Filed: Dec. 21, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: Case: 15-20596 Document: 00513796623 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/14/2016 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 15-20596 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff -Appellant, v. DAVID W. STEWART; TARAF. STEWART; RICHARD K. PLATO; TINAM. PLATO, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division USDC NO. 4:10-cv-00294 ON PETITION FOR PANEL REHEARING Before DAVIS, ELROD, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PERCURIAM: IT
Summary: Case: 15-20596 Document: 00513796623 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/14/2016 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 15-20596 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff -Appellant, v. DAVID W. STEWART; TARAF. STEWART; RICHARD K. PLATO; TINAM. PLATO, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division USDC NO. 4:10-cv-00294 ON PETITION FOR PANEL REHEARING Before DAVIS, ELROD, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PERCURIAM: IT ..
More
Case: 15-20596 Document: 00513796623 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/14/2016
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-20596
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff -Appellant,
v.
DAVID W. STEWART; TARAF. STEWART; RICHARD K. PLATO; TINAM.
PLATO,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division
USDC NO. 4:10-cv-00294
ON PETITION FOR PANEL REHEARING
Before DAVIS, ELROD, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
PERCURIAM:
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 Appellees' 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
Case: 15-20596 Document: 00513796623 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/14/2016
No. 15-20596
8082"). The rest of the opinion's analysis, including its reliance on Rigas v.
United States,
486 F. App'x 491 (5th Cir. 2013), remains unchanged.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT:
STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE
2