<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd"
xmlns:rawvoice="http://www.rawvoice.com/rawvoiceRssModule/"
>

<channel>
	<title>Tax  Lawyer&#039;s  Blog &#187; Court Cases</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.pappasontaxes.com/index.php/CATEGORY/courtcases/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.pappasontaxes.com</link>
	<description>Pappas on Taxation</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2012 20:17:12 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
<!-- podcast_generator="Blubrry PowerPress/2.0.4" -->
	<itunes:summary>Pappas on Taxation</itunes:summary>
	<itunes:author>Tax  Lawyer&#039;s  Blog</itunes:author>
	<itunes:explicit>no</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:image href="http://www.pappasontaxes.com/wp-content/plugins/powerpress/itunes_default.jpg" />
	<itunes:subtitle>Pappas on Taxation</itunes:subtitle>
	
		<item>
		<title>IRS Lawyer Ethics</title>
		<link>http://www.pappasontaxes.com/index.php/2011/10/14/irs-lawyer-ethics/</link>
		<comments>http://www.pappasontaxes.com/index.php/2011/10/14/irs-lawyer-ethics/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 14 Oct 2011 14:12:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Peter</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Court Cases]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IRS procedure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IRS abuse of power]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[irs disputes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IRS ethics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[irs role]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[irs statute of limitations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[michelle kwon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[paul caron]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tax code]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tax court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tax disputes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tax law]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.pappastax.com/?p=27373</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[From Paul Caron: Kwon: Four Difficult Ethical Questions for IRS Lawyers Michelle Kwon (Texas Tech), The Tax Man’s Ethics: Four of the Hardest Ethical Questions for an IRS Lawyer, 9 Cardozo Pub. L. Pol’y &#38; Ethics J. 371 (2011): The article explores the disagreement, particularly among academics, about whether government lawyers have greater obligations to [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.pappasontaxes.com/index.php/2011/10/14/irs-lawyer-ethics/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Income is Taxable if it&#8217;s not Specifically Excluded</title>
		<link>http://www.pappasontaxes.com/index.php/2011/10/06/income-is-taxable-if-its-not-specifically-excluded/</link>
		<comments>http://www.pappasontaxes.com/index.php/2011/10/06/income-is-taxable-if-its-not-specifically-excluded/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 Oct 2011 22:27:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Peter</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Court Cases]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gross Income]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[campbell v commissioner]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fraud penalty]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[frivolous position]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[income exclusion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[james maule]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[qui tam award]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[section 61]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tax court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tax fraud]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[taxability]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[taxable income]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.pappastax.com/?p=27042</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[James Maule of Mauled Again has written an excellent post titled Expending Tax Dollars to Litigate Settled Tax Questions. In it he discusses the Eleventh Circuit’s affirmance, in Campbell v. Comr., No. 10-13677 (11th Cir. 2011), of an earlier Tax Court decision (134 T.C. No. 3 (2010)). The Tax Court concluded, following an earlier decision, that a [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.pappasontaxes.com/index.php/2011/10/06/income-is-taxable-if-its-not-specifically-excluded/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Tax Court Grants Innocent Spouse</title>
		<link>http://www.pappasontaxes.com/index.php/2011/09/28/tax-court-grants-innocent-spouse/</link>
		<comments>http://www.pappasontaxes.com/index.php/2011/09/28/tax-court-grants-innocent-spouse/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Sep 2011 12:13:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Peter</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Court Cases]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Innocent Spouse Relief]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[innocent spouse]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[judge kroupa]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Kay Bell]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[leonard harbin]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tax court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.pappastax.com/?p=26713</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I just read an excellent post by Kay Bell on innocent spouse relief. Here&#8217;s how Kay frames the issue, but to see how it all ends you&#8217;ll have to read the entire post: Leonard Harbin filed a petition with the Tax Court seeking relief from joint and several liability for his and his now ex-wife&#8217;s [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.pappasontaxes.com/index.php/2011/09/28/tax-court-grants-innocent-spouse/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Snipes Loses Again</title>
		<link>http://www.pappasontaxes.com/index.php/2011/09/07/snipes-loses-appeal/</link>
