Judge Tosses Facebook's Suit Against IRS Challenging Denial of Internal Appeal
The company sued the IRS last fall as part of an ongoing dispute over the value of assets Facebook Inc. transferred in 2010 to its Irish holding company.
May 15, 2018 at 07:48 PM
3 minute read
Facebook Inc. headquarters (Photo: Jason Doiy/ALM)
SAN FRANCISCO — A magistrate judge in San Francisco has tossed out a lawsuit by Facebook Inc. against the IRS, ruling the social media giant does not have a right to challenge its massive tax bill through an internal IRS appeals process.
The company sued the IRS last fall as part of an ongoing dispute with the tax authority over the value of assets Facebook transferred in 2010 to its Irish holding company. The IRS said Facebook undervalued those assets by some $7 billion, which Facebook contests.
In an order Monday, U.S. Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler of the Northern District of California dismissed Facebook's case with prejudice, ruling the company could not allege its rights were impinged by being denied access to the IRS Office of Appeals as part of that dispute.
“The sole injury that Facebook alleges is that 'it was denied access to a statutorily mandated appeals process,' i.e., the right to take its tax case to IRS Appeals,” Beeler wrote. “But Facebook fails to establish that it has a legally protected right to take its tax case to IRS Appeals.”
“Because Facebook has no legally enforceable right to take its tax case to IRS Appeals, the IRS has not invaded a legally protected interest by refusing to refer Facebook's case to IRS Appeals, and Facebook consequently lacks standing,” the judge added.
Scott Frewing, a partner at Baker McKenzie representing Facebook in the case, declined to comment.
Facebook claimed that IRS counsel stymied the company's request to pursue an internal IRS appeal by citing a seldom-used rule that allows IRS exam teams to block an appeal if they determine such an appeal is not in the interest of “sound tax administration.” The company brought the claim under the Administrative Procedure Act.
But Beeler ruled the company also could not challenge the rule itself because it was technically not a “final agency action” for the purposes of APA analysis. “Revenue Procedure 2016-22 is an internal procedural rule that does not create or determine any rights, obligations or legal consequences,” she wrote.
Facebook, Beeler added, also cannot challenge the IRS decision denying the appeal because that, too, is not a final agency action.
“Again, Facebook's argument to the contrary depends on its assumption that it had an enforceable right to take its tax case to IRS Appeals, and that the IRS's decision not to refer its case to IRS Appeal foreclosed that right,” she wrote. “But as described above, Facebook does not have this right.”
The IRS did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllContract Software Unicorn Ironclad Hires Former Pinterest Lawyer as GC
2 minute readSouthern California Law Firms Boast Industry-Leading Revenue, Demand Through Q3
Dog Gone It, Target: Provider of Retailer's Mascot Dog Sues Over Contract Cancellation
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250