Justia U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff’s CPA failed to file Plaintiff’s tax returns for three consecutive years: 2014 through 2016. In 2019, the IRS assessed Plaintiff with over seventy thousand dollars in penalties for violating Section 6651(a) of the Internal Revenue Code and barred him from applying his 2014 overpayment to taxes owed for 2015 and 2016. Plaintiff sued, arguing that his failure to file was due to reasonable cause. He also sought a refund of the penalties. The district court granted summary judgment for the government, concluding that United States v. Boyle foreclosed Plaintiff’s claims. Plaintiff appealed.   The Eleventh Circuit affirmed. The court explained that if Plaintiff’s CPA had failed to file paper tax returns, there would be no question that Boyle would have precluded a reasonable cause defense and a refund. However, the court explained that no circuit court has yet applied Boyle to e-filed tax returns. The court decided that Boyle’s bright line rule applies to e-filed returns. Thus, the court concluded that Plaintiff’s reliance on his CPA does not constitute “reasonable cause” under Section 6651(a)(1). View "Wayne Lee v. USA" on Justia Law

This appeal turns on the meaning of the phrase “partner level determinations” in Section 6230(a)(2)(A)(i) of the now-repealed Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (“TEFRA”). When the IRS adjusts the tax items of a partnership, these partnership-level changes often require corresponding adjustments to “affected items” on the individual partners’ income tax returns. The IRS makes these resulting partner-level changes using one of two procedures. If adjusting a partner-taxpayer’s affected item “require[s] partner level determinations,” the IRS must send the taxpayer a notice of deficiency describing the adjustment to the taxpayer’s tax liability, and the taxpayer has the right to challenge the adjustments in court before paying. If, on the other hand, adjusting the affected item does not “require partner level determinations,” the IRS generally must make a direct assessment against the taxpayer, and the taxpayer may challenge the adjustment only in a post-payment refund action.   The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the Tax Court. The court explained that making the relevant adjustments requires an individualized assessment of each taxpayer’s unique circumstances, we hold that they “require partner level determinations,” mandating deficiency procedures. The court explained that none of the authorities on which taxpayers rely addressed the ultimate question in this case—whether adjusting losses claimed on sales of property from a sham partnership requires partner-level determinations. Instead, all the on-point caselaw bolsters our conclusion. The court explained that because it concluded that the IRS was required to make partner-level determinations to adjust the taxpayers’ reported losses and itemized deductions, the IRS properly employed deficiency procedures to make these adjustments. View "Estate of James P. Keeter, Deceased, et al. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue" on Justia Law

In 2008, Debtors Mosaic Management Group, Inc., Mosaic Alternative Assets, Ltd., and Paladin Settlements, Inc. filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the Southern District of Florida, a “UST district” in which the U.S. Trustee program operates. In June 2017, the bankruptcy court confirmed a joint Chapter 11 plan, under which most of the Debtors’ assets were transferred to an Investment Trust managed by an Investment Trustee. The issue before the court is the appropriate remedy for the constitutional violation the Supreme Court found in Siegel. The Debtors in this case—being debtors in a U.S. Trustee district—have been required to pay higher fees than a comparable debtor in one of the six BA districts in Alabama or North Carolina.   The Eleventh Circuit vacated and remanded. The court concluded that Reich, Newsweek, Bennett, McKesson, and the long line of similar state tax cases are closely analogous to the instant case and provide strong precedent supporting the refund remedy urged upon us by the Debtors. Accordingly, the court held that the appropriate remedy in this case for the constitutional violation identified in Siegel is the refunds that the Debtors in this case seek. View "United States Trustee Region 21 v. Bast Amron LLP" on Justia Law

