Cemco Investors, LLC v. United States

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• finding that “the consistent reporting provisions of Treas. Reg. §301.6222(a)-2T d[id] not apply[]” where plaintiff “did not hold an indirect interest” in the source partnership (emphasis added)
• concluding that the regulation was validly retroactive
• “[T]he IRS need not ensure consistent tax treatment unless a statute so requires. Sections 6221 to 6234 don’t require this because Cerneo is not an investor in the Partnership.”
• “[T]he IRS need not ensure consistent tax treatment unless a statute so requires. Sections 6221 to 6234 don’t require this because Cemco is not an investor in the Partnership.”
• “[T]he IRS need not ensure consistent tax treatment unless a statute so requires. Sections 6221 to 6234 don’t require this because Cerneo is not an investor in the Partnership.”
• “A transaction with an out-of-pocket cost of $6,000 and no risk beyond that expense, while generating a tax loss of $3.6 million, is the sort of thing that the Internal Revenue Service frowns on. The deal as a whole seems to lack economic substance .... ”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).