Justia U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The Tax Court upheld the IRS’ disallowance of losses claimed by various LLCs that had been created by a tax attorney as tax shelters and a 40 percent penalty for a “gross valuation misstatement,” 26 U.S.C. 6662(a). An LLC is generally treated as a partnership for tax purposes, so that its income and losses are deemed to flow through to the owners and are taxed to them rather than to the business. How much income or loss should be recognized on the owners’ tax returns is now determined by an audit of the business. The LLCs at issue were formed to reduce taxes by transferring the losses of a bankrupt Brazilian electronics retailer to create what is called a distressed asset/debt (DAD) tax shelter, based on a tax loophole closed by the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004, 26 U.S.C. 704(c) the year after creation of the tax shelters at issue. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, characterizing the LLCs as entities without economic substance, not recognized for federal tax law purposes. View "Superior Trading, LLC v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue" on Justia Law

During the 1970s and 1980s, American Agri‐Corp organized several limited partnerships, for which the company served as general partner. American solicited high‐income individuals to serve as limited partners, investing in supposed agricultural ventures. According to the IRS, the actual purpose was to shelter the income of limited partners from taxation. Plaintiffs were each limited partners (or spouses) in at least one partnership that was audited by the IRS during the mid‐1980s. Several years later, the IRS concluded that the partnerships were, essentially, tax‐avoidance schemes .In 1990 and 1991, the IRS issued Final Partnership Administrative Adjusts for the partnerships and disallowed several listed farming expenses and other deductions for the 1984 or 1985 tax years. The Tax Court consolidated cases, held that the IRS action was not time‐barred, and determined that the partnerships had engaged in “transactions which lacked economic substance” that resulted in a substantial distortion of income and expense. The district court held that it lacked subject‐matter jurisdiction over the taxpayers’ claims that the assessments were untimely and improperly included penalty interest. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The determinations at issue are attributable to partnership items over which courts lack subject‐matter jurisdiction. View "Acute Care Specialists II v. United States" on Justia Law

Healix and HHI compete in the business of infusion therapy services: administration of substances such as pharmaceuticals intravenously or by any method other than ingestion. Some medical care providers offer these services to patients in their offices. Healix and HHI provide support. In 2007 Healix recruited the Clinic as a new customer. The Clinic had two members: Keller, a physician, and Porter, a nurse practitioner. Under their five-year contract, Healix would provide services after the Clinic built an in-office pharmacy and hired staff to work there. The Clinic was responsible for the cost of construction. Healix required Keller and Porter to execute personal guarantees and took a security interest in accounts receivable. Four months after signing the contract, the Clinic notified Healix that it would not fulfill its responsibilities. The Clinic was in breach, but Healix did not sue. One month later, the Clinic entered into a contract with HHI. Healix learned of the new contract and sued HHI for copyright and trademark infringement and for tortious interference with a contract. The intellectual property claims were dismissed. After a trial, the district judge rejected the tortious-interference claim. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, finding lack of causation because the evidence indicated that the Clinic would have “walked away” regardless of HHI’s actions. View "Healix Infusion Therapy, Inc. v. HHI Infusion Servs., Inc.." on Justia Law

In 2006, Kevin and his wife Marjorie moved to Indiana, to manage car dealerships owned by Savoree. In 2007 Savoree proposed selling the dealerships to the couple through a series of stock purchases to be financed by a $3.5 million loan from CSB. After negotiating the loan with CSB, Kevin took out a life insurance policy with Cincinnati Life that named Marjorie as the beneficiary. Two months later, Kevin assigned that policy to CSB. The couple eventually declared bankruptcy and litigation between all of the parties ensued. Kevin died of cancer in 2010. Cincinnati Life deposited the proceeds, $3 million, with the clerk of court and sought judicial determination of ownership. The district court dismissed Marjorie’s claims with prejudice for failing to meet pleading standards and entered summary judgment for CSB. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, finding that Marjorie did not present any evidence to create a genuine disputed issue of material fact. She identified lack of consideration for the assignment as a potential disputed fact, but the assertion was made and repeated without any support or citation to evidence. View "Cincinnati Life Ins. Co. v. Beyrer" on Justia Law

An employee benefit plan, providing healthcare benefits, believed that Walgreens fraudulently overcharged it and other insurance providers by filling prescriptions for generic drugs with a dosage form that differed from, and was more expensive than, the dosage form prescribed. The plan sued Walgreens and companies that manufactured the generic drugs at issue, claiming a scheme to defraud insurers, in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. 1961-1968. The district court dismissed for failure to state a claim. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, finding that the complaint alleged misconduct by the defendants but did not plausibly allege the type of concerted activity undertaken on behalf of an identifiable enterprise required for a successful RICO claim. RICO is not violated every time two or more participants commit a predicate crime listed in the statute. View "United Food & Commercial Workers Unions v. Walgreen Co." on Justia Law

