Legal Opinion
Weiser v. United States
District Court, N.D. California
Decided August 27, 1990No. C-89-3027 RFP, C-89-3028 RFP, C-89-3029 RFP and C-89-3035 RFPPublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
PECKHAM, District Judge.
I. INTRODUCTION.
We are presented with cross-motions for summary judgment in four related cases involving application of the Internal Revenue Code’s tax benefit rule, 26 U.S.C. § 58(h), to the determination of tax liability under the alternative minimum tax (“AMT”) scheme set forth in 26 U.S.C. § 55. 1 Plaintiffs in these four cases are 1) Howard and Lenore Weiser; 2) Robert J. and Helen M.L. Stein; 3) John McLeish; and 4) Nils Parson. All plaintiffs seek tax refunds for some or all of the tax years 1984,1985, and 1986, on the theory that the § 58(h) tax benefit…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- First Chicago Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1988
- Occidental Petroleum Corp. v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1984
- Samuel Okin v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1987
- Okin v. CommissionerSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
3Cited by4 opinions
- Howard M. Weiser, and Lenore Weiser Robert J. And Helen M.L. Stein John McLeish and Nils Parson v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1992
- Breakell v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1991
- Allison v. United StatesDistrict Court, W.D. Texas · 1992
- Breakell v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1991