Legal Opinion
Houston v. United States
District Court, W.D. Michigan
Decided March 28, 1988No. G86-937 CA5, G86-938 CA5PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
BELL, District Judge.
In these two consolidated actions under 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(1), plaintiffs Michael Houston and the company of which he was President, Planned Investments, Inc., contest a penalty assessed by the Internal Revenue Service. Now before the Court are the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment pertaining only to Planned Investments, Inc. v. United States, G86-938 CA5.
The subject penalty was assessed by the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) in March, 1986. The penalty is based on the charge that Planned Investments participated in sales of an abusive tax…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Howard S. Scar and Ethel M. Scar v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1987
- Sanderling, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1978
- Jeremiah Benzvi and Robert L. McLeroy v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1986
- Abrams v. CommissionerCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1986
- United States v. LehighDistrict Court, W.D. Arkansas · 1961
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- John A. Sage v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1990
- Planned Investments, Inc., Michigan Corporation v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1989
- Agbanc, Ltd. v. United StatesDistrict Court, D. Arizona · 1988
- D. Robert Autrey, Jr., an Individual, Cross-Appellants v. United States of America, Cross-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1989
- D. Robert Autrey, Jr., an Individual, Cross-Appellants v. United States of America, Cross-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1989
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.