		<comments>http://www.pappasontaxes.com/index.php/2011/09/07/snipes-loses-appeal/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Sep 2011 13:42:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Peter</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Court Cases]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tax Crimes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[failure to file]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IRS crimes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wesley snipes]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.pappastax.com/?p=25452</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Paul Caron has the latest on Wesley Snipes&#8217; Eleventh Circuit appeal: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit today filed this 7-page opinion denying Wesley Snipe&#8217;s motions for a new trial and to interview jurors who convicted him on Feb. 1, 2008 of three counts of willfully failing to file tax returns. United [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.pappasontaxes.com/index.php/2011/09/07/snipes-loses-appeal/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>IRS Says Brain Injury Not Reasonable Cause for Failure to File, Tax Court Disagrees</title>
		<link>http://www.pappasontaxes.com/index.php/2011/08/16/irs-says-brain-injury-is-not-reasonable-cause/</link>
		<comments>http://www.pappasontaxes.com/index.php/2011/08/16/irs-says-brain-injury-is-not-reasonable-cause/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Aug 2011 01:42:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Peter</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Court Cases]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IRS Penalties]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[failure to file]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[joe kristan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[O'bryant tax court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[penalty abatement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[penalty relief]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[reasonable cause]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[willful neglect]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.pappastax.com/?p=24667</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[IRS penalties are  supposed to be assessed against a taxpayer only when his non-compliance is due to willful neglect rather than reasonable cause. Serious, debilitating health problems are almost always considered to be reasonable cause. Joe Kristan found a recent Tax Court decision overruling the IRS&#8217;s finding that a taxpayer&#8217;s brain injury was not sufficient to excuse the late filing of her tax returns: [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.pappasontaxes.com/index.php/2011/08/16/irs-says-brain-injury-is-not-reasonable-cause/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>CPA Imposter Gets 5 Years</title>
		<link>http://www.pappasontaxes.com/index.php/2011/08/15/cpa-imposter-gets-5-years/</link>
		<comments>http://www.pappasontaxes.com/index.php/2011/08/15/cpa-imposter-gets-5-years/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Aug 2011 13:15:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Peter</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Court Cases]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tax Crimes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fraud]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[holquin]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[impersonating a cpa]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[investment fraud]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[posing as cpa]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[russ fox]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tax crime]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.pappastax.com/?p=24587</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Russ Fox reports about a tax preparer who got six years jail time for impersonating a CPA, not for the usual and perfectably understandable reason of bagging hot chicks, but rather, to defraud investors: Nick Holquin, Jr. was a tax preparer in San Jose. He decided to invest in a Mississippi land development project. When the  economy tanked, [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.pappasontaxes.com/index.php/2011/08/15/cpa-imposter-gets-5-years/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Tax Court Says No Theft Loss for Foreclosure</title>
		<link>http://www.pappasontaxes.com/index.php/2011/08/04/tax-court-says-no-theft-loss-for-foreclosure/</link>
		<comments>http://www.pappasontaxes.com/index.php/2011/08/04/tax-court-says-no-theft-loss-for-foreclosure/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Aug 2011 12:39:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Peter</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Court Cases]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Deductible Expenses]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Taxes 101]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cancellation of debt]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[foreclosure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[joe kristan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nadel v commissioner]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tax court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.pappastax.com/?p=24190</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[There is an epidemic of blame shifting in the housing crisis. People who knew or should have known that they would not be able to honor the terms of the mortgage notes they signed when they expected housing values to rise are, now that housing prices have declined, attempting to shift the blame to their lenders for giving [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.pappasontaxes.com/index.php/2011/08/04/tax-court-says-no-theft-loss-for-foreclosure/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Accountant Tries to Deduct Value of His Own Services</title>
		<link>http://www.pappasontaxes.com/index.php/2011/07/26/accountant-tries-to-deduct-value-of-his-own-services/</link>
		<comments>http://www.pappasontaxes.com/index.php/2011/07/26/accountant-tries-to-deduct-value-of-his-own-services/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Jul 2011 18:42:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Peter</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Court Cases]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Deductible Expenses]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Taxes 101]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[162 expense]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mondello v commissioner]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ordinary and necessary]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tax court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[value of services]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.pappastax.com/?p=23934</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Are you sure we don&#8217;t need to regulate unenrolled tax preparers? Here&#8217;s the story of an accountant named Mondello who tried, with a straight face, to  take a deduction on his income tax return for the value of his services (Mondello v. Commissioner, T.C. Summ. Op. 2011-97 (July 25, 2011)): Petitioner operated his Web site business [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.pappasontaxes.com/index.php/2011/07/26/accountant-tries-to-deduct-value-of-his-own-services/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The First Amendment Right to Free Stupidity</title>
