Owrutsky v. Brady
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
925 F.2d 1457 (1991)
- Written by Kate Luck, JD
Facts
Morton J. Owrutsky (plaintiff), an attorney, was disbarred from practicing before the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) by the United States Treasury Department for belatedly filing his tax returns for six consecutive years. Although Owrutsky did not timely file his tax returns, he either qualified for a refund or did not owe any additional taxes for each year in question. During the administrative disbarment hearing, Owrutsky testified that he could not timely file his tax return because a partner in one of Owrutsky’s businesses did not provide the necessary documents. The administrative-law judge (ALJ) found that Owrutsky’s testimony lacked credibility. The ALJ found that Owrutsky knew he was required to file a tax return even if he did not owe additional taxes and was aware of the deadline for filing his return. The ALJ disbarred Owrutsky. The secretary of the Treasury Department (defendant) affirmed the ALJ’s decision. Owrutsky filed a complaint against the secretary in federal district court, challenging his disbarment. The district court reversed the Treasury Department’s decision, concluding that because Owrutsky did not owe taxes and for some years was owed a refund, Owrutsky’s motive was not willful. The secretary appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Wilkins, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.
