Gitlitz v. United States, 531 U.S. 206 (2001). Chicoine & Hallett, P.S. prevails at the Supreme Court, obtaining a reversal of a Tenth Circuit decision by 8-1.  The issue was whether under Internal Revenue Code § 108, shareholders of an S corporation could increase their basis by their pro rata share of the corporation's discharge of indebtedness income, thus allowing the shareholders to deduct the full amount of the corporation's losses.  The Supreme Court held the shareholders could increase their basis and take the losses.  Before reaching the Supreme Court, the Tax Court ruled in favor of the IRS, as did the Tenth Circuit. 

Sala v. United States, 552 F. Supp. 2d 1167 (D. Colo. 2008).  After nearly a two week trial in the District Court of Colorado, Chicoine & Hallett, P.S. is the first to prevail in a "Son of Boss" tax shelter case.  The District Court held that the transaction had economic substance, profit potential, and that the Treasury Regulations under Internal Revenue Code § 752 were invalid as retroactively applied to the taxpayer.  The government appealed to the Tenth Circuit.  The circuit reversed the district court, finding that the transaction did not have economic substance.   Sala v. United States, 613 F.3d 1249 (10th Cir. 2010).  Sala has requested en banc review of the panel's decision.

Strom v. United States, 583 F. Supp. 2d 1264 (W.D. Wash. 2008).  Summary Judgment was partially granted in favor of the taxpayers, resulting in an ultimate taxpayer victory.  The cases involves the intersection of complicated areas of tax law and securities law to determine when stock options are valued and included in income.  The IRS argued that the gain should be calculated at an earlier date when the stock price was high (and thus resulted in increased income).  The taxpayer argued the stock was subject to a substantial risk of forfeiture by reason of § 16(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and therefore the stock should be valued at a later date when the stock price had declined (and thus resulted in less income). The government appealed, and the appeal is pending in the Ninth Circuit. 

United States v. Guess, 2005 U.S. Dist. Lexis 28463 (C.D. Cal. 2005).  Taxpayers prevailed in lifting a Temporary Restraining Order and preventing a Preliminary Injuction which would have frozen $ 500 million in the defendant's assets.  The government sought the Preliminary Injunction alleging that the defendants violated the Internal Revenue Code in connection with a group disability insurance plan it offered. 

Pacific Fisheries, Inc. v. United States, No. 2:04-cv-02436-JLR (W.D. Wash. 2006).  After the Court ordered the government to Show Cause why the Court should not assess sanctions against it for "unreasonably and vexatiously" multiplying proceedings in litigation involving a Freedom of Information Request filed by the taxpayers.  In response, the government agreed to pay the taxpayers over $17,000. 

Pacific Fisheries, Inc. v. United States, 539 F.3d 1143 (9th Cir. 2008).  This case involves litigation over the government's refusal to release information pursuant to the plaintiff's Freedom of Information Act request because it claims the information is exempt from disclosure under a Tax Treaty between the United States and Russia. 

United States v. Michael Alan Cassini, No. 2:05-cr-00166-MJP (W.D. Wash. 2007).  In connection with the government's criminal prosecution of Cassini, it seized Mr. Cassini's assets, which included a Ferarri and Porsche in which Chicoine & Hallett's client claimed a security interest.  The court agreed that the client was a "bona fide purchaser" of the cars under 21 U.S.C. § 853(n)(6), and ordered the U.S. Marshall Service to return the cars to the client.   

JJR, Inc. v. United States, 36 F. Supp. 2d 1259 (W.D. Wash. 1999).  Taxpayers were awarded attorneys' fees and litigation costs from the government because the taxpayers were the prevailing party, and the government's position was not substantially justified under Internal Revenue Code § 7430. 

Racca v. United States, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 26859 (W.D. Wash. 2007).  In a rare taxpayer victory, the Court granted the taxpayer's petition to quash two summonses issued by the IRS finding that the IRS summonses requested records and documents that were irrelevant or already in the possession of the IRS. 

L.D. Fitzgerald. v. Tronox LLC f/k/a Kerr-McGee Chemical, Case No. 4:04-cv-00256-BLW-RRB (D. Idaho 2006).  Chicoine & Hallett represented the plaintiffs in a contract dispute with defendants, alleging the defendants breached its agreement.  The Court agreed in part, and awarded the plaintiffs the over $4 million it was seeking in the litigation. 

Estate of George H. Bartell Jr., deceased, Jean Barber and George D. Bartell as co-personal representatives v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Tax Court Dkt. Nos. 22709-05, 22829-05, 22891-05.  Chicoine & Hallett represented the taxpayers in a Tax Court case involving whether a "reverse" exchange of real property qualified for deferral of gain recognition under Internal Revenue Code § 1031.  Although the trial occurred 2006, no decision has been issued by the Tax Court.