The US Tax Court has received reports about an e-mail allegedly sent by a member of the Tax Court’s practitioner bar. This is NOT a legitimate email. If you do not have a case pending before the US Tax Court, the Court will not contact you via email.
The Tax Court has advised that if you receive an e-mail with a subject line that includes the text, “Notice of Deficiency #” followed by a series of numbers or “US Tax Petition”, along with a malformed docket number following the format #000-000, and a sender address of noreply@ustaxcourt.org, complaints@ustaxcourt.org, or notice@ustaxcourt.org, delete the e-mail and do not click any link in the email.
Charles Merrill, cousin of the founder of Merrill Lynch, has filed a challenge in the US Tax Court against the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Merrill is arguing that the Tax Code is discriminatory under the First Amendment Establishment Clause of the US Constitution since same sex couples are denied the same benefits as straight married couples.
Merrill knows a little something about both. Merrill was previously married to the late Evangeline Johnson, the Johnson & Johnson heiress; they were married from 1975 until her death in 1989. Now, Merrill is legally married to Kevin Boyle in the state of California; that marriage is not recognized by the federal government.
Merrill has said:
Marriage is a Federal issue for all citizens, not a state or religious one.
Merrill’s argument is basically two-fold:
1, that the federal definition of marriage is discriminatory and based on religion; and
2, federal tax benefits for married persons should not be limited to married couples as defined by DOMA.
His first argument has merit in that proponents of DOMA argue that “Marriage is only a union between one man and one woman under God.” In fact, the majority of those who support DOMA do so on religious grounds. DOMA, and similar proposals like California’s Proposition 8, have the backing of such religious organizations as the Catholic Church, LDS and Southern Baptists.
Merrill counts 1,138 federal benefits for married heterosexual couples but not allowed for homosexual couples. He claims that this violates the idea of a Constitutional guarantee of “Equality of All.”
It’s a gutsy argument. And one that someone as well-positioned financially as Merrill appears to be can afford to make. Any thoughts on what will happen?
(Hat Tip: Tax Prof Blog)
See, you thought that I was going to bring up the Murphy case. Again.
But no. TaxProf blog is reporting that the Ninth Circuit in Polone v. Commissioner, No. 04-72672 (9th Cir. 10/11/07), aff’g T.C. Memo. 2003-339, expressly refused to “address whether amended § 104(a)(2) violates the Sixteenth Amendment.”
Just saying.
The US Supreme Court ruled this week in Hinck v. U.S., 06-376, that only the U.S. Tax Court may review refusals by the Internal Revenue Service to reduce interest payments for underpayment of taxes.
John and Pamela Hinck initially brought their case in the US Court of Federal Claims seeking an $18,000 refund of interest, alleging delays by the IRS, in processing their case (delays? IRS? Surely they jest…). Federal Claims Court said it did not have jurisdiction to consider the suit and the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit agreed. At the Supreme Court level, the Court unanimously ruled that jurisdiction belonged solely with the US Tax Court.
