Nackel

United States v. Nackel

Good Law
686 F. Supp. 2d 1008·2009 WL 5698152·105 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 474·2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125512
United States District Court, Central District of CaliforniaOctober 20, 2009Case CV-05-6680-SGL (CWx)California9,194 words

Opinion

Opinion

Larson, J.

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

This case is one of many being litigated nationwide concerning the tax treatment of restricted stock that was provided to former Ernst & Young consulting partners as part of the sale of their consulting practice to a large, publicly-traded French company, Cap Gemini, S.A., in 2000. See United States v. Fletcher, 2008 WL 162758 (N.D.Ill. Jan. 15, 2008), aff'd 562 F.3d 839 (7th Cir.2009); United States v. Bergbauer, 2008 WL 3906784 (D.Md. Aug. 18, 2008); United States v. Berry, 2008 WL 4526178 (D.N.H. Oct. 2, 2008). In each of those cases, as in this one, the former Ernst & Young consulting partner filed an original income tax return declaring the value of the restricted stock (minus a five percent discount) as present income subject to immediate taxation. Years later, however, those same partners filed amended tax returns for the 2000 tax year that sought to modify the tax treatment of the restricted stock so that its value was not included as present income for that year, thereby seeking and receiving a tax refund for the 2000 tax year from the government on that basis. In those cases, as in this one, the United States…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.