|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|11-139||4th Cir.||Jan 17, 2012||Apr 25, 2012||5-4||Breyer||OT 2011|
Holding: Section 6501(e)(1)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code, which extends the limitations period for the government to assess a deficiency against a taxpayer, does not apply when a taxpayer overstates the basis in property that he has sold, thereby understating the gain received from the sale.
Plain English Summary: The tax law gives the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) only a limited amount of time, known as a statute of limitations, to challenge a taxpayer’s statement on his tax return of the amount of tax that he owes. Ordinarily, that period is three years, but the law provides that it is six years in certain circumstances where it is unusually difficult for the IRS to determine that it has a disagreement with the taxpayer’s approach. In this case, the Court considered whether a particular situation – where the taxpayer has overstated its original cost of a piece of property – falls within the three-year category or instead within the six-year category. Adhering to the interpretation of the same language in an old Supreme Court decision involving a slightly different law, the Court held that the three-year statute of limitations applies. The result is that it is too late for the IRS to contest the tax liability of a large group of taxpayers that participated in certain similar deals and, according to the IRS, did not properly report the tax consequences of those deals.
Merits Briefs for the Petitioner
Merits Briefs for the Respondents
Amicus Briefs in Support of the Respondents
Just in: The next Supreme Court opinion day will be next Monday. The court expects to release one or more opinions in argued cases from the current term.
End of an era: Here is NBC News prez Noah Oppenheim's memo about Pete Williams' plan to retire this summer
The Supreme Court sides with Sen. Ted Cruz in his First Amendment challenge to a federal campaign-finance law that limits how and when candidates can recoup loans that they make to their own campaigns. The vote is 6-3 along ideological lines.
In an immigration case, SCOTUS rules 5-4 that federal courts do NOT have jurisdiction to review certain executive-branch factual findings that determine whether non-citizens are eligible for "adjustment of status." Those findings can dictate whether a person is deported.
SCOTUS agrees to take up two new cases: Jones v. Hendrix (a habeas corpus case) and SEC v. Cochran (a case about the power of district courts to hear challenges to the constitutionality of the SEC's administrative law proceedings). Full order list here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/051622zor_hgcj.pdf
We're live now on SCOTUSblog's homepage or at https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/05/announcement-of-orders-and-opinions-for-monday-may-16/
Today at SCOTUS: The court will issue one or more opinions in argued cases at 10 a.m. EDT. But first, orders on pending petitions at 9:30. We'll fire up our live blog at 9:25 to break it all down and answer your questions. Grab some ☕️ and come join us: https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/05/announcement-of-orders-and-opinions-for-monday-may-16/