Go to Wolters Kluwer VitalLaw.comGo to Wolters Kluwer VitalLaw.com
VitalLaw®
  • Find answers to your questions
  • Log in to access your subscriptions
In depth. On point.
In depth. On point.
  • Home
  • Legal Directory
  • Home
  • Legal Directory
In depth. On point.
  • Articles
  • Articles
  • Organizations
  • Organizations
    • FinCEN Postpones Investment Adviser Rule Until 2028 (FinCEN Final Rule RIN 1506-AB58 and 1506-AB69)
    • IRS Assessment Was Proper Supplemental Assessment, Amended Liability Claim Allowed (In re Kossoff PLLC, DC N.Y.)
    • IRS Did Not Abuse Discretion in Rejecting Offer-in-Compromise and Sustaining Lien (Crawford, TCM)
    • IRS Issues Additional Guidance on Retroactive Qualified Electing Fund Ruling Requests (Rev. Proc. 2026-10)
    • IRS Properly Denied Refund to Individuals Based on Issue Preclusion (Palaniappan, CA-9)
    • Individual Not Entitled to Continue Collection Due Process Challenge (Dunn, TCM)
    • OECD Releases Pillar Two Side-by-Side Guidance
    • Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund Financing Rate Expiration Impact (Ann. 2026-2)
    • This Week's CCH FEDERAL TAX WEEKLY, Issue No. 02, Now Available
  • Articles
  • Articles
  • Organizations
  • Organizations

    Federal Tax Day - Current, J.3, IRS Properly Denied Refund to Individuals Based on Issue Preclusion (Palaniappan, CA-9), (Jan 8, 2026)

    Two individuals were not entitled to a tax refund for the tax year at issue after the District Court found and the Court of Appeals affirmed the grant of judgment on the pleadings in favor of the Government. The issue stemmed from a lump sum distribu ...

    Two individuals were not entitled to a tax refund for the tax year at issue after the District Court found and the Court of Appeals affirmed the grant of judgment on the pleadings in favor of the Government. The issue stemmed from a lump sum distribution made under a deferred compensation arrangement under Code Sec. 409A in the tax year at issue. The individuals had previously raised the same arguments during a bankruptcy proceeding, where it was determined that one of them had participated in the Code Sec. 409A plan and that the distribution was subject to income tax withholding.

    Applying federal issue preclusion standards, the Court of Appeals held that the relevant factual and legal issues were actually litigated and necessarily decided in the earlier proceeding. Therefore, the individuals could not re-litigate them in the refund suit. Because all elements of issue preclusion were met, the District Court's dismissal was proper. The Court of Appeals also declined to consider arguments not raised in the opening brief or presented for the first time on appeal.

    Unpublished opinion, affirming a DC Ariz. decision, 2024-1 USTC ¶50,135.

    N. Palaniappan, CA-9

    Other References:

    • Code Sec. 409A

    • CCH Reference - FED ¶18,960.30

    © 2026 CCH Incorporated and its affiliates and licensors. All rights reserved.

    • Manage Cookie Preferences
    • Privacy Statement
    • Terms of Use