Cases

C. Glomar and Exemption 7(D) In addition to the aforementioned largely procedural issues, Plaintiffs also maintain that the Court's decision upholding the agency's Glomar response based on Exemption 7(D) is substantively wrong. In so arguing, they make many of the same points they raised the first time around. The Court runs through them again, clarifying why the agency's response was legally satisfactory.

Janet S. Baer, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge This matter is before the Court on the motion of the Internal Revenue Service *344(the "IRS") to dismiss the adversary complaint filed by Richard and Elizabeth Reuland. The Reulands' complaint seeks: (1) a determination that certain taxes owed to the IRS were discharged through their chapter 13 bankruptcy c

435 F.Supp.2d 1174 (2006) Robert T. BREWER Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER, INTERNAL REVENUE Defendant. No. CIV.A. 05-0167-CG-B. United States District Court, S.D. Alabama. Southern Division. May 5, 2006. *1175 Robert T. Brewer, Mobile, AL, pro se. Brian Richard Harris, Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Charles Baer, U.S.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA WILLIAM E. POWELL, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 18-2675 (JEB) INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION In its latest Opinion in this case, this Court granted Defendant Internal Revenue Service’s Partial Motion to Dismiss and granted in part its

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA THOMAS MONTGOMERY and BETH MONTGOMERY, Plaintiffs, v. Civil Action No. 17-918 (JEB) INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION In a September 6, 2018, Opinion, this Court granted Defendant Internal Revenue Service’s Motion for Summary Judgment as to ce

*808 OPINION WARREN W. BENTZ, Bankruptcy Judge. Factual Background Before the Court is Andrew Baer’s (“Debt- or”) Motion to Determine Tax Liability (“Motion”) and a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the United States of America, Department of Treasury, Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”). The Debtor has also fi

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA _________________________________________ ) RICHARD H. GOLDSTEIN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. 14-cv-02186 (APM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) TRUE THE VOTE, INC., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Civil Action No. 13-734 (RBW) v.

134 P.3d 913 (2006) 2006 OK CIV APP 45 MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., Plaintiff/Appellee, v. UNITED STATES of America, ex rel., INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, Defendant/Appellant, and Mark S. Douglas and Rhonda K. Douglas, Husband and Wife; Occupants of the Premises; Armstrong Developments, L.L.C.; State of Oklahoma, ex rel., Oklahoma Employment Security Commission; State of Oklahoma ex rel., Oklahoma Tax C

275 B.R. 922 (2002) In re Walter B. ANDERSON, also known as W.B. Anderson, also known as Walter Bruce Anderson, Debtor. Walter B. Anderson, Appellant, v. Robert L. Baer, Trustee; Kansas Department of Revenue; United States Trustee; Missouri Department of Revenue; Internal Revenue Service; and Barbara A. Mitchell, Appellees. Missouri Department of Revenue, Appellant, v. Walter B. Anderson; Robert L. Baer, Trustee; United States Tru

In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 19-1439 Filed: November 5, 2020 FOR PUBLICATION JAMES K. BAER, Keywords: Motion to Dismiss; Plaintiff, RCFC 12(b)(6); Tax Refund Claim; 26 U.S.C. § 665

GARDNER, Chief Judge. This matter is before us on petition to review a decision of the Tax Court which sustained a finding of deficiency in petitioner’s income tax return for the year 1947 in the amount of $78,633.12. The deficiency resulted from disallowance of deductions from taxpayer’s income of an item of $35,000 paid by taxpayer to his divorced wife pursuant to a property set

62 B.R. 638 (1986) In re William L. BARNETT, Debtor. Roger SCHLOSSBERG, Trustee, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES of America DEPARTMENT OF the TREASURY INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, Defendant. Bankruptcy No. 83-A-1599, Adv. No. 85-0205A. United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Maryland, at Rockville. July 8, 1986. Roger Schlossberg, Hagerstown, Md., for trustee of the Chapter

152 F.3d 83 82 A.F.T.R.2d 98-5467, 98-2 USTC P 50,606 NESTLE HOLDINGS, INC., On Behalf of Itself and ConsolidatedSubsidiaries, And As Successor In Interest ToNestle Enterprises, Inc. AndConsolidated Subsidiaries,Petitioner-Appellant,Cross-Appellee,v.COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee,Cross-Appellant. Docket Nos. 96-4158, 96-4192.

MEMORANDUM OPINION G. MICHAEL HARVEY, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE This case was referred to the undersigned for the management of discovery. Currently ripe is Claimant Pavel Lazarenko’s motion for protective order relating to his request for a private letter ruling from the Internal Revenue Service. After reviewing the entire record,

ALDRICH, Circuit Judge. This is another of the Eli Livingstone tax deduction enterprises that have been translated by the courts into deduct now and pay later. The facts are set forth in detail in the Tax Court’s opinion, 22 CCH Tax Ct.Mem. 1489 (1963), and do not need repeating except to the extent that they differ from Livingstone

210 B.R. 134 (1997) In re Mary Dean JOHNSON, Debtor. Mary Dean JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, Defendant. Bankruptcy No. 91-34377-D, Adversary No. 96-1223. United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Tennessee, Western Division. June 16, 1997. William D. Wilson, Jr., Memphis, TN, for Debtor/Plaintiff. Barbara Morris Zoccola, Asst. U.S. Atty., Me

ALDRICH, Circuit Judge. This is a petition to review a decision of the Tax Court determining deficiencies in the taxpayer’s individual income returns for the years 1950-54 inclusive and assessing penalties for fraud. The original assessment, and the Tax Court decision, were both reached by an application of the net worth method. The

MEMORANDUM OPINION G. MICHAEL HARVEY, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE On March 26, 2015, this case was referred to the undersigned for purposes of manage *3 ment of discovery and resolution of any discovery-related disputes. Currently ripe for resolution by the undersigned are (1)

OPINION OF THE COURT Sullivan, J. In this action to recover damages for libel, tortious interference with contract and prospective business relations and intentional infliction of emotional distress arising out of the publication of an allegedly defamatory letter sent by defendants to the Greek Ministry falsely accusing plaintiffs and certain of their customers of being “Greek money-launderers,” plaintiffs a