green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 2×
16.9 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, 1999–2021 · 2 courts ·
…state law governs the determination of whether there exists an alter ego from whom the government may satisfy the obligation of a taxpayer.
at p. 1411
✓
Treatment trajectory · 1986 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1986
2006
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 27 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
United States v. Percy Newby
state law governs the determination of whether there exists an alter ego from whom the government may satisfy the obligation of a taxpayer.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
U.S. v. Kattar
state law governs the determination of whether there exists an alter ego from whom the government may satisfy the obligation of a taxpayer.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Neuberger, Quinn, Gielen, Rubin & Gibber, P.A. v. United States
Co. v. Apollo Grp., 605 F.3d 856, 861 (11th Cir. 2010) (“Other circuits appear uniform in their application of state law to this issue.”) (collecting cases); accord Berkshire Bank v. Town of Ludlow, Mass., 708 F.3d 249, 251-252 (1st Cir. 2013); Scherping, 187 F.3d at 802 (8th Cir. 1999); Floyd v. Internal Revenue Serv., 151 F.3d 1295, 1297 (10th Cir. 1998); Zahra Spiritual Tr. v. United States, 910 F.2d 240 , 242 (5th Cir. 1990); Wolfe v. United States, 806 F.2d 1410, 1411 (9th Cir. 1986).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Black
Aquilino v. United States, 363 U.S. 509, 512-13 , 80 S.Ct. 1277 , 4 L.Ed.2d 1365 (1960); Wolfe v. United States, 806 F.2d 1410, 1411 (9th Cir.1986).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Osherow v. Porras (In Re Porras)
“State law governs the determination of whether there exists an alter ego from whom the government may satisfy the obligation of a taxpayer.” Wolfe v. United States, 806 F.2d 1410, 1411 (9th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 482 U.S. 927 , 107 S.Ct. 3210 , 96 L.Ed.2d 697 (1987).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Boyce
Wolfe v. United States, 806 F.2d 1410, 1411 (9th Cir.1986), amending 798 F.2d 1241 , 1244 n. 3 (9th Cir.1986).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Zenaida Garc A-Ayala v. Lederle Parenterals, Inc.
They are, in essence, skipping trial and proceeding directly to judgment, submitting the case to the judge as stated. 4 When determining whether this was the path taken by the parties in non-jury cases, this circuit and others inquire into the intentions of the parties and the district court judge, as evidenced by the record on appeal. 5 See United Paperworkers, 64 F.3d at 31 -32 & n. 2; see also, e.g., Sherwood v. Washington Post, 871 F.2d 1144 , 1147 n. 4 (D.C.Cir.1989); Wolfe v. United States, 798 F.2d 1241 , 1243 n. 2 (9th Cir.), amended on other grounds, 806 F.2d 1410, 1411 (9th Cir.1986)…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Martinson v. Towe (In Re Towe)
“State law governs the determination of whether there exists an alter ego from whom the government may satisfy the obligation of a taxpayer.” Wolfe v. United States, 806 F.2d 1410, 1411 (9th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 482 U.S. 927 , 107 S.Ct. 3210 , 96 L.Ed.2d 697 (1987).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Towe Antique Ford Foundation v. Internal Revenue Service, Department of Treasury, United States
“State law governs the determination of whether there exists an alter ego from whom the government may satisfy the obligation of a taxpayer.” Wolfe v. United States, 806 F.2d 1410, 1411 (9th Cir.1986).
discussed
Cited "see"
Allstate Insurance Company v. Nassiri
See Towe Antique Ford Found. v. I.R.S., 999 F.2d 19 1387, 1391 (9th Cir. 1993) (citing Wolfe v. United States, 806 F.2d 1410 , 1411 n.3 (9th 20 Cir.1986), cert. denied, 482 U.S. 927 (1987)) (“[The court] appl[ies] the law of the forum state in 21 determining whether a corporation is an alter ego of the taxpayer.”).
discussed
Cited "see"
In re: Raymond Henry Voss, III
Dist., 736 F.2d 510, 513 (9th Cir. 1984); accord Wolfe v. United States, 798 F.2d 1241, 1244 (9th Cir.), opinion amended on denial of reh'g, 806 F.2d 1410 (9th Cir. 1986) (citing Starsky, 512 F.2d at 111 ).
discussed
Cited "see"
Elletson v. Chalmers Automotive, LLC
See Towe Antique Ford Found. 20 v. I.R.S., 999 F.2d 1387, 1391 (9th Cir. 1993) (citing Wolfe v. United States, 806 F.2d 1410 , 1411 21 n.3 (9th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 482 U.S. 927 (1987)) (“[The court] appl[ies] the law of the forum 22 state in determining whether a corporation is an alter ego of the taxpayer.”).
