Логин или email Регистрация Пароль Я забыл пароль


Войти при помощи:

Судебные дела / Зарубежная практика  / Flahertys Arden Bowl, Inc., Appellant, v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Appellee., United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, No. 01-1158, November 16, 2001

Flahertys Arden Bowl, Inc., Appellant, v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Appellee., United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, No. 01-1158, November 16, 2001

24.06.2008  

Flahertys Arden Bowl, Inc., Appellant, v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Appellee.

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-1158

November 16, 2001

Appeal from the United States Tax Court.

PUBLISHED

___________

Submitted: October 15, 2001

Filed: November 16, 2001

___________

Before BOWMAN, BRIGHT, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Flahertys Arden Bowl, Inc. (Taxpayer), appeals from the decision of the Tax Court, 1 Flahertys Arden Bowl, Inc. v. Comm'r , 115 T.C. 269 (2000), granting judgment to the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service on the Commissioner's claim that Taxpayer failed to file excise tax returns and pay the required taxes in 1993 and 1994. 2 The Tax Court held that Taxpayer was subject to tax liability under I.R.C. ╖ 4975(a) (1988) as a result of loans made to Taxpayer from two pension funds of which Patrick F. Flaherty, an officer of Taxpayer who owned more than fifty per cent of the common stock, was a beneficiary and for which he was a fiduciary. Taxpayer argues that it was not liable for the tax because Flaherty, who is indeed a "fiduciary" under the Tax Code definition of that term, see id. ╖ 4975(e)(3) (1988), is excepted from that definition by a section of ERISA 3 codified in Title 29 (Labor), 29 U.S.C. ╖ 1104(c) (1988), that modifies the Tax Code's definition.

**************

1 Honorable Howard A. Dawson, Jr., adopting the opinion of the special trial judge, Honorable Carleton D. Powell.

2 The Tax Court, however, rejected the Commissioner's decision that Taxpayer was liable for additions to tax under I.R.C. ╖ 6651(a)(1) (1988).

3 Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, Pub. L. No. 93-406, 88 Stat. 829 (codified as amended at 29 U.S.C. ╖╖ 1001-1461 and in scattered sections of 26 U.S.C.).

**************

In a thorough opinion, the Tax Court rejected Taxpayer's position. We affirm based on that court's well-reasoned opinion. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We agree with the Tax Court that I.R.C. ╖ 4975(e)(3) is controlling and is not modified by 29 U.S.C. ╖ 1104(c). Taxpayer also appeals from the Tax Court's denial of its motion for reconsideration. We affirm the Tax Court's decision, particularly in view of the decision in Hillman v. IRS , 250 F.3d 228 (4th Cir.), on reh'g , 263 F.3d 338 (4th Cir. 2001), which reverses the tax court decision upon which Taxpayer's argument for reconsideration relies.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.

Разместить:

Вы также можете   зарегистрироваться  и/или  авторизоваться  

   

Легкая судьба электронных документов в суде

Бухгалтерские документы отражают важную информацию о хозяйственной деятельности организации.

Суфиянова Татьяна
Суфиянова Татьяна

Российский налоговый портал

Как открыть для себя «Личный кабинет налогоплательщика»?

Если у вас нет еще доступа в ваш «Личный кабинет», то советую сделать