On Monday, April 24, the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari in four cases involving tax issues.
In the first case, the Court denied Thomas D. Selgas’ petition for review of a trial court’s decision to deny his motion for judgment of acquittal after Selgas was convicted for tax evasion and conspiring to defraud the government. The trial court found that there was sufficient evidence to support Salgas’ conviction for conspiracy to defraud by using an attorney trust account to conceal or underreport settlement income, that he entered into the agreement knowingly and took overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy. Evidence of Salgas’ knowledge of his tax obligations, and that he acted to conceal his income showed he acted willfully, which also supported an evasion conviction. (Selgas, SCt. Dkt. No. 22-729 (2023))
The Court denied, in the second case, Aaron G. Filler’s petition for review of a Ninth Circuit decision that he wasn’t entitled to carryover a purported NOL from an “involuntary conversion,” which he claimed occurred when California infringed on his patent and, as a result, reduced the value of his shares in the corporation holding the patent; mere diminution in value didn’t establish a loss. Filler’s alternate theory, that patent infringement constituted a 5th Amendment taking by “inverse condemnation” resulting in a casualty loss also failed because the casualty loss rules weren’t applicable to shares that were part of a trade or business, patent infringement wasn’t a 5th Amendment taking and/or because there had been no finding of patent infringement in the first place. (Filler, SCt. Dkt. No. 22-784 (2022))
In the third case, the Court denied William R. Tinnerman’s petition for review of an Eleventh Circuit decision affirming the dismissal of his claim that the IRS was required to reverse its seriously delinquent tax deficiency certification under the Administrative Procedures Act. The Appeals Court determined that his appeal was moot in part because his liabilities were written off and the IRS reversed the certification. The CA affirmed in part because Tinnerman failed to show he satisfied the full payment rule. (Tinnerman, SCt. Dkt. No. 22-814 (2023))
In the fourth case, the Court denied Joe Alfred Izen’s cert petition. Izen, sought review of a Tax Court decision, affirmed by the Fifth Circuit, of the IRS’ rejection of his charitable contribution deduction for his alleged contribution of an aircraft. According to the Appeals Court, the Tax Court’s decision was proper because Izen didn’t claim the deduction on his original return but, rather, on an amended return filed nearly six years after the alleged contribution and the documentation he attached to the amended return wasn’t a “contemporaneous written acknowledgement,” so it didn’t satisfy the substantiation requirements. (Izen, Sup. Ct. Dkt. No. 22-808 (2023))
Get all the latest tax, accounting, audit, and corporate finance news with Checkpoint Edge. Sign up for a free 7-day trial today.