-
Jan 24, 2025 | 
natlawreview.com | Simon J. McMenemy |Christie R. Galinski |Loren Opper |John Surma
On January 15, 2025, the Federal Trade Commission announced a proposed order against web hosting company GoDaddy Inc. and its operating subsidiary GoDaddy.com, LLC, (collectively, “GoDaddy”) for unfair or deceptive acts or practices in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act, and issued guidance for customers of web hosting services on security practices in light of the settlement.
-
Jan 10, 2025 | 
jdsupra.com | Christie R. Galinski |Loren Opper
Taxpayers had mixed success in two recent research credit cases in the United States Tax Court. In Smith v. Commissioner,[1] the taxpayer was an architectural firm. The Tax Court denied the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment, allowing the case to proceed to trial on the issue of whether the taxpayer’s clients funded its research activities. In Phoenix Design Group, Inc. v. Commissioner,[2] disputed questions of fact proceeded to trial.
-
Jan 9, 2025 | 
natlawreview.com | Loren Opper |Christie R. Galinski |Keval Amin |Eric Troutman
Taxpayers had mixed success in two recent research credit cases in the United States Tax Court. In Smith v. Commissioner,[1] the taxpayer was an architectural firm. The Tax Court denied the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment, allowing the case to proceed to trial on the issue of whether the taxpayer’s clients funded its research activities. In Phoenix Design Group, Inc. v. Commissioner,[2] disputed questions of fact proceeded to trial.
-
Nov 11, 2024 | 
jdsupra.com | Loren Opper
In Grigsby v. United States,[1] the Justice Department used discovery procedures in federal district court essentially to audit a taxpayer’s federal income tax credits for research activities. The court found that the taxpayer was not entitled to the credits, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed, and the Supreme Court denied certiorari. This alert reviews the novel procedure used by the Government to recover the refund and the taxpayer’s arguments objecting to that procedure.
-
Nov 8, 2024 | 
natlawreview.com | Loren Opper
In Grigsby v. United States,[1] the Justice Department used discovery procedures in federal district court essentially to audit a taxpayer’s federal income tax credits for research activities. The court found that the taxpayer was not entitled to the credits, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed, and the Supreme Court denied certiorari. This alert reviews the novel procedure used by the Government to recover the refund and the taxpayer’s arguments objecting to that procedure.
-
Nov 8, 2024 | 
natlawreview.com | Loren Opper |Christie R. Galinski |Paul Nathanson |Joshua Zive
On November 1, 2024, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ (“HHS”) Office for Civil Rights (“OCR”) and the Assistant Secretary for Technology Policy (“ASTP”) announced the release of a new version of the Security Risk Assessment (“SRA”) Tool. HHS developed the SRA Tool as a resource to assist small and medium-sized healthcare providers in complying with their obligations under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”) Security Rule.
-
Oct 2, 2024 | 
jdsupra.com | Loren Opper
Conflicting Decisions: In August, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held in United States v. Schwarzbaum[1] that a monetary civil penalty imposed for willfully failing to file a foreign bank account report (“FBAR”) was a “fine,” and had to be evaluated for excessiveness under the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment. The Eleventh Circuit held that the penalty was a fine because it did not have a “remedial” purpose that compensated the United States for expenses or loss.
-
Oct 1, 2024 | 
natlawreview.com | Loren Opper
Conflicting Decisions: In August, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held in United States v. Schwarzbaum[1] that a monetary civil penalty imposed for willfully failing to file a foreign bank account report (“FBAR”) was a “fine,” and had to be evaluated for excessiveness under the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment. The Eleventh Circuit held that the penalty was a fine because it did not have a “remedial” purpose that compensated the United States for expenses or loss.
-
Aug 27, 2024 | 
jdsupra.com | Loren Opper
In Libitzky v. United States,[1] the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed disallowance of a $700,000 federal income tax refund claim. The court said that this was an “unfortunate” case, but they were bound by the statutory language providing for tax refunds, which did not permit equitable tolling of a limitation period. Perhaps Libitzky is consistent with the 2022 decision of the Supreme Court – Boechler, P.C. v.
-
Aug 26, 2024 | 
natlawreview.com | Loren Opper
In Libitzky v. United States,[1] the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed disallowance of a $700,000 federal income tax refund claim. The court said that this was an “unfortunate” case, but they were bound by the statutory language providing for tax refunds, which did not permit equitable tolling of a limitation period. Perhaps Libitzky is consistent with the 2022 decision of the Supreme Court – Boechler, P.C. v.