		<link>http://www.pappasontaxes.com/index.php/2011/07/07/the-first-amendment-right-to-free-stupidity/</link>
		<comments>http://www.pappasontaxes.com/index.php/2011/07/07/the-first-amendment-right-to-free-stupidity/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 Jul 2011 15:35:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Peter</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Court Cases]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[casey anthony]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[casey verdict]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[free speech]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[jury system]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[justice system]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[stupidity]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.pappastax.com/?p=23408</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The First Amendment gives people the right to speak freely. It doesn&#8217;t distinguish between moronic speech and intelligent speech. Right now, just down the street from me at the Orange County Courthouse, the most imbecilic and ignorant comments I have ever heard¹ are spewing from the angry mouths of angry people exercising their first amendment rights in protest [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.pappasontaxes.com/index.php/2011/07/07/the-first-amendment-right-to-free-stupidity/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Man Sues the IRS for Not Auditing Him</title>
		<link>http://www.pappasontaxes.com/index.php/2011/07/07/man-sues-irs-for-not-auditing-him/</link>
		<comments>http://www.pappasontaxes.com/index.php/2011/07/07/man-sues-irs-for-not-auditing-him/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 Jul 2011 13:15:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Peter</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Court Cases]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IRS Audits]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IRS procedure]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.pappastax.com/?p=23380</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Blog of the Legal Times reports of a man who sued the IRS because it would not audit his company&#8217;s tax returns: Guess?, Inc. co-founder Georges Marciano has lost his bid in Washington federal court for an order forcing the IRS to investigate his tax returns and liabilities. Marciano had argued that the audit could [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.pappasontaxes.com/index.php/2011/07/07/man-sues-irs-for-not-auditing-him/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>7</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Dangerous, Stupid People Talking on T.V.</title>
		<link>http://www.pappasontaxes.com/index.php/2011/07/05/dangerous-stupid-people-talking-on-t-v/</link>
		<comments>http://www.pappasontaxes.com/index.php/2011/07/05/dangerous-stupid-people-talking-on-t-v/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 Jul 2011 19:33:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Peter</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Court Cases]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[casey anthony]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[jane velez mitchell]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[jury system]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nancy grace]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[not guilty]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.pappastax.com/?p=23348</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I am listening to lawyers &#8211; lawyers, mind you &#8211; on T.V. expressing outrage at the acquittal of Casey Anthony for the murder/manslaughter/aggravated abuse of her 2 year old daughter Caylee. Nancy Grace  is, of course, the worst offender. She has invested the last three years slandering Ms. Anthony &#8211; she &#8220;cleverly&#8221; calls her tot mom &#8211; [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.pappasontaxes.com/index.php/2011/07/05/dangerous-stupid-people-talking-on-t-v/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Casey Anthony, Not Guilty, But the System Worked Because the Jury Can Never be Wrong</title>
		<link>http://www.pappasontaxes.com/index.php/2011/07/05/the-system-worked-because-the-jury-can-never-be-wrong/</link>
		<comments>http://www.pappasontaxes.com/index.php/2011/07/05/the-system-worked-because-the-jury-can-never-be-wrong/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 Jul 2011 18:39:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Peter</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Announcements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court Cases]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[acquittal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[beyond a reasonable doubt]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[casey anthony]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[court system]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[judicial system]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[jury verdicts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.pappastax.com/?p=23335</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&#8220;The jury has the power to bring a verdict in the teeth of both law and fact.&#8221;  - Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. -   Jury verdicts are subjective and, therefore, cannot be wrong.¹ We all agree in advance that whatever the collective subjective opinion of the jury is we will accept it. You can&#8217;t retract that acceptance [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.pappasontaxes.com/index.php/2011/07/05/the-system-worked-because-the-jury-can-never-be-wrong/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>4</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>D.C. Circuit Says Taxpayer Group Can Challenge IRS Refund Procedure</title>
