Tax Cases in the Supreme Court's New Term

The Supreme Court begins its new term today on this first Monday of October.  Here are the five tax cases the Court has agreed to hear:

Kentucky Department of Revenue v. Davis, No. 06-666

• Date of Oral Argument:  Nov. 7, 2007
• Docket
• Question Presented:  Whether a state violates the dormant Commerce Clause by providing an exemption from its income tax for interest income derived from bonds issued by the state and its political subdivisions, while treating interest income realized from bonds issued by other states and their political subdivisions as taxable to the same extent, and in the same manner, as interest earned on bonds issued by commercial entities, whether domestic or foreign.
• Opinion Below
• Briefs
  • Petition for Writ of Certiorari
  • Brief in Opposition
  • Merits Brief for Petitioner
  • Merits Brief for Respondent
  • Supplemental Appendix for Respondent
• Commentary
  • On the Docket
  • SCOTUS Blog
  • TaxProf Blog
    • Supreme Court Likely to Reverse Kentucky Court of Appeals in Davis
    • Germain Critiques Opening Briefs in Davis
    • Supreme Court Grants Cert. in Davis
    • Germain on The Implications of United Haulers on Davis
    • Taxpayers Respond to Kentucky's Cert. Petition in Davis
    • Davis: Another Constitutional Shot Across the Tax Bow
    • WSJ on Davis
    • Hellerstein on Davis
    • Kentucky Files Cert. Petition in Davis

Knight v. Commissioner, No. 06-1286

• Date of Oral Argument:  Not Yet Scheduled
• Docket
• Question Presented:  There is a deep, irreconcilable and widely noted conflict among the Second, Fourth, Sixth and Federal Circuits about the meaning of § 67(e) — which permits trusts and estates to deduct on their income tax returns certain administrative expenses — and whether the statute permits fees for investment management and advisory services to be fully deducted on trust’s and estate’s income tax returns. This is an important and recurring question of federal tax law that involves deductions by trusts and estates that total in the billions of dollars annually. The Question Presented is: Whether § 67(e) permits a full deduction for costs and fees for investment management and advisory services provided to trusts and estates.
• Opinion Below
• Briefs
  • Petition for Writ of Certiorari
• Commentary
  • On the Docket
  • TaxProf Blog

CSX Transportation Inc. v. Georgia State Board of Equalization, No. 06-1287

• Date of Oral Argument: Nov. 5, 2007
• Docket
• Question Presented:  Whether, under the federal statute prohibiting state tax discrimination against railroads, 49 U.S.C. § 11501(b)(1), a federal district court determining the “true market value” of railroad property must accept the valuation method chosen by the State.
• Opinion Below
• Briefs
  • Petition for Writ of Certiorari
  • Brief in Opposition
  • Petitioner's Reply
  • Merits Brief for Respondent
• Commentary
  • On the Docket
  • SCOTUS Blog
  • TaxProf Blog

MeadWestvaco Corp. v. Illinois, No. 06-1413

• Date of Oral Argument: Not Yet Scheduled
• Docket
• Question Presented:  Is the attempt by Illinois to tax the approximately $1 billion gain realized by Petitioner when it sold its investment in Lexis/Nexis in 1994 (which it acquired in 1968 for $6 million and which functioned for 26 years as an independent, nonunitary business) in direct conflict with the decisions of the Court in Allied-Signal, Inc. v. Director, Division of Taxation, 504 U.S. 768 (1992), FW. Woolworth Co. v. Taxation & Revenue Department of New Mexico, 458 U.S. 354 (1982), and ASARCO Inc. v. Idaho State Tax Commission, 458 U.S. 307 (1982) and the Due Process and Commerce Clauses of the United States Constitution?
• Opinion Below
• Briefs
  • Petition for Writ of Certiorari
  • Brief in Opposition
  • Petitioner's Reply
• Commentary
  • On the Docket
  • TaxProf Blog

Boulware v. United States, No. 06-1509

• Date of Oral Argument:  Not Yet Scheduled
• Docket
• Question Presented:  Whether the diversion of corporate funds to a shareholder of a corporation without earnings and profits automatically qualifies as a non-taxable return of capital up to the shareholder's stock basis, see § 301(c)(2), even if the diversion was not intended as a return of capital."
• Opinion Below
• Briefs
  • Petition for Writ of Certiorari
  • Brief in Opposition
  • Petitioner's Reply
• Commentary
  • On the Docket
  • SCOTUS Blog
  • TaxProf Blog