ROMINGER LEGAL
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Opinions - 5th Circuit
Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS
NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -CLICK HERE
This opinion or court case is from the Fifth Circuit Court or Appeals. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

LEGAL RESEARCH
COURT REPORTERS
PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS
PROCESS SERVERS
DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS
EXPERT WITNESSES

 

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

 
Web Rominger Legal

Legal News - Legal Headlines

 

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 94-40277
Summary Calendar
JOE L. & BARBARA B. ALLBRITTON,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from a Decision of the United States Tax Court
(October 25, 1994)
Before DUHÉ, WIENER, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
In this appeal from the Tax Court's grant of plaintiffs-
appellees' motion for summary judgment, the defendant-appellant
Commissioner of Internal Revenue (Commissioner) asserts error in
the court's determination that Section 163(d)(2) of the Internal
Revenue Code permits a taxpayer to carry over and deduct
investment interest expense in excess of taxable income. We
review this question of law de novo.1
The plaintiffs-appellees (Taxpayers) claimed deductions in
1See Harris v. Commissioner, 16 F.3d 75, 81 (5th Cir. 1994).

1985 and 1986 for carryover investment interest expense that was
not deductible in 1984 under Section 163(d)(1).2 The carryover
to 1985 exceeded the Taxpayers' taxable income in 1984, and the
carryover to 1986 exceeded their taxable income for 1985. The
Commissioner determined deficiencies with respect to the
Taxpayers' 1985 and 1986 tax years, asserting that under Section
163(d)(2) of the Code, the Taxpayers could only carry over an
amount of investment interest expense that did not exceed their
taxable income for the year. The Taxpayers contested this
determination in Tax Court, maintaining that Section 163(d) did
not limit the investment interest carryover to the year's taxable
income, and the Tax Court granted their motion for summary
judgment.
We cannot find a single published opinion supporting the
Commissioner's position. In Beyer v. Commissioner3, the Fourth
Circuit considered and decided this very issue. After thoroughly
reviewing the legislative history of Section 163(d), that court
found that "Congress did not intend to impose a limitation on
2Section 163(d) provides that the amount of investment
interest allowable as a deduction is limited to $10,000 plus the
amount of net investment income for the year. See 26 U.S.C.
§163(d)(1). It further provides for a carryover of disallowed
investment interest (that amount exceeding the Section 163(d)(1)
limitation) for any taxable year to the succeeding taxable year.
See 26 U.S.C. § 163(d)(2).
3916 F.2d 153 (4th Cir. 1990).
2

the carry-over of investment interest based on taxable income."4
Since the Beyer decision, every court that has considered this
issue - - two other Courts of Appeals and several district courts
- - have also rejected the Commissioner's position, finding that
the carryover deduction of investment interest is not limited to
taxable income.5
We agree with the reasoning in these cases and conclude, as
did they, that in enacting Section 163(d), Congress evidenced no
intent to limit the investment interest expense carryover to the
amount of a taxpayer's taxable income. Here, the Taxpayers were
entitled to their claimed deductions of investment interest
expense for 1985 and 1986, and the district court properly
granted their motion for summary judgment.
The government's assessment of deficiencies in the
Taxpayers' income taxes, and its appeal based on the same
statutory interpretation previously rejected by the Fourth
4Id. at 157. The Fourth Circuit in Beyer reversed the Tax
Court's ruling in favor of the government. Subsequently, the Tax
Court explicity held invalid its previous decision. See Lenz v.
Commissioner, 101 T.C. 260, 261 (1993)(en banc)(stating that
"[u]pon reconsideration of our opinion in Beyer, we now think it
to be incorrect").
5See Flood v. United States, No. 93-35429, 1994 WL 467307
(9th Cir. Aug. 31, 1994); Sharp v. United States, 14 F.3d 583
(Fed. Cir. 1993); Haas v. United States, No. 4:93-CV-158, 1994 WL
460545 (W.D. Mich. Jul. 19, 1994); Richardson v. United States,
No. Civ. 92-2267-T, 1994 WL 117046 (W.D. Okla. Jan. 18, 1994),
appeal docketed, No. 94-6107 (10th Cir. Mar. 21, 1994); Weiner v.
United States, No. 8:CV-92-00395, 1993 WL 738461 (D.Neb. Dec. 21,
1993).
3