		<link>http://www.pappasontaxes.com/index.php/2011/07/02/d-c-circuit-says-taxpayer-group-can-sue-irs-for-refund-procedure/</link>
		<comments>http://www.pappasontaxes.com/index.php/2011/07/02/d-c-circuit-says-taxpayer-group-can-sue-irs-for-refund-procedure/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 02 Jul 2011 19:18:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Peter</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Court Cases]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IRS procedure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[class action against IRS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[refund procedure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[refund suit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tax cases]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.pappastax.com/?p=23170</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The The BLT, the Blog of Legal Times, reports that a divided federal appeals court in Washington said a group of taxpayers will be allowed to challenge the procedure the IRS set up to refund billions of dollars collected through an unlawful tax on telephone calls: The full U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.pappasontaxes.com/index.php/2011/07/02/d-c-circuit-says-taxpayer-group-can-sue-irs-for-refund-procedure/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>But We Need More Auditors</title>
		<link>http://www.pappasontaxes.com/index.php/2011/06/29/but-we-need-more-auditors/</link>
		<comments>http://www.pappasontaxes.com/index.php/2011/06/29/but-we-need-more-auditors/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 29 Jun 2011 20:59:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Peter</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Court Cases]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Estate Tax]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IRS procedure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IRS Audits]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[irs budget cuts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[irs funding]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[joe kristan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tax court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.pappastax.com/?p=22931</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Joe Kristan tells of the case of  Estate of Louise Paxton Gallagher, T.C. Memo. 2011-148 where the  Tax Court made a valuation ruling more favorable to the taxpayer than what it had originally claimed on its tax return: The executor files an estate tax return valuing a 15% interest in an LLC at $34,936,000. The IRS audits the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.pappasontaxes.com/index.php/2011/06/29/but-we-need-more-auditors/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Economic Substance Doctrine</title>
		<link>http://www.pappasontaxes.com/index.php/2011/06/25/economic-substance-doctrine/</link>
		<comments>http://www.pappasontaxes.com/index.php/2011/06/25/economic-substance-doctrine/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 25 Jun 2011 10:49:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Peter</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Court Cases]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Deductible Expenses]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[amanda yoder]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[economic substance doctrine]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[frivolous tax position]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[klamath v United States]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[missouri law review]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tax evasion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tax scams]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tax shelters]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.pappastax.com/?p=22703</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Amanda Yoder, a 3L at University of Missouri Law School and an editor of its Law Review, has written a thorough piece on the economic substance doctrine¹ titled One Prong, Two Prong, Many Prongs: A Look Into the Economic Substance Doctrine. Ms. Yoder discusses the two approaches the courts have traditionally used in economic substance doctrine cases and [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.pappasontaxes.com/index.php/2011/06/25/economic-substance-doctrine/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Tax Court: Unrepaid Loan to Business Associate is Business Bad Debt</title>
		<link>http://www.pappasontaxes.com/index.php/2011/06/22/tax-court-unrepaid-loan-to-business-associate-is-business-bad-debt/</link>
		<comments>http://www.pappasontaxes.com/index.php/2011/06/22/tax-court-unrepaid-loan-to-business-associate-is-business-bad-debt/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 Jun 2011 00:27:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Peter</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Court Cases]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Deductible Expenses]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[business bad debt]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[capital loss]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dagres]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[debt cancelation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[journal of accountancy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ordinary loss]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[personal bad debt]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tax court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.pappastax.com/?p=22558</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[CPAs Alice Upshaw and Darlene Pulliam analyze a recent Tax Court ruling that found that &#8220;a taxpayer’s loan to a business associate was made in connection with the taxpayer’s trade or business, and therefore, the forgiveness of that loan was a bad-debt loss under IRC § 166(a). The IRS had argued that the loan was personal and [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.pappasontaxes.com/index.php/2011/06/22/tax-court-unrepaid-loan-to-business-associate-is-business-bad-debt/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Another Innocent Spouse Win for IRS</title>
		<link>http://www.pappasontaxes.com/index.php/2011/06/15/another-innocent-spouse-win-for-irs/</link>
