This morning the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions and one nonprecedential opinion. The first precedential opinion comes in a contract case and reverses and remands a final decision of the Court of Federal Claims. The second precedential opinion comes in a tax case “involv[ing] the procedural mechanisms for filing a tax refund for penalties under the Internal Revenue Code.” The nonprecedential opinion affirms-in-part, reverses-in-part, and dismisses-in-part a case addressing allegedl federal trade dress infringement and federal trademark liability for false designation of origin under the Lanham Act. Here are the introductions to the opinions.
Boeing Company v. United States (Precedential)
The Boeing Company appeals the final decision of the Court of Federal Claims dismissing Boeing’s complaint in its entirety. Boeing’s complaint contained three contract claims (Counts I, II, and III) and an illegal exaction claim (Count IV). On cross-motions for summary judgment, the trial court “decline[d] to extend its jurisdictional reach to include challenges to the validity of a regulation” (48 C.F.R. § 30.606), and thus dismissed Counts I, II, and III without prejudice. Boeing Co. v. United States, 162 Fed. Cl. 78, 85 (2022); J.A. 8–9. The court acknowledged that it had jurisdiction over the illegal exaction claim but nonetheless determined that it “lack[ed] the authority to consider” it, and thus dismissed Count IV with prejudice. Id. We reverse and remand as to all four Counts.
Vensure HR, Inc. v. United States (Precedential)
Vensure HR, Inc. (“Vensure”) appeals the final judgment of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims dismissing Vensure’s complaint for failing to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Vensure HR, Inc. v. United States, 164 Fed. Cl. 276 (2023) (“Decision”).
This case involves the procedural mechanisms for filing a tax refund for penalties under the Internal Revenue Code. Vensure filed certain tax-penalty-refund claims, which the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) denied on their merits. Then, when Vensure filed a complaint in the Court of Federal Claims, the IRS sought to dismiss the complaint based on a procedural flaw with Vensure’s claims—namely,
that Vensure had failed to “attach” a power of attorney to those claims. Despite having already filed two powers of attorney that potentially covered these tax claims, the Court of Federal Claims dismissed Vensure’s case on the sole basis that a power of attorney was not “attached” to the claims at the time of filing. The question before us is whether the regulation that requires a power of attorney to “accompany” a claim is an explicit statutory requirement, which cannot be waived, or is purely regulatory in nature
and thus waivable. We conclude that 26 C.F.R. § 301.6402-2(e)’s requirement that “a power of attorney
must accompany the claim” is regulatory and not statutory. Therefore, this requirement may be waived by the IRS in certain circumstances. In other words, while the IRS may demand strict compliance with its regulations, when it fails to do so, and instead addresses a claim on its merits, the requirement may be waived. For the reasons below, we vacate and remand for further proceedings.
Toyo Tire Corp. v. Atture Tire Corp. (Nonprecedential)
Toyo Tire Corp. and Toyo Tire U.S.A. Corp. (collectively, Toyo) sued Atturo Tire Corporation (Atturo) and Svizz-One Corporation Ltd. (Svizz-One) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois for federal trade dress infringement, among other claims. Toyo principally alleged that Atturo’s Trail Blade Mud Tire (TBMT) infringed Toyo’s unregistered trade dress on its Open Country Mud Tire (OPMT). Atturo counterclaimed for federal trademark liability for false designation of origin under section 43(a)(1)(B) of the Lanham Act, and also brought several state law counterclaims: (1) tortious interference with contract, (2) tortious interference with prospective business expectancy, (3) unjust enrichment, (4) unfair competition, (5) defamation, and (6) liability under the Illinois Deceptive Trade Practices Act (IDTPA). Toyo appeals, and Atturo cross-appeals. For the following reasons, we affirm-in-part, reverse-in-part, and dismiss-in-part.