United States v. Woods
| Docket No. | Op. Below | Argument | Opinion | Vote | Author | Term |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12-562 | 5th Cir. | Oct 9, 2013 | Dec 3, 2013 | 9-0 | Scalia | OT 2013 |
Holding: The district court had jurisdiction to determine whether the partnerships" lack of economic substance could justify imposing a valuation-misstatement penalty on the partners.
Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 9-0, in an opinion by Justice Scalia on December 3, 2013.
SCOTUSblog Coverage
- Opinion analysis: Tough day for the Fifth Circuit (Ronald Mann, December 4, 2013)
- Argument analysis: Justices focused on jurisdictional problem in tax penalties dispute (Ronald Mann, October 10, 2013)
- Argument preview: Court to resolve circuit split about tax penalties (Ronald Mann, October 2, 2013)
- Petition of the day (Mary Pat Dwyer, March 2, 2013)
| Date | Proceedings and Orders |
|---|---|
| 11/06/2012 | Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due December 6, 2012) |
| 12/19/2012 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 11, 2013. |
| 01/04/2013 | Response Requested . (Due February 4, 2013) |
| 02/04/2013 | Brief of respondents Gary Woods, as Tax Matters Partner of Tesoro Drive Partners, et al. in opposition filed. |
| 02/20/2013 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 15, 2013. |
| 02/20/2013 | Reply of petitioner United States filed. (Distributed) |
| 03/18/2013 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 22, 2013. |
| 03/25/2013 | Petition GRANTED. In addition to the question presented by the petition, the parties are directed to brief and argue the following question: Whether the district court had jurisdiction in this case under 26 U. S. C. "6226 to consider the substantial valuation misstatement penalty. |
| 04/04/2013 | The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including May 30, 2013. |
| 04/04/2013 | The time to file respondents' brief on the merits is extended to and including July 22, 2013. |
| 05/30/2013 | Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed.) |
| 05/30/2013 | Brief of petitioner United States filed. |
| 06/05/2013 | Brief amicus curiae of Professor Amandeep S. Grewal in support of neither party filed. |
| 07/19/2013 | Brief of respondents Gary Woods, as Tax Matters Partner of Tesoro Drive Partners, et al. filed. (Distributed) |
| 07/22/2013 | CIRCULATED. |
| 07/23/2013 | SET FOR ARGUMENT on Wednesday, October 9, 2013. |
| 07/25/2013 | Brief amicus curiae of Professor David J. Shakow filed. (Distributed) |
| 07/26/2013 | Brief amici curiae of Gordon W. Bush, et al. filed. (Distributed) |
| 07/26/2013 | Brief amici curiae of New Millennium Trading, LLC, et al. filed. (Distributed) |
| 07/26/2013 | Brief amici curiae of Scott and Audrey Blum filed. (Distributed) |
| 07/26/2013 | Brief amicus curiae of Partners in Jade Trading, LLC, et al. filed. VIDED. (Distributed) |
| 08/02/2013 | Record received from U.S.C.A. for 5th Circuit is electronic and located on PACER. |
| 08/02/2013 | Record received from U.S.D.C. for Western District of Texas is electronic. |
| 08/19/2013 | Reply of petitioner United States filed. (Distributed) |
| 10/08/2013 | Letter and attachments dated October 7, 2013 received from counsel for respondents. (Distributed) |
| 10/09/2013 | Argued. For petitioner: Malcolm L. Stewart, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For respondents: Gregory G. Garre, Washington, D. C. |
| 10/28/2013 | Exhibits received from the U.S.D.C. for the Western District of Texas San Antonio Division. (Three boxes) |
| 12/03/2013 | Judgment REVERSED Scalia, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. |
| 01/06/2014 | JUDGMENT ISSUED. |
| 01/15/2014 | Record from U.S.D.C. Western District of Texas (San Antonio) has been returned. |
Issue: (1) Whether Section 6662 of the Internal Revenue Code, which prescribes a penalty for an underpayment of federal income tax that is “attributable to” an overstatement of basis in property, applies to an un”derpayment resulting from a determination that a transaction lacks economic substance because the sole purpose of the transaction was to generate a tax loss by artificially inflating the taxpayer”s basis in property; and (2) whether the district court had jurisdiction in this case under 26 U.S.C. § 6226 to consider the substantial valuation misstatement penalty.