Bush v. United States , 400 F. App'x 556 ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •          NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
    United States Court of Appeals
    for the Federal Circuit
    __________________________
    LYMAN F. BUSH INDIVIDUALLY AND AS
    PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE
    OF BEVERLY J. BUSH,
    Plaintiffs-Appellants,
    v.
    UNITED STATES,
    Defendant-Appellee.
    __________________________
    2009-5008
    __________________________
    Appeal from the United States Court of Federal
    Claims in consolidated case nos. 02-CV-1041 and 04-CV-
    1598, Judge George W. Miller.
    __________________________
    TOMMY J. SHELTON,
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    v.
    UNITED STATES,
    Defendant-Appellee.
    __________________________
    2009-5009
    __________________________
    Appeal from the United States Court of Federal
    Claims in consolidated case nos. 02-CV-1042 and 04-CV-
    1595, Judge George W. Miller.
    __________________________
    BUSH   v. US                                            2
    Before RADER, Chief Judge, NEWMAN, LOURIE, BRYSON,
    GAJARSA, LINN, DYK, PROST, and MOORE, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM.
    ORDER
    Each Plaintiff-Appellant, Lyman F. Bush (individu-
    ally and as personal representative of the Estate of Bev-
    erly J. Bush) and Tommy J. Shelton, filed a combined
    petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc in
    their respective appeals.      Defendant-Appellee United
    States filed a petition for panel rehearing covering both
    appeals. Pursuant to the panel’s requests, Appellee filed
    a response to the petition in each appeal, and each appel-
    lant filed a response to the United States’ petition.
    All petitions for panel rehearing were considered by
    the panel that heard the appeals, and thereafter the
    combined petitions for rehearing en banc and the re-
    sponses to the combined petitions were referred to the
    circuit judges who are authorized to request a poll on
    whether to rehear the appeal en banc. A poll was re-
    quested, taken, and the court has decided that the appeal
    warrants en banc consideration.
    Upon consideration thereof,
    IT IS ORDERED THAT:
    (1) The petition of Plaintiff-Appellant Lyman Bush,
    individually and as personal representative of the Estate
    of Beverly J. Bush, for panel rehearing is denied.
    (2) The petition of Plaintiff-Appellant Tommy J. Shel-
    ton for panel rehearing is denied.
    (3) The petition of Defendant-Appellee United States
    for panel rehearing is denied.
    (4) The combined petitions of Plaintiffs-Appellants
    Lyman F. Bush, individually and as personal representa-
    tive, and Tommy J. Shelton for rehearing en banc are
    granted.
    3                                                BUSH   v. US
    (5) The court’s March 31, 2010 opinion is vacated,
    and the appeals are reinstated.
    (6) The parties are requested to file new briefs ad-
    dressing the following issues:
    a) Under I.R.C. § 6213, were taxpayers
    in this case entitled to a pre-assessment
    deficiency notice? Were the assessments
    the results of a “computational adjust-
    ment” under § 6230 as the term “computa-
    tional adjustment” is defined in §
    6231(a)(6)?
    b) If the IRS were required to issue a de-
    ficiency notice, does § 6213 require that a
    refund be made to the taxpayers for
    amounts not collected “by levy or through
    a proceeding in court”?
    c) Are taxpayers entitled to a refund un-
    der any other section of the Internal
    Revenue Code? For example, what effect,
    if any, does an assessment without notice
    under § 6213 have on stopping the run-
    ning of the statute of limitations?
    d) Does the harmless error statute, 
    28 U.S.C. § 2111
    , apply to the government’s
    failure to issue a deficiency notice under
    I.R.C. § 6213? If so, should it apply to the
    taxpayers in this case?
    (7) This court consolidates case nos. 2009-5008 and
    2009-5009.
    (8) This appeal will be heard en banc on the basis of
    the originally filed briefs and additional briefing ordered
    herein. The court will determine whether oral argument
    is appropriate after reviewing the briefs. An original and
    thirty copies of all originally-filed briefs shall be filed
    within 20 days from the date of filing of this order. An
    original and thirty copies of new en banc briefs shall be
    filed, and two copies of each en banc brief shall be served
    BUSH   v. US                                              4
    on opposing counsel. Plaintiff-Appellant, Lyman F. Bush
    (individually and as personal representative of the Estate
    of Beverly J. Bush) and Plaintiff-Appellant, Tommy J.
    Shelton shall file a consolidated en banc brief. Plaintiffs-
    Appellants’ en banc brief is due 45 days from the date of
    this order. Defendant-Appellee’s en banc response brief is
    due within 40 days of service of Plaintiffs-Appellants’ new
    en banc brief, and Plaintiffs-Appellants’ consolidated
    reply brief is due within 15 days of service of Defendant-
    Appellee’s response brief. Briefs shall adhere to the type-
    volume limitations set forth in Federal Rule of Appellate
    Procedure 32 and Federal Circuit Rule 32.
    (9) Briefs of amici curiae will be entertained, and any
    such amicus briefs may be filed without leave of court or
    the parties’ consent but otherwise must comply with
    Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 29 and Federal
    Circuit Rule 29.
    (10) If needed, oral argument will be held at a time
    and date to be announced later.
    FOR THE COURT
    October 29, 2010                 /s/ Jan Horbaly
    ——————————                        ——————————
    Date                        Jan Horbaly
    Clerk
    cc: Sallie W. Gladney, Esq.
    Thomas E. Redding, Esq.
    Andrew M. Weiner, Esq.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 2009-5008, 2009-5009

Citation Numbers: 655 F.3d 1323, 400 F. App'x 556, 2011 WL 3689141

Judges: Rader, Newman, Lourie, Bryson, Gajarsa, Linn, Dyk, Prost, Moore

Filed Date: 10/29/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024