		<comments>http://www.pappasontaxes.com/index.php/2011/06/15/another-innocent-spouse-win-for-irs/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 Jun 2011 23:45:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Peter</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Court Cases]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Innocent Spouse Relief]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[deference]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fourth circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[innocent spouse]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[irs treasury regulations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tax court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[two year rule]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.pappastax.com/?p=22171</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[From the Journal of Accountancy: The United States Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a Tax Court decision and upheld a Treasury regulation that sets a two-year statute of limitation on claims for innocent spouse relief (Jones v. Commissioner, docket no. 10-1985 (4th Cir. 6/13/11)). This marks the third time the Tax Court has been [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.pappasontaxes.com/index.php/2011/06/15/another-innocent-spouse-win-for-irs/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Omitted Income, Accuracy Related Penalty and Reasonable Cause</title>
		<link>http://www.pappasontaxes.com/index.php/2011/06/14/omitted-income-accuracy-related-penalty-and-reasonable-cause/</link>
		<comments>http://www.pappasontaxes.com/index.php/2011/06/14/omitted-income-accuracy-related-penalty-and-reasonable-cause/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 Jun 2011 16:22:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Peter</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Court Cases]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IRS Penalties]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[accuracy related penalty]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[irs penalty]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[omitted income]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[reasonable cause]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[reliance on tax preparer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[russ fox]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tax court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[understatement of income]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[woodsum v commissioner]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.pappastax.com/?p=22140</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Russ Fox over at Taxable Talk says that the Tax Court upheld an accuracy related penalty against a taxpayer even though the deficiency arose because his tax preparer failed to report a 1099 on his tax return: Everyone is human. Sometimes we forget that 1099 on the tax return. Today, the Tax Court looked at a case where a [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.pappasontaxes.com/index.php/2011/06/14/omitted-income-accuracy-related-penalty-and-reasonable-cause/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Man Who Filed Liens on Federal Employees Pleads Guilty</title>
		<link>http://www.pappasontaxes.com/index.php/2011/06/07/man-who-filed-liens-on-federal-employees-pleads-guilty/</link>
		<comments>http://www.pappasontaxes.com/index.php/2011/06/07/man-who-filed-liens-on-federal-employees-pleads-guilty/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Jun 2011 23:00:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Peter</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Court Cases]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tax Crimes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[absurd tax arguments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dumb criminals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[irs prosecutions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[liens on judges]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tax protesters]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[usdoj]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.pappastax.com/?p=21934</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&#8220;I know how to get the feds to leave me alone. I&#8217;ll just place a lien against the prosecutor, the Judge and the IRS examiner.&#8221;  -  Stuart &#8220;Stu&#8221;  Pidd the Tax Protester - The USDOJ reports that a California man pleaded guilty to six counts of filing false liens against employees and officers of the federal [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.pappasontaxes.com/index.php/2011/06/07/man-who-filed-liens-on-federal-employees-pleads-guilty/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Joe Kristan: Why the Tax Court Doesn&#8217;t Refute Frivolous Arguments</title>
		<link>http://www.pappasontaxes.com/index.php/2011/06/02/joe-kristan-on-why-the-tax-court-doesnt-refute-frivolous-arguments/</link>
		<comments>http://www.pappasontaxes.com/index.php/2011/06/02/joe-kristan-on-why-the-tax-court-doesnt-refute-frivolous-arguments/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 Jun 2011 12:39:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Peter</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Absurd Tax Protester Arguments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court Cases]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[frivolous penalty]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[frivolous tax arguments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[joe kristan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tax Crimes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tax protester arguments]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.pappastax.com/?p=21766</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Joe Kristan tells us why the Tax Court often doesn&#8217;t publish detailed opinions refuting frivolous tax protester arguments: Usually the Tax Court issues a &#8220;reported&#8221; opinion when it either is addressing a new issue or it wants to send a message. Yesterday they sent a message with an reported opinion explaining &#8220;Why we usually decline [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.pappasontaxes.com/index.php/2011/06/02/joe-kristan-on-why-the-tax-court-doesnt-refute-frivolous-arguments/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>16</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

