DISCLAIMER: The following unofficial case summaries are prepared by the clerk's office as a courtesy to the reader. They are not part of the opinion of the court. http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/rss/ca8opns_rss.xml http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/21/05/193189P.pdf U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 19-3189
U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota
[PUBLISHED] [Loken, Author, with Smith, Chief Judge, and Gruender, Circuit Judge]
Civil case -Federal Tax. The IRS determined Mayo owed unrelated business income tax on certain investment income it received from the investment pool it manages for its subsidiaries; Mayo paid the $11.5 million the IRS claimed was owed and brought suit for a refund. The issues are whether Mayo is a "qualified organization" exempted from paying unrelated business income tax on "unrelated debt-financed income" under IRC Sec. 514(c)(9)(C)(i) and whether it its a qualified organization under Section 170(b)(1)(A)(ii) because it is an educational organization; the IRS concluded it was not an educational organization as defined in 26 C.F.R. 1.170A-9(c)(1); the district court granted summary judgment for Mayo based on its determination that the Treasury Regulation was invalid because it added requirements to the definition of an educational institution Congress intended not to include the statute. The court concludes the regulation is valid, but only in part, and that application of the statute as reasonably construed by the regulation to Mayo's tax years in question cannot be determined as a matter of law on this summary judgment record. Reversed and remanded for further proceedings. Judge Gruender, concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. ]]> http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/21/05/193189P.pdf http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/21/05/203069U.pdf U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 20-3069
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Delta
[UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Shepherd, Grasz, and Kobes, Circuit Judges]
Prisoner case - Federal Tort Claims Act. Defendant Gallardo was not a proper defendant for the FTCA claims as the U.S. is the proper party; the FTCA claim against the U.S. is barred because plaintiff suffered no physical injury; plaintiff's Biven claims also failed as sovereign immunity barred the claim against the U.S. and against Gallardo in her official capacity; plaintiff's individual capacity due process claim against Gallardo also fails as he had no Sixth Amendment right to counsel in his Section 2255 claim and the due process claim was premised on an alleged Sixth Amendment violation. ]]> http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/21/05/203069U.pdf