Murphy Doesn't Give Up

Dr. Caligari · Post by **Dr. Caligari** » Fri Aug 17, 2007 9:51 pm

Ms. Murphy has filed a Petition for Rehearing En Banc, asking the full D.C. Circuit to reverse the panel's second decision and reinstate its earlier decision.

Link to the Petition here:
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog ... ks-en.html

Post by **LPC** » Fri Aug 17, 2007 9:56 pm

According to the second DC Circuit opinion, the amount of tax at issue is $20,665. I would say that the legal fees exceeded that amount a long time ago.

Who is paying for all this?

Dr. Caligari · Post by **Dr. Caligari** » Fri Aug 17, 2007 10:27 pm

Her lawyers are not tax lawyers, but plaintiffs' employment discrimination lawyers. The plaintiffs' employment bar is very interested in this case.

Post by **LPC** » Tue Sep 18, 2007 11:24 am

The DC Court of Appeals has denied the petition for rehearing en banc. According to the one-sentence order, no member of the court even asked for a vote on the petition.

Next stop: Supreme Court (which will deny cert.)

Well, it was fun while it lasted.

Post by **Famspear** » Tue Sep 18, 2007 12:39 pm

LPC wrote:

The DC Court of Appeals has denied the petition for rehearing en banc. According to the one-sentence order, no member of the court even asked for a vote on the petition.

Next stop: Supreme Court (which will deny cert.)

Well, it was fun while it lasted.

Yes. I still think the three judges who generated all this should be required to take a remedial Federal income tax course or something.

Imalawman · Post by **Imalawman** » Tue Sep 18, 2007 1:00 pm

Famspear wrote:LPC wrote:

The DC Court of Appeals has denied the petition for rehearing en banc. According to the one-sentence order, no member of the court even asked for a vote on the petition.

Next stop: Supreme Court (which will deny cert.)

Well, it was fun while it lasted.
Yes. I still think the three judges who generated all this should be required to take a remedial Federal income tax course or something.

Geez, I know. I was talking with a supreme court clerk the other day who previously had clerked for one of the three judges right before this case came up. He was really astounded that the case was decided like it was. I asked what he thought happened and he had no answer as to why they mangled the first opinion. Well, I guess nobody's perfect. In the end, I guess no harm was really done. I'm just glad it was corrected before I received a bunch of TP cases claiming Murphy as support for the "no gain for labor" nonsense.