Cases

767 F.Supp. 378 (1991) Robert A. ARONSON, Plaintiff, v. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, et al., Defendants. Civ. A. No. 89-1914-WD. United States District Court, D. Massachusetts. June 24, 1991. *379 Richard W. Lubart, Richard Lubart, Brookline, Mass., for plaintiff. Frank Albert Libby, Jr., U.S. Atty., Boston, Mass., Kathryn Br

BREYER, Chief Judge. The government appeals a district court 767 F.Supp. 378 judgment requiring the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) to provide Robert Aronson, a private tracer of lost taxpayers, with the last known street addresses of persons to whom the government owes tax refunds for the years 1981— 87. The district court held that the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U

610 F.Supp. 217 (1985) UNITED STATES of America and Frank M. Odom, Special Agent, Internal Revenue Service, Petitioners, v. Mitchell ARONSON, Respondent. No. 84-3003-Civ-Aronovitz. United States District Court, S.D. Florida, Miami Division. June 6, 1985. *218 Elizabeth Stein, Asst. U.S. Atty., Miami, Fla., Alvarez L. LeCesne, Jr.

245 N.J. Super. 354 (1991) 585 A.2d 956 BERNICE ARONSON, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. SANFORD W. ARONSON, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division. Argued November 28, 1990. Decided January 16, 1991. *356 Before Judges KING, LONG and R.S. COHEN. Francis W. Donahue arg

656 F.3d 1174 (2011) Mary M. HULL and Nelson B. Phelps, individually and on behalf of the Association of US West Retirees, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF the TREASURY, Defendant-Appellee. No. 10-1410. United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit. August 31, 2011. *1175 Curtis L. K

USCA1 Opinion July 10, 1992 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT ____________________ No. 91-2256 ROBERT A. ARONSON, Plaintiff, Appellant, v.

PER CURIAM: Aronson argues on appeal that the district court erroneously concluded that the attorney-client privilege did not protect certain documents regarding the disposition of real estate and other property. We reject Aronson’s argument. The district court correctly held that such documents — which by their very nature contemp

JACOBS, Judge: This case was heard by Special Trial Judge Peter J. Panuthos pursuant to the provisions of section 7443A and Rule 180.1 The Court agrees with and adopts the Special Trial Judge's opinion, which is set forth below. OPINION OF THE SPECIAL TRIAL JUDGE PANUTHOS, Special Trial Judge:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE Citizens for a Strong New Hampshire, Inc. v. Civil No. 14-cv-487-LM Opinion No. 2016 DNH 169 Internal Revenue Service O R D E R This case began when Citizens for a Strong New Hampshire, Inc. (“Citizens”) filed a complaint against the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) to chall

Faiella v. IRS 05-CV-238-SM 07/20/06 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE Robert Faiella and Suzanne Faiella, Plaintiffs v. Civil No. 05-CV-238-SM Opinion No. 2006 DNH 084 Internal Revenue Service. Defendant O R D E R Robert and Suzanne Faiella have sued the Internal Revenue

PER CURIAM: This is an appeal from a decision of the United States Tax Court, Howard A. Dawson, J., finding that the statute of limitations did not bar assessment and collection of certain deficiencies by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The relevant facts, substantially taken from the Tax Court opinion, are as follows. In 1983, taxpayer David R. Aron

JAMES C. HILL, Circuit Judge: In 1969, the IRS made “responsible officer” penalty assessments totalling $164,-930.96 against Arnold Aronson. 1 Apparent ly unsatisfied with the speed with which appellee was paying off the assessments, the IRS filed a lien upon real estate he

COFFIN, Circuit Judge (dissenting). I view the issue before us as one where insistence on at least substantial compliance with detailed requirements is amply justified by the nature of the problem, the intent of the relevant legislation, and the difficulties created by elevating substance over form. On this record, involving a mixed question of fact and law, I cannot

566 F.Supp. 1545 (1983) Elliet N. ARONSON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SERVUS RUBBER DIVISION OF CHROMALLOY AMERICAN CORPORATION EMPLOYEES' PROFIT-SHARING PLAN, et al., Defendants. Civ. A. No. 82-0177-F. United States District Court, D. Massachusetts. May 19, 1983. *1546 Francis D. Dibble, Jr., Ronald P.W. Weiss, Bulkley, Richardson &

Opinion of the Court ROBERT E. Quinn, Chief Judge: The accused was convicted of larceny and two specifications alleging a violation of Article 107, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 907. His appeal is concerned with the latter offenses and with the correctness of the board of review’s action in regard to the sentence. From the evidence it appears that the accused was entrusted

OPINION AND ORDER GUSTAVO A. GELPI, United States District Judge Presently before the Court is the motion of Plaintiff Edgar A. Vazquez-Gonzalez requesting attorney’s fees. (Docket No. 26.) After reviewing the motion, and the motion of Defendant, the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) in opposition at Docket No. 27, Plaintiffs request is DENIED. I. Factual and Procedural Background

85 F.Supp.2d 939 (1999) Joseph A. MAY, Plaintiff, v. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, United States of America, Defendant. No. 98-4042-CV-C-5. United States District Court, W.D. Missouri, Central Division. August 6, 1999. *940 *941 Joseph A. May, Jefferson City, MO, pro se. R. Scott Clarke, U.

176 Cal.App.4th 1502 (2009) GAIL M. McMAHON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. DIANE CRAIG et al., Defendants and Respondents. No. G040324. Court of Appeals of California, Fourth District, Division Three. July 31, 2009. As modified August 31, 2009. *1505 Gail M. McMahon, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. <

Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge SENTELLE. SENTELLE, Circuit Judge: Tax Analysts, a publisher of tax material, sued the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN) under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552 (1994), and Internal Revenue Code (I.R.C.) § 6104, 26 U.S.C. § 6104 (1994), respectively, i

Opinion IKOLA, J.— Defendants Eric Schrier, Frank Frederick, and Angela Martinez had been employed in various capacities by plaintiff SG Homecare, Inc. (SG Homecare), before abruptly leaving to start a competing firm, defendant Verio Healthcare, Inc. (Verio Healthcare). SG Homecare filed the underlying complaint, alleging the individual defendants breached t