9th Circuit court overturns IRS Ruling

[cumplidor 0]

Don't know if this has been posted yet here or not, if so- sorry. Thought the taxpayers should be aware it can happen to you too!

It seems on December 4, 2006, the 9th Circuit reversed the United States Tax Court on whether litigation costs involving the IRS making a claim that was 3 times what they were actually owed was the liability of the McKee family to suffer. An added penalty so to speak.

It is a short read but the sum of it is the Tax Court held the IRS was not liable for their calculation blunders on the basis that the Tax Court, in its discretion, claimed the regulations written by the IRS and codes were so complex that the IRS could not be held liable for its failure to understand them. The 9th Circuit reversed.

The Commissioner of the Internal Revenue asked the 9th Circuit not to make the decision public.

mp3 is of Paul Harvey making it public...

edited to add attachments , okay can't upload mp3... hmm I will figure that out and get back to you

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

the Tax Court held the IRS was not liable for their calculation blunders on the basis that the regulations written by the IRS and codes were so complex that the IRS could not be held liable for its failure to understand them.

Then how the hell can the IRS hold us responsible for not being able to figure out that same code?

[BIGUN 1,506]

Ya know.... just in the interest of verifying it, I did a Google search on the IRS number. For something that's not for publication; it's on the 9th CA's government website (see url at the bottom of the 1st hit on the search). I'm crackin up.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=irs+no.+4036-03

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[livendive 8]

Quote

Ya know.... just in the interest of verifying it, I did a Google search on the IRS number. For something that's not for publication; it's on the 9th CA's government website (see url at the bottom of the 1st hit on the search). I'm crackin up.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=irs+no.+4036-03

Me too...I've sent the explanation and your link on to several others at work, and all seem to see the same hilarity.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[kallend 2,182]

But but - the 9th Circuit gets everything wrong

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

But but - the 9th Circuit gets everything wrong

Hmmmm, I think I am stealing this one from you!
Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,182]

Quote

Quote

But but - the 9th Circuit gets everything wrong

Hmmmm, I think I am stealing this one from you!
Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

That explains it.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

But but - the 9th Circuit gets everything wrong

Hmmmm, I think I am stealing this one from you!
Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

That explains it.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

For something that's not for publication; it's on the 9th CA's government website

"Published" versus "unpublished" opinions are a term of art. Most opinions in courts are "unpublished" - while part of the public record, they are not deemed worthy of publication.

For an opinion to be "published" it typically has to resolve or create a conflict in law, estblish a new rule of law or applies a new law or new facts and theories, or otherwise make some sort of contribution to legal literature.
It's why it says on the first page, "* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be
cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3."

This is a neat little memorandum, but really does not add anything to legal thought. No lawyer can cite this in court. It does not do anything but grant costs because of a determination that the appealants were the prevailing party.

And yes, it IS hilarious that the IRS's defense was that it's own regulations were complex, which caused the error.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[nathaniel 0]

Quote

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

Some stopped clocks might not be right twice a day. What if it stuck at 2:01AM? Then it would be right three times on a daylight savings fall-back day, and only once on a daylight savings spring-forward day. Or if it stuck during a leap second (23:59:60), it might not be right again for months or years.

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

[BIGUN 1,506]

Ahhh,. OK. I'm with ya... Unpublished, but public record. Not pushed out, but available.

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

Some stopped clocks might not be right twice a day. What if it stuck at 2:01AM? Then it would be right three times on a daylight savings fall-back day, and only once on a daylight savings spring-forward day. Or if it stuck during a leap second (23:59:60), it might not be right again for months or years.

Quote

Ahhhhh you ruined the fun and besides. I mentioned I ripped it off

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

• Quote

Share this post

---

Link to post

Share on other sites

[lawrocket 3]

For another funny bit of legal procedure, I saw a brief today, but I cannot reduce it to a small enough size where I can attach it.

It's basically a motion for a continuance for a trial that was supposed to start on Monday, January 22, 2007 in New Orleans. The request was because the Saints were playing the day before:

Faye Thibodeaux Danos v. Avondale Industries, et al.
Case No 2003-15723
Civil District Court
Parish of New Orleans

"As this court knows, it was determined just last weekend that the New orleans Saints will play in the NFC Championship game - the first such game in the franchise's forty-year history - against the chicago Bears in Chicago, Illinois on Sunday, january 21, 2007 at 2:30 p.m. In order to accommodate all fans, including a great majority of the jury pool, the parties involved in this case, and the counsel involved in this case, and in order to ensure that a full jury pool appears on the first day of trial, Defendants request that the beginning of the jury trial be pushed back two days to January 24, 2007."

My wife is hotter than your wife.