensing v. Cougar Den, Inc.
(United States Supreme Court) - This case involved the State of Washington's tax on fuel importers who travel by public highway. The Yakama Nation contended that its 1855 treaty with the United States forbids that tax from being imposed upon fuel importers who are tribal members. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed with the tribe. Justice Breyer's plurality opinion was joined by only two other justices. Justices Gorsuch and Ginsburg concurred in the judgment.
Gaylor v. Peecher
(United States Seventh Circuit) - Upheld an Internal Revenue Code provision that excludes housing allowances from ministers' taxable federal income. An advocacy group contended that the tax provision violates the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. Disagreeing, the Seventh Circuit held that the longstanding tax code exemption for religious housing is constitutional, reversing the district court.
Advanced Building and Fabrication Inc. v. Ayers
(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that an employee of the California State Board of Equalization violated clearly established law by participating in law enforcement's execution of a search warrant at the business premises of a man with whom he had a recent altercation. Affirmed the denial of his motion seeking qualified immunity in this lawsuit alleging civil rights and tort claims.
Dieringer v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed the Tax Court's decision that a decedent's estate had overstated the amount of a charitable deduction and thus received a large tax windfall. Also affirmed the imposition of an accuracy-related penalty.
BNSF Railway Co. v. Loos
(United States Supreme Court) - Held that an award of damages compensating an injured railroad worker for lost wages was subject to taxation under the Railroad Retirement Tax Act. The worker contended that the wages he recovered in this Federal Employers' Liability Act case should not be considered compensation subject to the payroll tax, which funds a self-sustaining retirement benefits system for railroad workers. Disagreeing, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the tax applied. Justice Ginsburg delivered the opinion of a 7-2 Court.
McClain v. Sav-On Drugs
(Supreme Court of California) - Held that customers who had paid sales tax on purchases they believed to be exempt did not have an equitable cause of action to compel the retailers to seek a tax refund from the state, under the facts here. Affirmed a judgment sustaining the retailers' demurrer.
J.B. v. US
(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that the Internal Revenue Service failed to comply with its statutory obligation to provide reasonable notice to a taxpayer who was being audited in advance of subpoenaing records from a third party in connection with the audit. Affirmed an order quashing the subpoena.
Dawson v. Steager
(United States Supreme Court) - Held that West Virginia unlawfully discriminated against a U.S. Marshalls Service retiree when it gave a generous pension tax benefit only to state or local retirees who served in law enforcement. The plaintiff relied on a federal statute that, broadly speaking, bars states from taxing the compensation of federal employees differently from state employees. In a unanimous opinion written by Justice Gorsuch, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed with him that West Virginia's tax rule unlawfully disfavored federal retirees.
Dondlinger v. Los Angeles County Regional Park and Open Space District
(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a taxpayer could not proceed with a lawsuit seeking to invalidate a voter-approved special property tax imposed by Los Angeles County. Affirmed a judgment on the pleadings.
DFS Group, L.P. v. County of San Mateo
(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a county tax assessor incorrectly determined the value, for property tax purposes, of a concessionaire's lease at San Francisco International Airport.
Harmony Gold U.S.A., Inc. v. County of Los Angeles
(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a property owner could not proceed with a lawsuit seeking to recover tax overpayments. Affirmed a dismissal, in a case involving the determination of the real property's base-year value, a core metric for assessing property taxes in California.
Freedom Path, Inc. v. Internal Revenue Service
(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that an organization lacked standing to bring a facial challenge to an Internal Revenue Service test for determining certain tax liabilities. The conservative issue-advocacy organization contended that the test was unconstitutionally vague.
Sugarloaf Fund, LLC v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
(United States Seventh Circuit) - Held that a tax shelter reflected an abusive sham. Affirmed the Tax Court's judgment and imposition of penalties.
US v. Johnson
(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed a restitution order against a defendant who was convicted of preparing false tax returns for clients.
SummerHill Winchester LLC v. Campbell Union School District
(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed that a school district failed to take the proper steps to enact a fee on new residential development within the district to fund the construction of school facilities. Held that the fee study did not contain the data required to properly calculate a development fee.
Electronic Privacy Information Center v. IRS
(United States DC Circuit) - Affirmed the dismissal of a nonprofit organization's lawsuit seeking President Donald Trump's income tax records. Held that no one can use a Freedom of Information Act request to demand to inspect another's tax records. The case involved a FOIA request filed by the Electronic Privacy Information Center shortly after the 2016 election.
Benenson v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
(United States Second Circuit) - Held that a husband and wife were not liable for a 2008 tax deficiency. The IRS had applied the substance‐over‐form doctrine to recharacterize various lawful tax‐avoiding transactions as tax‐generating events for the taxpayers, their adult sons, a family trust, and a family‐controlled corporation. Reversed the tax court.
Starr International Co. v. US
(United States DC Circuit) - Held that a Switzerland-based financial firm could proceed with a tax refund claim. The firm sought a $38 million refund under a U.S.-Swiss treaty that deals with the tax on dividends paid by U.S. corporations and received by foreign shareholders. Reversed the district court's ruling that the refund claim raised a nonjusticiable political question.
Karas-Durante v. County of Santa Clara
(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a homeowner was not entitled to a refund of property taxes. County officials correctly determined that there was a change in ownership of a house she co-owned with her sister, which triggered a reassessment of its value. Affirmed a judgment after trial.
Next Century Associates, LLC v. County of Los Angeles
(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a county appeals board erred in denying a hotel's request for a property tax refund. The hotel contended that the property valuation was incorrect. Reversed and remanded to the board for a new hearing.
Professional Tax Appeal v. Kennedy-Wilson Holdings, Inc.
(California Court of Appeal) - Reinstated an unjust enrichment claim brought by a tax specialist that had helped a landowner reduce delinquent property taxes. Held that a foreclosure sale purchaser of the land had reason to know that the tax specialist had a contractual interest in a percentage of the tax refund. Reversed dismissal of the tax specialist's unjust enrichment claim against the foreclosure sale purchaser.
Rogers v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed the Tax Court's finding that a woman did not qualify for innocent spouse relief, in a case involving a married couple's deficient joint federal income tax return.