discussed
Cited "see"
Casun Invest, A.G. v. Ponder
See Towe Antique Ford Found. 24 v. I.R.S., 999 F.2d 1387, 1391 (9th Cir. 1993) (citing Wolfe v. United States, 806 F.2d 1410 , 1411 25 n.3 (9th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 482 U.S. 927 (1987)) (“[The court] appl[ies] the law of the forum 26 state in determining whether a corporation is an alter ego of the taxpayer.”).
discussed
Cited "see"
96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7895, 96 Daily Journal D.A.R. 13,071, Pens. Plan Guide P 23928i William Duggan v. Danny Hobbs, Individually and as Administrator of the Chemworld Corporation Agreement Plan
See Wolfe v. United States, 798 F.2d 1241 , 1243 n. 2 (9th Cir.1986), modified on other grounds, 806 F.2d 1410 (9th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 482 U.S. 927 , 107 S.Ct. 3210 , 96 L.Ed.2d 697 (1987); see also Towe Antique Ford Found. v. I.R.S., 999 F.2d 1387, 1391 (9th Cir.1993).
discussed
Cited "see"
Duggan v. Hobbs
See Wolfe v. United States, 798 F.2d 1241 , 1243 n. 2 (9th Cir.1986), modified on other grounds, 806 F.2d 1410 (9th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 482 U.S. 927 , 107 S.Ct. 3210 , 96 L.Ed.2d 697 (1987); see also Towe Antique Ford Found. v. I.R.S., 999 F.2d 1387, 1391 (9th Cir.1993).
discussed
Cited "see"
United Brotherhood Of Carpenters And Joiners Of America v. Southern California District Council Of Carpenters
See Motion Picture & Videotape Editors Guild, Local 776 v. International Sound Technicians, 800 F.2d 973 , 975, amended and reh'g denied, 806 F.2d 1410 (9th Cir.1986), and cert. denied, 483 U.S. 1022 , 107 S.Ct. 3267 , 97 L.Ed.2d 765 (1987). 15 The question here, however, is whether the Affiliation Agreement constitutes an internal governing document.
discussed
Cited "see"
United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners, Lathers Local 42-L v. United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners
See Motion Picture & Videotape Editors Guild, Local 776 v. International Sound Technicians, 800 F.2d 973 , 975, amended and reh’g denied, 806 F.2d 1410 (9th Cir.1986), and cert. denied, 483 U.S. 1022 , 107 S.Ct. 3267 , 97 L.Ed.2d 765 (1987).
discussed
Cited "see"
Grant Investments Fund, a Partnership v. Internal Revenue Service Department of Treasury United States of America
(2×)
See Wolfe v. United States, 798 F.2d 1241 , 1243 n. 1 (9th Cir.1986) (stating that the district court's determination that a corporation is the alter ego of the taxpayer is reviewed for clear error), amended, 806 F.2d 1410 (9th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 482 U.S. 927 (1987).
cited
Cited "see"
Building Material & Dump Truck Drivers, Local 420 v. Traweek
See Motion Picture & Videotape Editors Guild, Local 776 v. International Sound Technicians, Local 695, 800 F.2d 973, 975-76 (9th Cir.1986), amended, 806 F.2d 1410 (9th Cir.1987).
discussed
Cited "see"
Building Material and Dump Truck Drivers, Local 420 and International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Plaintiffs v. Oliver Traweek and Gene McFadden v. Gene True Edgar Smith Richard Martino Pete Gallegos Leo Pittman Arthur Webb and Clyde Craig, Third-Party-Defendants-Appellants. Building Material and Dump Truck Drivers, Local 420, and International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America v. Richard Martino Edgar Smith and Gene True, and Oliver Traweek and Gene McFadden Defendants-Counterclaim-Third-Party
See Motion Picture & Videotape Editors Guild, Local 776 v. International Sound Technicians, Local 695, 800 F.2d 973, 975-76 (9th Cir.1986), amended, 806 F.2d 1410 (9th Cir.1987). 45 Even if this court were to employ a less deferential standard to review the Joint Council's interpretation of the constitution, the Council's interpretation of its governing documents does not per se constitute a violation of Traweek's membership rights under Sec. 411.
cited
Cited "see"
In Re Miller
See Wolfe v. United States, 612 F.Supp. 605 (D.Mont.1985) aff 'd. 798 F.2d 1241 (9th Cir.1986) amended 806 F.2d 1410 cert. denied — U.S. -, 107 S.Ct. 3210 , 96 L.Ed.2d 697 (1987).
discussed
Cited "see"
In Re Windmill Farms, Inc., Debtor. Vanderpark Properties, Inc. v. David L. Buchbinder, Trustee of Windmill Farms Management Company, Inc.
