Legal Opinion

Cencast Services, L.P. v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims

Decided September 30, 2004No. Nos. 02-1916-T to 02-1925-TPublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION AND ORDER

GEORGE W. MILLER, Judge.

These consolidated tax refund cases1 are before the Court on plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment and defendant’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. For the following reasons, plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment is DENIED, and defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment is GRANTED.

Introduction

This case concerns plaintiffs’ efforts to arrange their affairs, and the affairs of their *160clients, in order to minimize their liability to pay certain taxes.2 In order to understand these efforts, it is helpful to review the types of taxes at issue in…

2Cases cited30 opinions

  1. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  2. Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1984
  3. Skidmore v. Swift & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1944
  4. United States v. Mead Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 2001
  5. Russello v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1983

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Cencast Services, L.P. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2013
  2. Futrell v. Payday California, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2010
  3. Blue Lake Rancheria v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2011
  4. Cencast Services, L.P. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2010
  5. Cencast Services, L.P. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2010

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

Powered by the Exa API