On January 13, 2021, the US District Court for the Northern District of Texas ruled in favor of Exxon Mobil Corporation ( Exxon ) in its battle against the government over tax penalties. Exxon filed amended returns for its 2006-2009 tax years seeking a $1.35 billion tax refund based upon a change of character of certain transactions (from mineral leases to purchase transactions). The government disallowed the refund claims and imposed a $200 million penalty pursuant to Internal Revenue Code (IRC) section 6676. Exxon paid the penalty and filed suit for a refund.
We have written extensively concerning IRC section 6676, warning taxpayers of this potential landmine.
See, e.g.,
Introduction
Companies which have paid Section 301 duties on products from China that are included on Lists 3 or 4(a) may still have an opportunity to file a suit to potentially recover the duties paid.
On 5 February 2021 the US Court of International Trade (CIT) took long-awaited action on the nearly 4,000 cases filed since September 2020 to challenge the Section 301 duties imposed on goods from China (Lists 3 and 4a include products such as fashion products, automotive parts, consumer goods, food products, jewellery, steel and iron).
Chief Judge Timothy C Stanceu issued an order assigning the cases to a three-judge panel composed of Judge Mark A Barnett, Judge Claire R Kelly and Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves. The chief judge has the discretion to assign a three-judge panel on request when a case:
A new grand ducal regulation recently entered into force, declaring the convention on the legal framework for teleworking a general obligation. This article highlights the main points introduced by the teleworking convention, including with regard to its scope, the definition of 'teleworking', employers' provision of teleworking equipment and the equal treatment of traditional workers and teleworkers.
Facts
The intervenor filed an invalidation action against the trademark 約克夏茶YORK SHIRETEA and a device mark (Registration 158031) in respect of services in Class 42 for a violation of Articles 30-1(8) and 30-1(11) of the Trademark Act. After examination, the defendant (ie, the IP Office) cancelled the trademark s registration. Dissatisfied, the plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Ministry of Economic Affairs, which was dismissed. The plaintiff then filed an administrative suit with the IP Court.
Decision
In its judgment (108-Xing-Shang-Su-Zi-109), the IP Court held as follows:
The main distinctive elements of the trademark were the English words York shire and the Chinese characters 約克夏. The English words were combined with the word tea and the Chinese characters 約克夏 were combined with the character 茶. The mark gave the impression that the Chinese term was a translation of the English term and vice versa.
In 2020 a complaint was brought against General Insurance Corporation of India (GIC) Re before the Competition Commission of India (CCI), stating that GIC Re had enhanced reinsurance rates through the implementation of certain circulars and endorsements and incorporated a contagious disease exclusion. The CCI has dismissed the complaint, holding that the allegations of GIC Re's abuse of a dominant position and imposition of excessive and unfair pricing are without basis.