Petitioners chartered their yacht, Lady Leila, in 2014 and 2015. They did not conduct the chartering activity for profit—it was a hobby. Though the hobby generated income, it also incurred sizeable expenses each year. Petitioners deducted some of those expenses under Section 183(b)(2) and placed them “above the line” to reduce their gross income. After an audit, the Commissioner determined that the Section 183(b)(2) deductions were miscellaneous itemized deductions under Section 67, meaning that they belonged “below the line” and reduced adjusted gross income, not gross income. Moreover, because Petitioners had earned tens of millions of dollars in 2014 and 2015 and, at that time, the Code allowed miscellaneous itemized deductions only to the extent that they exceeded two percent of adjusted gross income, the Commissioner disallowed the Section 183(b)(2) deductions altogether. Facing deficiencies and penalties, Petitioners petitioned the Tax Court, which granted summary judgment for the Commissioner. They sought appellate review.   The Eleventh Circuit agreed with the Tax Court and denied the petition for review. The court explained that because Sections 63 and 67 also omit Section 183, hobby expenses deducted under Section 183(b)(2) are miscellaneous itemized deductions. During the relevant time period, these deductions were subject to a two-percent floor on adjusted gross income. The result is that Section 183(b)(2) gave Petitioners a deduction for their expenses from operating Lady Leila, but Section 67 did not allow them to take that deduction because they could not meet the two-percent threshold for miscellaneous itemized deductions. View "Carl L. Gregory, et al v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue" on Justia Law

Petitioner sent $10,263,750 to the United States Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) as a “deposit” toward his expected gift tax liability. After an IRS audit examination and Petitioner’s tax deficiency proceeding in the Tax Court, Petitioner and the IRS settled the deficiency proceeding, stipulating that Petitioner owed a gift tax deficiency of $6,790,000 for 2011. The IRS applied the $10,263,750 to that 2011 deficiency and issued Petitioner a check for the balance of $3,473,750. The parties disputed the interest rate. The IRS used the interest rate for deposits, which is the federal short-term rate. Petitioner wanted the interest rate for overpayments, which is the federal short-term rate plus three percentage points. In the Tax Court, Petitioner filed a petition to reopen his case to redetermine interest. The Tax Court has jurisdiction to redetermine interest due to a taxpayer if the court previously found a remittance was an overpayment. So its jurisdiction turns on whether the Tax Court found that Petitioner made an overpayment of tax.   The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the Tax Court’s decision denying Petitioner’s motion to redetermine interest for lack of jurisdiction. The court concluded that there is no Tax Court finding that Petitioner made an overpayment of tax, and thus the Tax Court did not have jurisdiction over Petitioner’s post-judgment motion to redetermine interest. The court explained that, at most, the Tax Court was silent on whether Petitioner made an overpayment for the tax year 2011. The Tax Court’s silence cannot be, and is not, a finding of an overpayment for Section 6512(b)(1) jurisdictional purposes. View "Albert G. Hill, III v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue" on Justia Law

The government filed a complaint against Defendant, alleging that he promoted a tax evasion scheme in which he advised his clients to claim unwarranted federal income tax deductions for bogus charitable donations. The government sought to enjoin him from operating his business, as well as disgorgement of all of the proceeds from his scheme.   The question before the Eleventh Circuit was whether the Act bars a defendant from moving—in an action initiated by the government—for a protective order to restrain the government from using his responses to requests for admission when assessing a tax penalty in a separate administrative proceeding.   The Eleventh Circuit vacated the district court’s dismissal of Defendant’s motion under the Anti-Injunction Act and remanded for further proceedings. The court explained that because moving for a protective order in an action filed by the government does not amount to the maintenance of a “suit,” the Act does not apply. View "USA v. Michael L. Meyer" on Justia Law

Petitioner failed to report millions of dollars in income. After an audit, an IRS examiner sent him a letter that said Petitioner owed penalties on top of his back taxes. Petitioner tried to negotiate without success; the examiner’s direct supervisor signed a second letter, which proposed the same penalties, as well as a form approving those penalties. The Tax Court disallowed the penalties, holding that the supervisor’s approval came too late because she had not approved the penalties at the time of the first letter. The IRS appealed, arguing that the Tax Court misinterpreted Section 6751(b)’s requirements.   The Eleventh Circuit reversed the Tax Court. The court explained that the statute prohibits assessing a penalty unless a condition has been met—supervisory approval of the initial determination of an assessment. But the statute regulates assessments; it does not regulate communications to the taxpayer. Because the IRS did not assess Petitioner’s penalties without a supervisor approving an “initial determination of such assessment,” the court held that the IRS has not violated Section 6751(b). View "Burt Kroner v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue" on Justia Law

