EATON CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE - Articles

All Content

EATON CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

Posted by: Karen Belcher on Aug 25, 2022

Court: 6th Circuit Court (Published Opinions)

Attorneys 1: ARGUED: Judith A. Hagley, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellant/Cross-Appellee.

Attorneys 2: ARGUED: Shay Dvoretzky, SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellee/Cross-Appellant.

Attorneys 3: ON BRIEF: Judith A. Hagley, Francesca Ugolini, Arthur T. Catterall, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellant/Cross-Appellee.

Attorneys 4: ON BRIEF: Shay Dvoretzky, Raj Madan, Nathan Wacker, Parker Rider-Longmaid, Sylvia O. Tsakos, SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP, Washington, D.C., Brian Kittle, MAYER BROWN LLP, New York, New York, for Appellee/Cross-Appellant.

Judge(s): DONALD, BUSH, and NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judges

Court Appealed: United States Tax Court

NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judge. Taxes may well be “what we pay for civilized society,” Compania Gen. de Tabacos de Filipinas v. Collector of Internal Revenue, 275 U.S. 87, 100 (1927) (Holmes, J., dissenting), but that doesn’t mean the tax collector is above the law. This case arises from the IRS’s efforts to circumvent basic contract law.

The Tax Court sided with Eaton on the major issues, concluding that the IRS had wrongfully cancelled the APAs. The parties raise a much-narrowed subset of arguments in their dueling appeals. For the reasons below, we affirm in part and reverse in part, siding with Eaton on all issues presented.

Attachments: