Byers v. Intuit, Inc.
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
564 F. Supp. 2d 385 (2008)
- Written by Heather Whittemore, JD
Facts
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) promoted the electronic filing of tax returns. The IRS entered into an agreement with electronic-tax-preparation companies including Intuit, Inc. (the tax-preparation companies) (defendants) in which the companies agreed to provide free tax-preparation and electronic-filing services to a certain percentage of taxpayers. In exchange, the IRS did not develop its own electronic-filing system. The tax-preparation companies charged taxpayers who were not eligible for free services. Stacie Byers and Deborah A. Seltzer (plaintiffs) used the tax-preparation companies to electronically file their 2006 taxes and were charged fees. Byers and Seltzer sued the tax-preparation companies for themselves and on behalf of other taxpayers, claiming that the tax-preparation companies violated § 1 of the Sherman Act by conspiring to restrict electronic-filing services so the companies could charge artificially high prices. Byers and Seltzer also sued the IRS for allowing the tax-preparation companies to charge illegal fees for their services in violation of the Independent Offices Appropriation Act. The tax-preparation companies filed a motion to dismiss the claims, arguing that Byers and Seltzer lacked constitutional and prudential standing.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (O’Neill, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 816,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.