|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
Bill Cosby’s prosecutors asked the Supreme Court to reinstate his conviction today. Quick explainer.
In our latest episode of SCOTUStalk, @shefalil of @19thnews joined us to preview Wednesday's argument in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health. Shefali explains the current state of abortion access and the case's implications in Mississippi and across America.
Roe, Dobbs, and the current state of abortion access - SCOTUSblog
In advance of Wednesday's oral argument in the momentous abortion case, Shefali Luthra, a gender and health care r...
Update: Without calling for a response or referring the case to the full court, Justice Breyer just rejected last week's challenge from Massachusetts hospital workers who object to the hospital's COVID vaccine mandate.
(Breyer handles emergency requests from Massachusetts.)
JUST IN: Another shadow-docket challenge to a COVID vaccine mandate. This one is from employees at Mass General Brigham who say the Boston-based hospital violated federal law by not granting them exemptions from the hospital's vaccine policy. Filing here: https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/21A175.pdf
Today at SCOTUS: The justices return to the bench for oral argument in a case about Medicare payments to hospitals that serve low-income patients. Lots of money at stake, plus potential implications for the Chevron doctrine. @JACoganJr explains the case:
Money for safety-net hospitals at stake in dispute over Medicare payment formula - SCOTUSblog
When it comes to highlighting the complexity of the Medicare Act and its hospital payment rules, Becerra v. Empire...
Two days from now, SCOTUS will hear the biggest abortion case in a generation. In a battle over a Mississippi law, abortion opponents are asking the court to end the constitutional right to abortion. Here's our preview of the case, via @AHoweBlogger.
Roe v. Wade hangs in balance as reshaped court prepares to hear biggest abortion case in decades - SCOTUSblog
When he ran for president in 2016, then-candidate Donald Trump promised to nominate Supreme Court justices who would...
JUST IN: One new cert grant this morning: Berger v. North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP. More on the case here: https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/berger-v-north-carolina-state-conference-of-the-naacp/
#SCOTUS adds one new case to its merits docket this morning: Berger v. NC Conference of NAACP, in which the justices will weigh in on an effort by Republican legislators in the state to intervene to defend the state’s voter-ID law. Here's the order: https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/112421zr_7li8.pdf