James F. McDonough
Of Counsel
732-568-8360 jmcdonough@sh-law.comFirm Insights
IRS Loses Court Case Against Yankees Co-Owner Hal Steinbrenner
Author: James F. McDonough
Date: June 18, 2013
Key Contacts
Back
A court case against Yankees co-owner and managing partner Hal Steinbrenner ruled that he will not be required to repay the Internal Revenue Service $670,000 in what the agency called an “erroneous” tax refund that it mistakenly extended to Steinbrenner and his wife in 2009, a federal court ruled.
The issues go back to IRS audits of the Major League Baseball team’s parent company for 2001 and 2002, as well as amended returns filed by Steinbrenner during the 2001 tax year, Accounting Today reports. Hal Steinbrenner is one of the children of the late George Steinbrenner, the latter of whom settled the audit disputes in an agreement with the IRS in 2007. As part of that agreement, certain alterations were made to the tax returns of the beneficiaries of a family trust, including Hal Steinbrenner’s share, the news source explains.
Following the adjustments, Hal Steinbrenner paid his taxes in 2008, and filed an amended 2001 tax return in 2009 seeking a refund as a result of a $6.8 million net operating loss carried back from 2002. The tax agency extended a refund to Steinbrenner, only to argue later that the amount never should have been approved because it passed the statute of limitations.
In a 19-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Steven Merryday detailed the intricacies of U.S. tax law and said many of the phrases and jargon in the Internal Revenue Code are essentially “nonsense,” according to the Tampa Bay Times.
Merryday referred to the complex tax rules as “the forbidding arcana of partnership taxation, a subject intractably muddled by archaically and chaotically composed – and therefore, nearly inscrutable – statutes and regulations and by the bold proliferation and proud maintenance of abstruse distinctions and obscure jargon,” the Tampa Tribune reports.
The IRS failed to comment on the case, and has not yet announced whether it will appeal the ruling in federal court.
- Practices: Tax and Trusts & Estates
- Locations: Red Bank, NJ, New York City, Little Falls, NJ
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Related Posts
See all
Crypto Enforcement: A Former Prosecutor’s Warning to Criminals and the Public
Cryptocurrency intimidates most people. The reason is straightforward. People fear what they do not understand. When confusion sets in, the common reaction is either to ignore the subject entirely or to mistrust it. For years, that is exactly how most of the public and even many in law enforcement treated cryptocurrency. However, such apprehension changed […]
Author: Bryce S. Robins
Understanding Chattel Paper: A Key Component in Secured Transactions
Using chattel paper to obtain a security interest in personal property is a powerful tool. It can ensure lenders have a legal claim on collateral ranging from inventory to intellectual property. To reduce risk and protect your legal rights, businesses and lenders should understand the legal framework. This framework governs the creation, sale, and enforcement […]
Author: Dan Brecher
Crypto Compliance: A Comprehensive Guide
For years, digital assets operated in a legal gray area, a frontier where innovation outpaced the reach of regulators and law enforcement. In this early “Wild West” phase of finance, crypto startups thrived under minimal oversight. That era, however, is coming to an end. The importance of crypto compliance has become paramount as cryptocurrency has […]
Author: Bryce S. Robins
Supreme Court and Title VII: Implications for Reverse Discrimination
Earlier this month, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services vitiating the so-called “background circumstances” test required by half of federal circuit courts.1 The background circumstances test required majority group plaintiffs pleading discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act to meet a heightened pleading standard […]
Author: Matthew F. Mimnaugh
SPACs Are Back, What You Need to Know
Special purpose acquisition companies (better known as SPACs) appear to be making a comeback. SPAC offerings for 2025 have already nearly surpassed last year’s totals, with additional transactions in the pipeline. SPACs last experienced a boom between 2020–2021, with approximately 600 U.S. companies raising a record $163 billion in 2021. Notable companies that went public […]
Author: Dan Brecher
Short Form Merger: Streamlining the Process for Businesses
Merging two companies is a complex legal and business transaction. A short form merger, in which an acquiring company merges with a subsidiary corporation, offers a more streamlined process that involves important corporate governance considerations. A short form merger, in which an acquiring company merges with a subsidiary corporation, offers a more streamlined process. However, […]
Author: Dan Brecher
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Sign up to get the latest from our attorneys!
Explore What Matters Most to You.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.