See Wolfe v. United States, 798 F.2d 1241 , 1243 n. 2 (9th Cir.) (Because question of alter ego “is essentially factual, it is generally reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard.”), amended and reh’g denied, 806 F.2d 1410 (1986), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 107 S.Ct. 3210 , 96 L.Ed.2d 697 (1987).
cited
Cited "see"
In re Frazier
See Wolfe v. United States, 798 F.2d 1241, 1243 , as amended, 806 F.2d 1410 (9th Cir.1986) (alter ego “corporation” still liable for corporate taxes).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
National Abortion Federation v. Center for Medical Progress
July 28, 2011); see also Wolfe v. United States, 798 F.2d 1241, 1243 (9th Cir.) opinion amended on denial of reh'g, 806 F.2d 1410 (9th Cir.1986) (treating alter ego as legal conclusion); Nw.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Brown v. United States
Compare Kearney v. Standard Insurance Co., 175 F.3d 1084, 1095 (9th Cir.1999) (en banc) ("trial on the record, even if it consists of no more than the trial judge rereading what he has already read, and making findings of fact and conclusions of law instead of a summaiy judgment decision, may have real legal significance”) (opinion of Kleinfeld, J.) with Ingram v. Martin Marietta Long Term Disability Income Plan, 244 F.3d 1109, 1114 (9th Cir. 2001) (remanding for a bench trial, "if confined entirely to the existing record[ ] would be little more than a formality”) and Wolfe v. United State…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Kattar
See, e.g., Wolfe v. United States, 806 F.2d 1410, 1411 (9th Cir.1986) (“State law governs the determination of whether there exists an alter ego from whom the government may satisfy the obligation of a taxpayer.”) (citing Aquilino v. United States, 363 U.S. 509, 512-13 , 80 S.Ct. 1277 , 4 L.Ed.2d 1365 (1960)); Dean v. United States, 987 F.Supp. 1160, 1164 (W.D.Mo. 1997); Sequoia Property, 1998 WL 471643 at *3.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Smith v. General Committee of Adjustment
Workers, 789 F.2d 1186, 1189 (5th Cir. 1986)); see also Motion Picture & Videotape Editors Guild, Local 776 v. Local 695, 800 F.2d 973 , 975, reh'g denied, 806 F.2d 1410 , (9th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 483 U.S. 1022 , 107 S.Ct. 3267 , 97 L.Ed.2d 765 (1987).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Charles E. WOLFE, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee
85-4027.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Dec 29, 1986.
806 F.2d 1410
Jack W. Burnett, Billings, Mont., for plaintiff-appellant., Richard Driscoll, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for defendant-appellee.
Chambers, Choy, Norris.
Cited by 32 opinions | Published
ORDER AMENDING OPINION, DENYING PETITION FOR REHEARING, AND REJECTING SUGGESTION FOR REHEARING EN BANC.
The Opinion filed on August 29, 1986, is amended as follows:
Footnote three, 798 F.2d 1241, 1244 n. 3, is replaced by the following:
The parties do not dispute the district court’s application of Montana’s alter ego doctrine. The determination of whether to apply state or federal alter ego doctrine depends on the degree to which the subject matter of the case implicates federal interests. See United States v. Kimbell Foods, Inc., 440 U.S. 715, 728-29, 99 S.Ct. 1448, 1458-59, 59 L.Ed.2d 711 (1979) (setting forth three-part test to determine whether courts should adopt a uniform federal rule of decision or follow state law when resolving controversies affecting the operation of federal programs). Compare Laborers Clean-Up Contract Administration Trust Fund v. Uriarte Clean-Up Service, Inc., 736 F.2d 516, 523-25 (9th Cir.1984) (applying federal substantive law — though looking to state law for guidance — in determining whether to pierce corporate veil in case involving violations of Labor Management Relations Act and Employee Retirement Income Security Act) with U-Haul International, Inc. v. Jartran, Inc., 793 F.2d 1034, 1043 (9th Cir.1986) (applying state alter ego doctrine in assessment of damages for Lan-ham Act violations). State law governs the determination of whether there exists an alter ego from whom the government may satisfy the obligation of a taxpayer. See Aquilino v. United States, 363 U.S. 509, 512-13, 80 S.Ct. 1277, 1279-80, 4 L.Ed.2d 1365 (1960); Terrapin Leasing, Ltd. v. United States, 55 Am.Fed.Tax Rep.2d 85-513, 85-514 (10th Cir.1981); see also Van Dorn Co. v. Future Chemical and Oil Corp., 753 F.2d 565, 570-71 (7th Cir.1985) (indicating disapproval of Avco Delta for failing to inquire into applicable state law in determining that assets of the principal corporation could be reached to satisfy tax liability of subsidiary corporation).
The following passages are deleted from the text of the opinion:
798 F.2d at 1244, col. 2, delete: “, and made all corporate decisions without consulting other directors”
798 F.2d at 1244, col. 2, delete: “Some of the corporation’s equipment was purchased on the proprietorship’s credit.”
The full court has been advised of appellant’s petition for rehearing and suggestion for rehearing en banc and the amendments to the Opinion. No judge of the court has objected to the amendments or requested a vote on the suggestion for rehearing en banc. Fed.R.App.P. 35(b).
With the Opinion so amended the petition for rehearing is denied and the suggestion for rehearing en banc is rejected.