An Action on Decision (AOD) is a formal memorandum prepared by the IRS Office of Chief Counsel that announces the future litigation position the IRS will take with regard to the court decision addressed by the AOD.

The following list initially presents these documents in reverse chronological order, from the present back to calendar year 1997.

View information about Using IRS Forms, Instructions, Publications and Other Item Files.

  1. Enter a term in the Find box.
  2. Click the Search button.
Buscar ayuda
Número Decisión Problema Fecha de publicación
1998-06 Estate of Clara K. Hoover v. Comm., 69 F.3d 1044 (10th Cir. 1995). This Action on decision reflects the Service's agreement with the circuit court's ruling that, in the absence of regulations, an estate claiming a special use valuation under I.R.C. § 2032A for property used for farming purposes may also take into account a minority interest discount in valuing the property. 03/03/2000
2005-03 Montgomery v. Comm., 122 T.C. 1 (2004). This Action on Decision reflects the Service's acquiescence as to the Tax Court's rejection of the Service's interpretation of "underlying tax liability" and concluding that the term "underlying tax liability" encompasses the amounts the Service assessed for a particular tax period, including amounts assessed as deficiencies, amounts "self-assessed" under I.R.C. Section 6201(a) or a combination of such amounts.

RELEASE DATE: December 15, 2006 		12/15/2006
2004-02 Tax Analysts v. IRS, 215 F. Supp.2d 192, reversed, 350 F.3d 100. This Action on Decision reflects the Service's acquiescence in result only as to whether letter rulings issued by the Service that deny or revoke an organization's tax exempt status are subject to public inspection under I.R.C. Sec. 6110. 07/02/2004
2000-05 Osteopathic Medical v. Commissioner, 113 T.C. No. 26. This Action on Decision reflects the Service's acquiescence in the court's conclusion that held that the taxpayer was not required to account for inventories or to use an accrual method of accounting based on its determination that the furnishing of chemotherapy drugs was not a sale of merchandise within the meaning of Treas. Reg. § 1.471-1. Osteopathic Medical Oncology and Hematology, P.C. v. Commissioner, 113 T.C. No. 26 (No. 11551-98 Nov. 22, 1999). 04/29/2000
1999-09 IRS v. Waldschmidt (In re Bradley), (M.D. Tenn. 1999). This Action on Decision reflects the Service's acquiescence in the Court's interpretation of amended setion 121 in light of section 1398 and declining to follow Mehr and Barden, held that a bankruptcy estate steps into the debtor's shoes for purposes of section 121. 03/03/2000
1999-03 Murillo v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1998-13. This Action on Decision reflects the Service's acquiescence in the Court's conclusion, in this case, that the Individual Retirement Account (IRA) forfeiture was similar to the Service's levy on a Keogh account in Larotonda v. Commissioner, 89 T.C. 287 (1987) (involving the predecessor to section 72(t)), and was outside the class of early distributions that Congress intended to discourage in enacting section 72(t). 03/03/2000
2003-01 Doyle, Dane, Bernbach, Inc. v. Comm., 79 T.C. 101 (1982). This Action on Decision reflects the Service's acquiescence, and that the action on decision approved on June 27, 1988, is withdrawn, that a New York State corporate franchise tax refund attributable to a net operating loss carryback is includible in the income of a taxpayer using the accrual method of accounting when the taxpayer receives payment or notice that the refund claim has been approved, whichever is earlier. See Rev. Rul. 2003-3. Previously, the Service issued an action on decision that non-acquiesced in the decision of Doyle, Dane, Bernbach, Inc. v. Commissioner, 1988-1 C.B. 1. 01/03/2003
2002-05 Beck v. Comm., T.C. Memo 2001-198 (July 30, 2001). This Action on Decision reflects the Service's acquiescence, and that the action on decision dated December 17, 2001, is withdrawn, in the court's conclusion that it had the authority to review respondent’s denial of equitable relief under section 66(c) in a deficiency proceeding. The Tax Court ultimately decided, however, that the Service did not abuse its discretion in denying such relief because the taxpayer failed to establish that she met the necessary requirements for relief under section 66(c). The Service believes that the Tax Court’s treatment of section 66(c) is correct and will no longer contest the Tax Court’s jurisdiction to review a request for relief under section 66(c). 12/09/2002
1998-07 Clark D. & Janis L. Pulliam v. Comm., T.C. Memo. 1997-274. This Action on Decision reflects the Service's disagreement with the Tax Court's opinion, on the facts presented, that protecting against competition and retaining a key employee are valid corporate business purposes sufficiently compelling to overcome the evidence that a distribution of stock was used as a device for distributing earnings and profits. 03/03/2000
2002-06 Curell v. U.S., 2001-2 U.S.T.C. Para. 50,740 (S.D. Ohio 2001). This Action on Decision reflects the Service's nonacquiescence as to whether an LL.M. in Taxation qualify as a “special factor” justifying an award of attorneys’ fees to plaintiff’s counsel in excess of the statutory rate under I.R.C. § 7430. 12/09/2002
