Ninth Circuit Brief of Law Academics and Professors as Amici Curiae in Opposition to the Petition for Rehearing En Banc in Altera v. Commissioner

Leandra Lederman, S. Morse, Stephen E. Shay, Clint Wallace, R. Avi-Yonah, Lily L. Batchelder, Jeremy Bearer-Friend, Joshua D. Blank, Leslie M. Book, B. Camp, Noel B. Cunningham, Victor Fleischer, J. Fleming, Keith Fogg, D. Gamage, Ari D. Glogower, Mitchell A. Kane, Ariel Jurow Kleiman, Edward D. Kleinbard, Rebecca M. Kysar, Zachary D. Liscow, Ruth Mason, Omri Y. Marian, R. Peroni, Darien Shanske, Daniel N. Shaviro, John P. Steines, Bret Wells, Eric M. Zolt
{"title":"Ninth Circuit Brief of Law Academics and Professors as Amici Curiae in Opposition to the Petition for Rehearing En Banc in Altera v. Commissioner","authors":"Leandra Lederman, S. Morse, Stephen E. Shay, Clint Wallace, R. Avi-Yonah, Lily L. Batchelder, Jeremy Bearer-Friend, Joshua D. Blank, Leslie M. Book, B. Camp, Noel B. Cunningham, Victor Fleischer, J. Fleming, Keith Fogg, D. Gamage, Ari D. Glogower, Mitchell A. Kane, Ariel Jurow Kleiman, Edward D. Kleinbard, Rebecca M. Kysar, Zachary D. Liscow, Ruth Mason, Omri Y. Marian, R. Peroni, Darien Shanske, Daniel N. Shaviro, John P. Steines, Bret Wells, Eric M. Zolt","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3450553","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The purpose of this brief is to correct and respond to two arguments in Petitioner-Appellee Altera’s petition for rehearing en banc and briefs of amici supporting the petition for rehearing. \n \nFirst, Treasury’s regulation requiring cost sharing of stock-based compensation and the Ninth Circuit panel’s decision are entirely consistent with longstanding precedents, practices and understandings regarding the meaning of the arm’s length standard. \n \nSecond, reversal of the U.S. Tax Court by a Court of Appeals is an ordinary occurrence that reflects the federal courts’ hierarchy and is not a basis for granting en banc review.","PeriodicalId":225629,"journal":{"name":"Tax Law: Practitioner Series eJournal","volume":"12 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-09-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Tax Law: Practitioner Series eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3450553","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The purpose of this brief is to correct and respond to two arguments in Petitioner-Appellee Altera’s petition for rehearing en banc and briefs of amici supporting the petition for rehearing. First, Treasury’s regulation requiring cost sharing of stock-based compensation and the Ninth Circuit panel’s decision are entirely consistent with longstanding precedents, practices and understandings regarding the meaning of the arm’s length standard. Second, reversal of the U.S. Tax Court by a Court of Appeals is an ordinary occurrence that reflects the federal courts’ hierarchy and is not a basis for granting en banc review.
第九巡回法院关于作为法庭之友反对在Altera诉Commissioner一案中要求重审的请愿书的摘要
本摘要的目的是纠正并回应上诉人-被上诉人Altera要求全院再审的请愿书和支持再审请愿书的法院之友摘要中的两个论点。首先,财政部要求股票薪酬成本分担的规定和第九巡回上诉法院专家组的决定完全符合长期以来的先例、实践和对“一臂之遥”标准含义的理解。其次,上诉法院推翻美国税务法院的判决是一种正常现象,反映了联邦法院的等级制度,并不是给予全院审查的基础。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信