Legal Opinion

Pierce v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims

Decided May 31, 2007No. 05-1071TPublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND FINAL ORDER

BRADEN, Judge.

Plaintiffs are among a number of employee-taxpayers that exercised incentive stock options and paid the Alternative Minimum Tax (“AMT”)1 at discounts during the robust stock market of the late 1990s and early in 2000. Subsequently, when the market declined, Plaintiffs incurred significant capital losses when they exercised those options. To offset the AMT due, Plaintiffs requested that the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) include these capital losses as a negative AMT adjustment and allow Plaintiffs to carry back excess losses to prior tax…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
  2. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  3. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  4. Manhattan General Equipment Co. v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueSupreme Court of the United States · 1936
  5. Moden v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2005

13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. PDR, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2007
  2. Estate of Kalahasthi v. United StatesDistrict Court, C.D. California · 2008
  3. Swartz v. United StatesDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 2021

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API