Circuit, the Federal Circuit, and several district courts6
constitutes "circuit-shopping" at the Taxpayers' expense in the
hopes of creating a circuit conflict. Under 26 U.S.C. § 7430, a
taxpayer who establishes that "the position of the United States
in the proceeding was not substantially justified" may recover
the reasonable costs of litigation.7 The Commissioner's repeated
losses on the identical issue establishes beyond serious question
that the government's actions in assessing the deficiencies,
litigating again an issue so consistently lost, and appealing the
grant of the Taxpayers' motion for summary judgment, were not
"justified to a degree that could satisfy a reasonable person."8
We have previously ruled that, while the Commissioner is
free by law to relitigate prior lost issues in other circuits, he
does so at the risk of incurring the obligation to reimburse the
taxpayer.9 Therefore, in continuing to litigate this issue
despite constant jurisprudence to the contrary, the Commissioner
6The Ninth Circuit's decision in Flood v. United States,
dated August 31, 1994, came after the government's appeal in this
case.
7See 26 U.S.C. § 7430(c)(4)(defining "prevailing party").
Section 7430 of Title 26 provides that "[i]n any . . . court
proceeding which is brought by or against the United States in
connection with the . . . refund of any tax, interest, or penalty
. . . the prevailing party may be awarded a judgment [for]
reasonable litigation costs incurred in connection with such
court proceeding." 26 U.S.C. § 7430(a)(1988).
8See Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552, 565, 108 S.Ct. 2541,
2550, 101 L.Ed.2d 490, 504 (1988)(defining the term
"substantially justified" for purposes of awarding attorney fees
against the government).
9See Estate of Perry v. Commissioner, 931 F.2d 1044, 1046
(5th Cir. 1991).
4

is not substantially justified and should bear all reasonable
costs of Taxpayers' litigation.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the Tax Court's order
granting the Taxpayers' motion for summary judgment and invite
counsel for the Taxpayers to file an application in accordance
with Federal Circuit Rule 47.7(b)(2) for reasonable costs,
including attorney fees, under 26 U.S.C. § 7430.
AFFIRMED.
5

Ask a Lawyer

 

 

FREE CASE REVIEW BY A LOCAL LAWYER!
|
|
\/

Personal Injury Law
Accidents
Dog Bite
Legal Malpractice
Medical Malpractice
Other Professional Malpractice
Libel & Slander
Product Liability
Slip & Fall
Torts
Workplace Injury
Wrongful Death
Auto Accidents
Motorcycle Accidents
Bankruptcy
Chapter 7
Chapter 11
Business/Corporate Law
Business Formation
Business Planning
Franchising
Tax Planning
Traffic/Transportation Law
Moving Violations
Routine Infractions
Lemon Law
Manufacturer Defects
Securities Law
Securities Litigation
Shareholder Disputes
Insider Trading
Foreign Investment
Wills & Estates

Wills

Trusts
Estate Planning
Family Law
Adoption
Child Abuse
Child Custody
Child Support
Divorce - Contested
Divorce - Uncontested
Juvenile Criminal Law
Premarital Agreements
Spousal Support
Labor/Employment Law
Wrongful Termination
Sexual Harassment
Age Discrimination
Workers Compensation
Real Estate/Property Law
Condemnation / Eminent Domain
Broker Litigation
Title Litigation
Landlord/Tenant
Buying/Selling/Leasing
Foreclosures
Residential Real Estate Litigation
Commercial Real Estate Litigation
Construction Litigation
Banking/Finance Law
Debtor/Creditor
Consumer Protection
Venture Capital
Constitutional Law
Discrimination
Police Misconduct
Sexual Harassment
Privacy Rights
Criminal Law
DUI / DWI / DOI
Assault & Battery
White Collar Crimes
Sex Crimes
Homocide Defense
Civil Law
Insurance Bad Faith
Civil Rights
Contracts
Estate Planning, Wills & Trusts
Litigation/Trials
Social Security
Worker's Compensation
Probate, Will & Trusts
Intellectual Property
Patents
Trademarks
Copyrights
Tax Law
IRS Disputes
Filing/Compliance
Tax Planning
Tax Power of Attorney
Health Care Law
Disability
Elder Law
Government/Specialty Law
Immigration
Education
Trade Law
Agricultural/Environmental
IRS Issues

 


Google
Search Rominger Legal


 


LEGAL HELP FORUM - Potential Client ? Post your question.
LEGAL HELP FORUM - Attorney? Answer Questions, Maybe get hired!

NOW - CASE LAW - All 50 States - Federal Courts - Try it for FREE


 


Get Legal News
Enter your Email


Preview

We now have full text legal news
drawn from all the major sources!!

ADD A SEARCH ENGINE TO YOUR PAGE!!!

TELL A FRIEND ABOUT ROMINGER LEGAL

Ask Your Legal Question Now.

Pennsylvania Lawyer Help Board

Find An Attorney

TERMS OF USE - DISCLAIMER - LINKING POLICIES

Created and Developed by
Rominger Legal
Copyright 1997 - 2010.

A Division of
ROMINGER, INC.