Case ID: f-appx_671/html/0937-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. David W. STEWART; Tara F. Stewart; Richard K. Plato; Tina M. Plato, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 15-20596
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Date Filed: 12/14/2016
    Bethany Buck Hauser, Esq., Bridget Maria Rowan, U.S. Department of Justice, Tax Division, Appellate Section, Washington, DC, David Gray Adams, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Tax Division, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellant
    George William Connelly, Esq., Jessica Nicole Cory, Peter Andrew Lowy, Chamberlain, Hrdlicka, White, Williams & Aughtry, Houston, TX, for Defendants-Ap-pellees
    Before DAVIS, ELROD, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
   ON PETITION FOR PANEL REHEARING

PER CURIAM:

IT IS ORDERED that the petition for panel rehearing is DENIED. As Appellees point out in the petition for panel rehearing, the opinion mistakenly referenced Ap-pellees’ tax returns in Part III and not the Odyssey partnership return. Part III of the opinion should have stated that Odyssey’s amended Form 1065 did not substantially comply with the regulatory requirements of an AAR. See Samueli v. C.I.R., 132 T.C. 336, 346 (2009) (holding that an amended return did not substantially comply with the requirements of an AAR because, in part, it “did not include all information required to be provided on a Form 8082”). The rest of the opinion’s analysis, including its reliance on Rigas v. United States, 486 Fed.Appx. 491 (5th Cir. 2012), remains unchanged.