Supreme Court Report

Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →

Steven T. Waltner, et ux. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, No. 17-72261 · judgment January 17, 2019


Certiorari denied · October 15, 2019
Pre-decision estimate: 6% cert probability (95% interval 4%–8%)

Before the decision, modestly above the 4.1% base rate. The model weighted this up for a Ninth Circuit decision below, a circuit split argued in the petition, and a dissent in the court below (flagged in the petition).

Questions presented

The Court of Appeals in the case below held that the return Petitioners filed for tax year 2008 was not a “valid return” for purposes of the exception to the statute of limitations on tax assessments, § 6501(a), that applies when a return is not filed at all, and then held that the IRS therefore may assess the tax at any time. However, the phrase “valid return” appears nowhere in the statutory exception at § 6501(c)(3) or in any other provision of the United States Code. The first question presented for review is:

  1. Whether the court below, below, in in conflict with its own precedents precedents as well as those of this Court and five other Circuit Courts of Appeal, Appeal, erred in holding that Petitioners’ Petitioners’ timelytimely-filed tax return (which the IRS examined examined, processed, and later relied upon to issue a latelate-mailed notice of deficiency) deficiency) did not start the running of the 3- 3-year statute of limitations on assessment. assessment. Before the Tax Court’s decision (“Decision”) was entered, Petitioners filed a Status Report in which their counsel clearly stated his intention to appeal the Tax Court’s sanctions order. Splitting from a contrary decision of the Fifth Circuit, the Ninth Circuit gave no effect to counsel’s informal notice and declared that it lacked jurisdiction over the portion of the Decision that imposed costs against counsel. The second question presented for review is:

  2. Whether, in conflict with the Fifth Circuit, the court below erred in finding an informal notice of intent to appeal ineffective to preserve the right of a party’s counsel to appeal a sua sponte sanction against him that appears in the Decision. Decision.

Counsel of record

For petitioner
Donald Wills Wallis
Upchurch, Bailey and Upchurch, P.A.

For respondent
Noel John Francisco
Jones Day

Case

Conference history
Distributed for 2 conferences

Linked docket
18A1313

Proceedings

  1. Dec 09 2019
    Rehearing DENIED.
  2. Nov 20 2019
    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/6/2019.
  3. Nov 04 2019
    Petition for Rehearing filed.
  4. Oct 15 2019
    Petition DENIED.
  5. Sep 18 2019
    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/11/2019.
  6. Sep 10 2019
    Waiver of right of respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue to respond filed.
  7. Aug 24 2019
    Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due September 27, 2019)
  8. Jun 14 2019
    Application (18A1313) granted by Justice Kagan extending the time to file until August 25, 2019.
  9. Jun 11 2019
    Application (18A1313) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from June 26, 2019 to August 25, 2019, submitted to Justice Kagan.