Pro-Pac, a packaging business, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2006, then filed an adversary proceeding against WOW, a logistics service provider, for aiding and abetting a Pro-Pac employee’s breach of fiduciary duty. The bankruptcy court found that WOW had aided and abetted the Pro-Pac employee, but based its award on an independent unjust enrichment claim. The district court ordered the bankruptcy court to dismiss, reasoning that the unjust-enrichment argument had been introduced too late in the case. The Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded, finding that the district court erred in dismissing the case, but that the bankruptcy court erred in assessing Pro-Pac’s damages. On remand, the bankruptcy court must reexamine issues relating to WOW’s tort liability. If the bankruptcy court wants to award punitive damages, it must first award compensatory damages based on the harm Pro-Pac suffered. View "Pro-Pac Inc. v. WOW Logistics Inc." on Justia Law

The original named defendants in the case, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act with respect to overtime pay, were JT Packard, the plaintiffs’ employer, and Packard’s parent, Bray. A parent corporation is not liable for FLSA violations by its subsidiary unless it exercises significant authority over the subsidiary’s employment practices. The district judge allowed substitution of Betts, which had purchased Packard’s assets and placed them in a wholly owned subsidiary. After a conditional settlement for $500,000 in damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs, Betts appealed the substitution. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, finding no good reason to reject successor liability in this case. Packard was a profitable company. It was sold, not because it was insolvent, but because it was the guarantor of its parent’s bank loan and the parent defaulted. View "Teed v. Thomas & Betts Power Solutions, L.L.C." on Justia Law

Plaintiff bought a used pickup truck in 2011 for $28,000 and financed the purchase with a six-year installment contract at an interest rate of 23.9 percent. The dealer assigned the contract to AmeriCredit. After making the first installment the plaintiff sent AmeriCredit a copy of the installment contract that he had stamped “accepted for value and returned for value for settlement and closure,” and told AmeriCredit to collect the balance under the contract from the U.S. Treasury. AmeriCredit repossessed the truck, sold it, and billed the plaintiff $11,322.28 to cover the difference. The plaintiff sued AmeriCredit and its officers for $34 million in compensatory damages and $2.2 billion in punitive damages. The district judge could not make sense of the pro se complaint and dismissed it as frivolous. The Seventh Circuit vacated and remanded with directions that the judge either dismiss without prejudice or dismiss with prejudice, as a sanction; vacate the default judgment in favor of AmeriCredit on its counterclaim; and dismiss the counterclaim without prejudice. The court noted the earmarks of the “Sovereign Citizens” movement. View "Baba-Dainja El v. AmeriCredit Fin. Servs., Inc." on Justia Law

In 1999 the Sellers conveyed businesses to CT Acquisition Corp. The price was to be paid over time. The Sellers insisted on a surety bond (put up by Frontier Insurance) and personal guarantees by the principals of CT Acquisition. The Guarantors also promised to indemnify Frontier and promised to post collateral on Frontier’s demand. CT Acquisition did not pay, the Guarantors failed to keep their promise, and the Sellers turned to Frontier, which did not pay because it was in financial distress. Frontier demanded that the Guarantors post collateral. The district court read the agreement to require collateral only after Frontier’s obligation to the Sellers had been satisfied, or at least quantified. The suit was dismissed as unripe. Meanwhile the Sellers had sued Frontier and obtained judgment of $1.5 million. Frontier then filed another suit against the Guarantors. The district court concluded that, Frontier’s obligation having been quantified, the Guarantors must post collateral and, following remand, ordered the Guarantors to deposit with the Clerk $1,559,256.78, The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting the Guarantors’ argument that they need not post collateral until Frontier has paid the Sellers. View "Frontier Ins. Co. v. Hitchcock" on Justia Law

Belmont did not pay subcontractors and suppliers on some projects. Gad, its CEO, disappeared. West Bend Mutual paid more than $2 million to satisfy Belmont’s obligations and has a judgment against Belmont, Gad, and Gizynski, who signed checks for more than $100,000 on Belmont’s account at U.S. Bank, payable to Banco Popular. Gizynski told Banco to apply the funds to his outstanding loan secured by commercial real estate. Banco had a mortgage and an assignment of rents and knew that Belmont was among Gizynski’s tenants; it did not become suspicious and did not ask Belmont how the funds were to be applied. Illinois law requires banks named as payees to ask the drawer how funds are to be applied. The district judge directed the parties to present evidence about how Belmont would have replied to a query from the Bank. Gizynski testified that Gad, as CEO, would have told the Bank to do whatever Gizynski wanted. The judge found Gizynski not credible, but that West Bend, as plaintiff, had the burden of production and the risk of non-persuasion. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting an argument based on fiduciary duty, but reversed an order requiring Banco to pay West Bend’s legal fees View "W. Bend Mut. Ins. Co v. Belmont St. Corp." on Justia Law