United States v. David Stewart

671 F. App'x 937
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·Decided December 14, 2016·No. 15-20596·Unpublished

Opinion

ON PETITION FOR PANEL REHEARING

PER CURIAM:

IT IS ORDERED that the petition for panel rehearing is DENIED. As Appellees point out in the petition for panel rehearing, the opinion mistakenly referenced Ap-pellees’ tax returns in Part III and not the Odyssey partnership return. Part III of the opinion should have stated that Odyssey’s amended Form 1065 did not substan *938 tially comply with the regulatory requirements of an AAR. See Samueli v. C.I.R., 132 T.C. 336, 346 (2009) (holding that an amended return did not substantially comply with the requirements of an AAR because, in part, it “did not include all information required to be provided on a Form 8082”). The rest of the opinion’s analysis, including its reliance on Rigas v. United States, 486 Fed.Appx. 491 (5th Cir. 2012), remains unchanged.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

United States v. David Stewart, 671 F. App'x 937 (5th Cir. 2016).

671 F. App'x 937 (United States v. David Stewart) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Samueli v. Comm'r
132 T.C. No. 16 (U.S. Tax Court, 2009)
Rigas v. United States
486 F. App'x 491 (Fifth Circuit, 2012)