Statland v. United States
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
178 F.3d 465 (1999)
- Written by Daniel Clark, JD
Facts
Donald and Iris Statland (plaintiffs) filed a tax return for the 1976 year. The Statlands reported business income from a partnership interest they owned and a carryback of a net operating loss incurred in 1979. Also, the Statlands believed they should have been able to claim, but did not claim, an exemption for a dependent on their 1976 return. In 1992, the Statlands sued the United States government (defendant) in district court, seeking a tax refund and claiming that they had overpaid their 1976 taxes. The basis for the Statlands’ refund suit was that the business income had been overstated and that the Statlands should have been able to claim the exemption. In 1993, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) redetermined the Statlands’ 1976 tax liability. The IRS determined that the Statlands’ carryback of the 1979 loss was improper. The IRS concluded that the Statlands had underpaid their 1976 tax liability and issued them a notice of deficiency. The Statlands then filed a petition in the United States Tax Court challenging the IRS’s deficiency determination. In the district-court action, the government filed a motion to dismiss the refund suit, arguing that, pursuant to § 7422(e) of the Internal Revenue Code (code), the district court lost jurisdiction when the Statlands filed a Tax Court petition concerning the same subject matter. The district court granted the government’s motion, and the Statlands appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Coffey, 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.