Логин или email Регистрация Пароль Я забыл пароль


Войти при помощи:

Судебные дела / Зарубежная практика  / FEDEX CORPORATION; FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION, and Subsidiaries,, Plaintiffs-Appellees , v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellant ., UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, No. 03-6514, February 16, 2005

FEDEX CORPORATION; FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION, and Subsidiaries,, Plaintiffs-Appellees , v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellant ., UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, No. 03-6514, February 16, 2005

24.06.2008  

FEDEX CORPORATION; FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION, and Subsidiaries,

Plaintiffs-Appellees , v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellant .

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-6514

February 16, 2005

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Tennessee at Memphis.

No. 01-02200≈Samuel H. Mays, Jr., District Judge.

Argued: December 6, 2004

Decided and Filed: February 16, 2005 *

**********

* ═ This decision was originally issued as an "unpublished decision" filed on February 16, 2005. On April 19, 2005, the court designated the opinion as one recommended for full-text publication.

**********

Before: NELSON and BATCHELDER, Circuit Judges; COLLIER, District Judge. **

**********

** The Honorable Curtis L. Collier, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Tennessee, sitting by designation.

**********

COUNSEL

ARGUED: Kenneth L. Greene, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, TAX DIVISION, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Kenneth W. Gideon, SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM, LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Kenneth L. Greene, Randolph L. Hutter, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, TAX DIVISION, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Kenneth W. Gideon, Albert H. Turkus, SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM, LLP, Washington, D.C., Colby S. Morgan, Jr., Joseph L. Schiffhouer, Kathleen L. Chambers, FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION, Memphis, Tennessee, for Appellees.

OPINION

ALICE M. BATCHELDER, Circuit Judge. The United States appeals the district court's order granting judgment in favor of Plaintiffs-Appellees FedEx Corp. and subsidiaries ("FedEx") for overpayment of taxes in the amount of $66,474,287.10 plus interest thereon. FedEx, a common carrier, paid $70,000,000 in taxes and accrued interest pursuant to an Internal Revenue Service determination that it was required to capitalize, rather than currently deduct, expenses attributable to off-wing maintenance of its jet aircraft engines and auxiliary power units incurred during tax years 1993 and 1994. To perform this maintenance, technicians would remove the engine from the aircraft, clean it, and make minor repairs. Finding that the maintenance performed on the engines and auxiliary power units constituted incidental repairs that did not appreciably prolong the life of the aircraft, the district court held that FedEx was entitled to deduct such maintenance costs that were incurred during tax years 1993 through 1994 and entered a judgment compensating FedEx for its overpayment of taxes.

After carefully reviewing the record, the applicable law, the parties' briefs and counsels' arguments, we are convinced that the district court did not err. We cannot improve upon the district court's opinion, published at 291 F. Supp. 2d 699 (W.D. Tenn. 2003), which carefully and correctly sets out the law governing the issues raised, and clearly articulates the reasons underlying its decision. Issuance of a full written opinion by this court would therefore serve no useful purpose. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the district court's opinion, we AFFIRM .

Разместить:

Вы также можете   зарегистрироваться  и/или  авторизоваться  

   

Электронный документ: вчера, сегодня, завтра

Несколько последних публикаций экспертов Synerdocs были посвящены электронным документам в судах и развитию системы электронного правосудия. В настоящей статье хотелось бы подвести некоторый итог и поднять вопрос о будущем электронного правосудия в России. А оно, как вы понимаете, напрямую связано с электронными документами

1
Чек-лист для проверки электронного документа на юридическую значимость

В этом году мы много говорили о представлении электронных документов в суд, не скупились на советы и рекомендации. При этом давно не поднимали тему юридической значимости. Пожалуй, с этого стоило начать цикл статей про электронное правосудие. Предлагаю обсудить, из чего же складывается юридическая значимость любого документа, и на что стоит обратить внимание при проверке документа на соответствие требованиям действующего законодательства в области ЭДО. Информация будет полезна всем: кто уже работает с электронными аналогами и тем, кто только открывает для себя новую область знаний.