This site uses cookies to provide you with a more responsive and personalized service. By using this site you agree to our use of cookies. Please read our cookie notice for more information on the cookies we use and how to delete or block them.

Bookmark Email Print this page

IRS Insights - January 2014


Deloitte ImageWelcome to the bimonthly publication, IRS Insights, produced by the Deloitte Tax Controversy Services group to keep our clients abreast of current issues related to the Internal Revenue Service.

In this month's issue:

  • U.S. Supreme Court Holds Valuation Misstatement Penalty May Apply When Underlying Deduction or Credit is Disallowed for Reasons Not Specifically Attributable to a Valuation Overstatement
    - The Supreme Court in United States v. Woods, 134 S. Ct. 557 (2013) reversed the 5th Circuit decision in Woods v. United States, 471 Fed. Appx. 320 (5th Cir. Tex. 2012), and held that the valuation misstatement penalty under Internal Revenue Code (“IRC”) § 6662(h) can be applied when the underlying deduction, or credit, giving rise to the understatement has been disallowed for reasons not specifically attributable to a valuation overstatement.
  • Second Circuit Vacates Tax Court Decision, Endorsing Two-Pronged Analysis of Transferee Liability under § 6901 and Finding Liability under State Law, and Remands to Tax Court for Determination of Procedural Issues Governed by Federal Law
    - In Diebold Foundation, Inc. v. Comm’r, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 22964, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated the Tax Court’s decision in Diebold v. Comm’r, T.C. Memo 2010-238, wherein the Tax Court held that there was no transferee liability for seller’s shareholders in a Midco transaction.
  • Supreme Court Denies Certiorari to a Taxpayers’ Petition for Review of a Sixth Circuit Decision Affirming the Dismissal of Their Refund Claim for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction
    - In Stocker v. United States, 705 F.3d 225 (6th Cir. 2013), the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the decision of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan to dismiss the taxpayers’ refund claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding that the taxpayers could not establish that they filed their amended tax return within three years of the date of the filing of their original return.

See attached file for details.

Visit the IRS Insights archive for issues from the past year.

Deloitte Image Subscribe to IRS Insights

Share this page

Email this Send to LinkedIn Send to Facebook Tweet this More sharing options

Stay connected