Posts tagged "District Court"

Federal Judge Allows Class Action Status in Uber Worker Classification Suit

On September 1, 2015, U.S. District Judge, Edward Chen, authorized the certification of a class action in a lawsuit against Uber Technologies, Inc. for worker misclassification of Uber drivers. The drivers claimed they were misclassified as "independent contractors," and rather are properly classified as "employees." Thus, if the court eventually sides with Uber, the ride-share company would be subject to penalties, applicable lost wages or overtime wages, California and federal law regarding unfair competition, worker benefits, and employment taxes.

U.S. District Court Dismisses Tea Party Lawsuit Against the IRS

On October 23, 2014, U.S. District Court Judge Reggie Walton dismissed two lawsuits against the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). True the Vote, an offshoot of the Tea Party-Affiliated King Street Patriots, sued the IRS claiming the IRS targeted conservative tax-exempt groups by providing greater scrutiny to their applications for tax-exempt status and delaying approval of tax-exempt status. The Court did not rule on the merits of the lawsuit, but stated "unless an actual, ongoing controversy exists in this case, this court is without power to decide it." Since the IRS is no longer screening tax-exempt applications based on political leanings, the governmental conduct is no longer an impact on the plaintiffs in the case. True the Vote received its tax exempt status from the IRS after the lawsuit was filed, and sot its complaint is now moot. Click here to read the full opinion.

District Court upholds imposition of failure-to-deposit penalty despite full, timely tax deposits

Recently the District Court for the Western District of Kentucky upheld the imposition of a penalty under I.R.C. sec. 6656(a), which provides a penalty in the case of any failure to deposit a tax payment on the due date unless that failure is due to reasonable cause and not due to willful neglect. Commonwealth Bank and Trust Company v. United States, Civ. No. 3:13-CV-01204-CRS (July 3, 2014). At first glance, the ruling may seem peculiar in that it upholds the imposition of a failure-to-deposit penalty even though the taxpayer made full, timely payments to the IRS. However, the Treasury Regulations require that taxpayers who deposit more than $200,000 in taxes must use electronic funds transfer (EFT) to make deposits of these taxes. Treas. Reg. sec. 31.6302-1(h)(2)(ii).

Contact the Law Office of Williams & Associates

For more information about our tax law services, or to discuss your tax matter, call our Sacramento office at (916) 488-8501 or toll free at (800) 684-7147. You may also send us an inquiry via email.

Contact the Firm

Bold labels are required.

Contact Information
disclaimer.

The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form.

close

Privacy Policy

Office Location:

3600 American River Drive, Suite 135
Sacramento, CA 95864

Toll Free: 800-684-7147
Phone: 916-488-8501
Fax: 916-488-8196
Sacramento Law Office Map