Abstracts - faqs.org

Abstracts

Law

Search abstracts:
Abstracts » Law

First Circuit applies duty of consistency to uphold denial of tax refund

Article Abstract:

The US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit ruled in Eagan v. United States that the duty of consistency barred the taxpayer from arguing a position to the detriment of the IRS that was contrary to the taxpayer's original representation. The taxpayer claimed no income tax liability from his 401(k) distribution because the 401(k) plan the taxpayer participated in was disqualified by his participation in it. He claimed that the IRS should have taxed the income when earned. The statute of limitations had since run, of course. The Court found that the duty of consistency applied to the taxpayer's position even though it was a mixed question of law and fact.

Publisher: Bureau of National Affairs, Inc.
Publication Name: Tax Management Compensation Planning Journal
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0747-8607
Year: 1996
Tax appeals

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA


Filing of Form 5500, not Form 5330, begins three-year statute of limitations under s. 6511

Article Abstract:

The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the lower court's granting of a motion to dismiss because the statute of limitations for claiming a refund of prohibited transaction excise taxes had run. The benefit plan had argued that the date the Form 5330 was filed with the excise tax payment should be the starting date for the statute of limitations. The Court favored the IRS' interpretation of IRC section 6511 that the dates on which the statute began to run were the original Form 5500 filing dates.

Publisher: Bureau of National Affairs, Inc.
Publication Name: Tax Management Compensation Planning Journal
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0747-8607
Year: 1996
Qualified benefit plans

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA


Understanding the effects of the Microsoft decision and dealing with its implications

Article Abstract:

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals' decision in Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corp. concerning Microsoft's improper classification of workers, which resulted in denials of employee benefits, is the focus of this article. The decision's practical implications for employers' continued use of temporary or contract employees is discussed, particularly in light of ERISA requirements.

Author: Katz, Harvey M.
Publisher: Bureau of National Affairs, Inc.
Publication Name: Tax Management Compensation Planning Journal
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0747-8607
Year: 1999
United States, Microsoft Corp., Compensation and benefits, Employee benefits, Workers, Temporary employment, Independent contractors, Temporary employees

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA


Subjects list: United States, Cases, Laws, regulations and rules, Tax refunds, Limitation of actions (Taxation), Statute of limitations (Taxation), Pension funds
Similar abstracts:
  • Abstracts: Against fiduciary duties to corporate stakeholders. The agile virtual corporation. Reexamining the fiduciary paradigm at corporate insolvency and dissolution: defining directors' duties to creditors
  • Abstracts: Calif. course wins a skirmish in the battle of the bar reviews. Circuit ruling challenges 'Bakke,' threatens law school diversity
  • Abstracts: Ninth Circuit decisions focus on role of courts in reviewing plan administrators' decisions. Exhaustion of administrative remedies under qualified plan not required where plaintiff seeks to enforce statutory protections
  • Abstracts: Together and apart: two juries, one trial. A potentially explosive execution. Evidence; McVeigh and fairness
  • Abstracts: The international suture: a comparative approach to patenting methods of medical treatment. "The same effect" United States provisional patent applications and Paris Convention priority rights
This website is not affiliated with document authors or copyright owners. This page is provided for informational purposes only. Unintentional errors are possible.
Some parts © 2025 Advameg, Inc.