From our private database of 35,600+ case briefs...
Cemco Investors, LLC v. United States
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
515 F.3d 749 (2008)
Cemco Investors, LLC (Cemco) (defendant) and Cemco Investment Partnership (the partnership) had two partners, Steven Kaplan and Forest Chartered Holdings, Inc. (the shell company), a shell company owned by a tax attorney named Paul Daugerdas. Cemco Investors Trust (the trust) had two beneficiaries, Kaplan and the shell company. Daugerdas was the trust’s trustee. Together, Cemco, the trust, and the partnership formed a tax shelter designed to create a loss for the benefit of Kaplan and Daugerdas. The trust simultaneously purchased a long option from Deutsche Bank and sold a short option to Deutsche Bank. Each option entitled the purchasing entity to $7.2 million if the euro exchange rate was below a certain rate on the exercise date—$0.8652 for the long option and $0.8650 for the short option. Therefore, the options would exactly offset each other, except that Deutsche Bank would pay $7.2 million to the trust if the euro exchange rate was exactly $0.8651 on the exercise date, which was extremely unlikely. The option premiums were almost the same—the premium for the long option the trust purchased from Deutsche Bank was $3.6 million, and the trust paid Deutsche Bank $36,000, the difference between the option premiums. The options expired unexercised, and Deutsche Bank refunded $30,000 to the trust, leaving the trust with a loss of $6,000. After a series of transactions involving the options, Cemco claimed a loss of $3.6 million on its 2000 income-tax return. Cemco believed it could claim the loss based on one tax court case, Helmer v. CIR, 34 T.C.M. 727 (1975). The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) (plaintiff) disallowed the loss. In doing so, the IRS cited Notice 2000-44, 2000-2 C.B. 255, which warned taxpayers that Helmer could not be relied on, and that artificially high losses would be disallowed. In 2003 the IRS formalized the warning into a temporary regulation, Treasury Regulation § 1.752-6 (the treasury regulation), which was made permanent two years later. The treasury regulation explained that it applied retroactively to transactions that occurred between October 1999 and June 2003. The regulation applied to transactions from October 1999 because Congress, in enacting the Community Renewal Tax Relief Act of 2000, stated that IRS regulations related to basis-reduction rules for partnerships could be retroactive to October 1999. Cemco argued that the treasury regulation should not apply retroactively. The district court upheld the IRS’s disallowance, and Cemco appealed.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Easterbrook, C.J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 618,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 618,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 35,600 briefs, keyed to 984 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.