Succession planning is a critical aspect of managing small, closely held businesses, as the unexpected departure of a key leader can significantly disrupt operations and challenge the business's legal...
Entering into a letter of intent for an office lease agreement? Consult our playbook for valuable key provisions, alternative language provisions, and guidance for both landlords and tenants. Download...
In the complex world of M&A transactions, transition services agreements (TSAs) serve as critical bridges between deal closing and operational independence thus creating stability during organizational...
This practice note covers key legal and regulatory issues to evaluate, questions to ask, and documents to review in medical device or diagnostic technology deals, including M&A, investments, financings...
As we enter the 2022 tax filing season, still struggling with COVID-related mail delays and IRS service center reductions, best practice requires practitioners to closely track client tax filings and their IRS deadlines. Of note is Boechler, P.C. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, an Eighth Circuit decision for which SCOTUS was petitioned to determine whether “equitable tolling,” allowing the courts to excuse missed deadlines, depending on the situation, is available for a statutory deadline. SCOTUS heard oral arguments for the case on January 12 which appear to lean in the taxpayer’s favor, preventing the tax levy. Boechler’s particular question is whether the time limit in I.R.C. Section 6330(d)(1) (Notice and Opportunity for Hearing Before Levy), giving the taxpayer 30 days to petition the Tax Court for review, is a jurisdictional requirement or a claim-processing rule.
READ NOW »
Related Content
Practical Guidance Updates Featuring the latest updates from your Practical Guidance account.
Experience results today with practical guidance, legal research, and data-driven insights—all in one place.Experience Lexis+
* The views expressed in externally authored materials linked or published on this site do not necessarily reflect the views of LexisNexis Legal & Professional.