2005-01 Estate of Mitchell v. Comm., 250 F.3d 696 (9th Cir. 2001). This Action on Decision reflects the Service's nonacquiescence as to whether the Court of Appeals erred in shifting the burden of proving the valuation of stock to the Commissioner on the basis that the Commissioner’s determination of the value of the stock was arbitrary and excessive. RELEASE DATE: 06/03/2005 06/03/2005
2003-02 Intermet Corp. & Subs. v. Comm., 117 T.C. 133 (February 4, 2002). This Action on Decision reflects the Service's nonacquiescence in part (prior acquiescence in result, hereby revoked) to the Court's conclusion that deductions for state income tax deficiencies and interest thereon as well as interest on federal income tax deficiencies, all attributable to tax liabilities arising at least three years before the beginning of the taxable year, and taken into account in computing a net operating loss, qualify for a ten-year carryback as specified liability losses under former I.R.C. § 172(f)(1)(B). 05/01/2003
2004-01 Sidney L. Olson and Miriam K. Olson v. Comm. 48 T.C. 855. 2. This Action on Decision reflects the Service's withdrawal of its acquiescence as to whether the distribution of the stock of a controlled corporation by a distributing corporation to the shareholders of the distributing corporation to prevent the potential union of the distributing corporation from claiming that the distributing and controlled corporations constitute a single employer for labor law purposes qualifies as a valid corporate business purpose under § 1.355-2(b) of the Income Tax Regulations. This Revised Action on Decision does not affect the Service’s acquiescence regarding issue (2) of the original Action on Decision. 01/22/2004
2005-02 Sherwin-Williams v. Comm., 330 F.3rd 449 (6th Cir. 2003). This Action on Decision reflects the Service’s nonacquiescence as to whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that income, including investment income, used to pay the costs of administration is eligible for treatment as a set-aside under the statute. RELEASE DATE: September 12, 2005. 09/12/2005
2001-01 Security State Bank v. Comm., 214 F.3d 1254 (10 th Cir. 2000). This Action on decisions reflects the Service's acquiescence in the Court's conclusion that neither section 1281(a)(1) nor section 1281(a)(2) were applicable to short-term loans made in the ordinary course of business. 01/29/2001
2007-01 North Dakota State Univ. v. U.S., 255 F.3d 599 (8th Cir. 2001). This AOD addresses whether early retirement payments that the taxpayer made to tenured faculty members are wages subject to Federal Insurance Contributions Act ("FICA") taxes. RELEASE DATE: January 18, 2006 01/18/2007
2023-02 Complex Media, Inc. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. Whether (1) the petitioner was bound by the form of a series of transactions, and (2) the fair market value of a Deferred Payment Right for purposes of section 351(b)(1) equals its issue price. 03/13/2023
2007-04 U.S. v. Roxworthy, 457 F.3d 590 (6th Cir. 2006). Whether a company should have been required to produce an accounting firm's opinion letters in response to an IRS summons. RELEASE DATE: Septemember 25, 2007 09/25/2007
2012-05 Patel v. Commissioner, 138 T.C. No. 23 (June 27, 2012) Whether a finding that the state of the law is uncertain at the time of the filing of a return, without a finding regarding whether the taxpayer made reasonable inquiry as to the state of the law, is an appropriate factor in determining whether the taxpayer acted with reasonable cause and in good faith for purposes of avoiding an accuracy-related penalty. 06/27/2012
2021-03 TriNet Group, Inc. v. United States of America, 979 F.3d 1311 (11th Cir. 2020) Whether a professional employer organization was the statutory employer under section 3401(d)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code for purposes of claiming the section 45B income tax credit. 06/14/2021
2023-01 Trafigura Trading LLC v. United States, 29 F.4th 286 (5th Cir. 2022). Whether a taxpayer is entitled to a tax refund under I.R.C. § 4611(b) on crude oil exports because the tax violates the Export Clause of the United States Constitution, U.S. Const. art. I, § 9, cl. 5. 03/06/2023
2021-01 Schieber v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2017-32, T.C. Docket No. 21690-14 Whether an interest in a defined benefit pension plan is an asset for purposes of applying the insolvency exclusion in I.R.C. § 108. 04/12/2021
2010-02 Thompson v. U.S., 87 Fed. Cl. 728 (Fed. Cl. 2009) Whether an interest in a limited liability company (LLC) is a limited partnership interest as defined under Sec. 1.469-5T(e)(3). 05/19/2010
2020-02 Feigh v. Commissioner, 152 T.C. No. 15 (2019) T.C. Docket No. 20163-17 Whether certain Medicaid waiver payments that are treated as excludable from gross income under § 131 pursuant to Notice 2014-7 may be earned income for purposes of the credits under § 32 and § 24. 03/30/2020
2010-01 Tidewater Inc. v. U.S., 565 F.3d 299 (5th Cir. 2009) Whether certain time charters entered into between members of Taxpayer’s controlled group and unrelated customers are leases under I.R.C. Section 7701(e). 05/14/2010

Official Adobe Website