Jerome Emmanuel Davis v. Warden Kent Grandlienard

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a party waived an issue by omitting it from a party’s motion for summary judgment and asserting it for the first time on appeal
• relying on § 301.6402-2(b)(1) in determining whether the legal theory upon which the taxpayer claimed a refund constituted a substantial variance of the legal component of the refund claim it originally filed
• explaining that Treasury Reg. 301.6402-2(b)(1
• “Any legal theory not expressly or impliedly contained in the application for refund cannot be considered by a court in which a suit for refund is subsequently initiated.”
• “The claim must set forth in detail each ground upon which a credit or a refund is claimed and in facts sufficient to apprise the Commissioner of the exact basis thereof.” (quoting 26 C.F.R. § 301.6402-2(b)(1))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).