Larson Part 2: Absence of Prepayment Judicial Review Is Not a Constitutional...
Carl Smith’s earlier post on Larson v United States discussed Larson’s argument that the Flora rule should not apply to immediately assessable civil penalties under Section 6707. Larson also argued...
View ArticleUpdate: Can District Courts Hear Innocent Spouse Refund Suits?
We welcome back frequent guest blogger Carl Smith. Carl discusses a case, Hockin, in which the Tax Clinic at the Legal Services Center of Harvard Law School has filed an amicus brief. If you read the...
View ArticleLike the First Amphibian Crawling Out of the Swamp onto Land, the Flora Rule...
The case of Bedrosian v. United States, No. 17-3525, __ F.3d __, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 36146 (3rd Cir. Dec. 21, 2018) marks the possible jurisdictional cross-over of the Flora rule from the tax code...
View ArticleAssessable Penalties Do Not Violate Due Process
In Interior Glass Systems, Inc. v. United States, No. 17-15713 (9th Cir. 2019) the court held that a taxpayer against whom the IRS had assessed an IRC 6707A listed transaction penalty could not have...
View ArticleCracks in the Flora Rule? Definition of a “Tax” and the New World of...
This year, the Notre Dame Tax Clinic litigated a case in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, which sought a refund of taxes claimed on our clients’ amended tax return....
View ArticleUsing Bivens to Attack Flora
In Canada v. United States, 125 AFTR2d 2020-960 (5th Cir. 2020) the taxpayer brought a Bivens suit seeking damages against the revenue agents because the agents caused the IRS to assess against him a...
View ArticleAre FBAR Penalties Taxes for Purposes of the Flora Rule?
In Mendu v. United States, No. 1:17-cv-00738 (Ct. Fd. Claims April 7, 2021) the Court of Federal Claims held that FBAR penalties are not taxes for purposes of applying the Flora rule. In arguing for...
View ArticleIRC 7459(d) and the Impact of Dismissal
On May 20, 2021, the Court of Federal Claims decided the case of Jolly v. United States, Dk. No. 20-412. Ms. Jolly pursued the case pro se. The court lists the opinion as not for publication. The...
View Article