The appeal involves the tax consequences of Petitioners' participation in a complex tax avoidance scheme. Petitioners expected to realize an $80.9 million capital gain as a result of selling a portion of his company. The scheme, which involved a set of tiered partnerships, allowed Petitioners to claim a $77.6 million artificial loss to offset his legitimate capital gains. A federal district court found the scheme to be an abusive tax shelter and upheld the IRS’s disallowance of the benefits of the shelter in a partnership-level proceeding, and a prior panel of the Eleventh Circuit affirmed. As a result of the partnership-level proceeding, the IRS issued a notice of deficiency to Petitioners disallowing the $77.6 million loss deduction they reported on their joint tax return. Petitioners sought review in the U.S. Tax Court, which rejected their various challenges.   The Eleventh Circuit affirmed. The court explained that the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (“TEFRA”), the governing scheme in effect during the relevant period, established uniform audit and litigation procedures for the resolution of partnership tax items. The filing of the final partnership administrative adjustment (FPAA), the timeliness of which Petitioners do not contest, suspended the limitations period for assessment of tax attributable to affected items until January 11, 2017. The 2016 notice asserts a deficiency that is attributable to an affected item. Accordingly, the statute of limitations had not expired when the IRS issued the September 9, 2016 notice of deficiency, as the Tax Court correctly found. View "Raghunathan Sarma, et al v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue" on Justia Law

Affordable Bio Feedstock, Inc., and Affordable Bio Feedstock of Port Charlotte, LLC, (collectively “ABF”) appealed the District Court’s summary judgment denying their claim for reimbursement of “protest payments” made to the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) after the IRS claw-backed an alternative fuel tax credit it had previously given ABF. In support of its position, ABF argued that federal courts may order the Government to pay plaintiffs money from the Federal Treasury based solely on equitable principles.  At issue on appeal is whether any court may order that fund be appropriated from the Federal Treasury based on equitable estoppel without specific authorization from Congress.   The Eleventh Circuit affirmed, holding that the Supreme Court foreclosed ABF’s arguments 32 years ago in Office of Personnel Management v. Richmond, 496 U.S. 414, 110 S. Ct. 2465 (1990), when it held that “payments of money from the Federal Treasury are limited to those authorized by statute.”  Here, ABF sought only to recover the money it already paid to the IRS. The only relevant fact is that this money is currently within the Federal Treasury, and so the IRS would have to withdraw money from the Federal Treasury to pay any adverse equitable judgments. Under Richmond, ABF has waived any argument that its activities qualified it for the alternative fuel tax credit under Section 6426 and points to no other statute(s) as a potential basis for recovery. View "Affordable Bio Feedstock, Inc., et al v. USA" on Justia Law

Petitioner went to trial for three counts of tax fraud under 18 U.S.C. Sections 2 and 287 and one count of attempted tax evasion under 26 U.S.C. Section 7201. A jury convicted on all four counts, and he was sentenced to a period of incarceration, supervised release, and restitution. The district court vacated the convictions for the first three counts of tax fraud but left in place the fourth for tax evasion. Petitioner timely appealed, renewing his arguments that his counsel was ineffective 1) in failing to properly move for judgment of acquittal as to Count Four, 2) in calling him to the witness stand, and 3) in failing to advise him of the dangers of testifying in his own defense.   The Eleventh Circuit granted Petitioner’s habeas petition and vacated his conviction under Count Four for tax evasion. The court explained that as to Count Four for attempted tax evasion, the basic inquiry on the ineffective assistance of counsel claim is, whether Petitioner’s trial counsel was deficient in failing to move for judgment of acquittal under Fed. R. Crim. P. 29 after the Government’s presentation of its case-in-chief, and, if so, whether that deficiency prejudiced the outcome of the trial.   The court wrote that here Petitioner’s counsel’s performance was deficient because he failed to properly move for judgment of acquittal when the Government had not carried its evidentiary burden in its case-in-chief. Further, had Petitioner’s counsel properly moved for judgment of acquittal, the district court would have been legally required to grant it for the same reasons the Eleventh Circuit did under a de novo standard. View "Peter Hesser v. USA" on Justia Law