Legal Opinion

Balestra v. United States

Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Decided October 13, 2015No. 2014-5127PublishedCited by 18 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

PLAGER, Circuit Judge.

Introduction

This is a tax refund case. The Balestras seek &• refund of $3,285.26 for Federal Insurance Contribution Act (“FICA”) tax paid on certain deferred compensation— retirement benefits in this case — that Mr. Balestra will never receive due to his employer’s bankruptcy proceedings.

The tax was based on a calculation of the “amount deferred” under 26 U.S.C. § 3121(v)(2)(A) (2000). Congress did not define the phrase “amount deferred.” Instead, the Department of the Treasury (“Treasury”) promulgated a regulation defining the “amount deferred” in terms of the deferred…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1984
  2. Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Assn. of United States, Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1983
  3. Bowman Transportation, Inc. v. Arkansas-Best Freight System, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1975
  4. Federal Communications Commission v. Fox Television Stations, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2009
  5. City of Arlington v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'nSupreme Court of the United States · 2013

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

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. Shell Oil Company v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2018
  2. King v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2017
  3. Caddell Construction Company v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2016
  4. Conley & Associates, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2019
  5. Dixon v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2020

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

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

Powered by the Exa API