United States Fifth Circuit

In an action seeking a tax refund, summary judgment for the government is affirmed for the reasons stated by the district court, namely, that: 1) while a taxpayer's subjective business purpose or profit motive may be relevant to the sham transaction inquiry, the lack of a subjective profit motive is not required to assess interest at the enhanced rate under 26 U.S.C. section 6621(c); and 2) a partner may not relitigate the tax court's determination that the partnership transactions resulting in the adjustments were factual or economic shams, that is, tax-motivated transactions as defined in section 6621(c).

Appellate Information

• Decided 03/10/2010
• Published 03/11/2010

Judges

• CARL E. STEWART, Circuit Judge:, Before KING, JOLLY and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Fifth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Thomas E. Redding (argued), Sallie W. Gladney, Teresa Jean Womack, Redding & Associates, P.C., Houston, TX, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.


• For Appellees:
  
• Arthur Thomas Catterall (argued), Michael J. Haungs, Dept. of Justice, Tax Div. Appellate Section, Washington, DC, Michael D. Powell, Dept. of Justice, Tax Div., Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.