Fedex Corp. Fed. Express Corp., & Subsidiaries v. United States, 412 F.3d 617 (6th Cir. 2005). · Go Syfert
Fedex Corp. Fed. Express Corp., & Subsidiaries v. United States, 412 F.3d 617 (6th Cir. 2005). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
4 citation events across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: At&T Communications of Maryland, Inc. v. Comptroller of the Treasury (md, 2008-06-12)
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) At&T Communications of Maryland, Inc. v. Comptroller of the Treasury
Md. · 2008 · confidence medium
FedEx Corp. v. United States, 412 F.3d 617, 617 (6th Cir.2005). 11 .
discussed Cited "see" FPL Group, Inc. v. Internal Revenue Service
D.D.C. · 2010 · signal: accord · confidence high
The withheld and redacted documents at issue are (1) “drafts of the proposed revenue ruling and related documents prepared by the drafting team,” (2) “email discussions” among agency counsel and other employees *87 about “the potential content of two sets of proposed regulations,” (3) “briefing memoranda ... prepared by the drafting team analyzing various legal issues in the draft revenue ruling,” (4) “conference reports” prepared by the drafting team which summarize meetings of agency counsel and other employees “discussing legal issues in the draft revenue ruling,” (5…
discussed Cited "see" Nextera Energy, Inc. v. Internal Revenue Service
D.D.C. · 2010 · signal: accord · confidence high
The withheld and redacted documents at issue are (1) “drafts of the proposed revenue ruling and related documents prepared by the drafting team,” (2) “email discussions” among agency counsel and other employees about “the potential content of two sets of proposed regulations,” (3) “briefing memoranda . . . prepared by the drafting team analyzing various legal issues in the draft revenue ruling,” (4) “conference reports” prepared by the drafting team which summarize meetings of agency counsel and other employees “discussing legal issues in the draft revenue ruling,” (5) …
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
FEDEX CORPORATION; Federal Express Corporation, and Subsidiaries, Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellant
03-6514.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
Feb 16, 2005.
412 F.3d 617
2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 2834
2005 WL 1413371
Albert H. Turkus, Kenneth W. Gideon, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, LLP, Washington, DC, Colby S. Morgan, Jr., Joseph L. Schiffhouer, Kathleen L. Chambers, Memphis, TN for PlaintiffsAppellees., Lawrence P. Blaskopf, Richard G. Jacobus, Judith A. Hagley, Kenneth L. Greene, U.S. Department of Justice, Tax Division, Randolph L. Hutter, U.S. Department of Justice, Appellate Section Tax Division, Washington, DC, for Defendant-Appellant.
Nelson, Batchelder, Collier.
Cited by 3 opinions  |  Published
[*126] BATCHELDER, Circuit Judge.

The United States appeals the district court’s order granting judgment in favor of Plaintiffs-Appellees FedEx Corp. and subsidiaries (“FedEx”) for overpayment of taxes in the amount of $66,474,287.10 plus interest thereon. FedEx, a common carrier, paid $70,000,000 in taxes and accrued interest pursuant to an Internal Revenue Service determination that it was required to capitalize, rather than currently deduct, expenses attributable to off-wing maintenance of its jet aircraft engines and auxiliary power units incurred during tax years 1993 and 1994. To perform this maintenance, technicians would remove the engine from the aircraft, clean it, and make minor repairs. Finding that the maintenance performed on the engines and auxiliary power units constituted incidental repairs that did not appreciably prolong the life of the aircraft, the district court held that FedEx was entitled to deduct such maintenance costs that were incurred during tax years 1993 through 1994 and entered a judgment compensating FedEx for its overpayment of taxes.

After carefully reviewing the record, the applicable law, the parties’ briefs and counsels’ arguments, we are convinced that the district court did not err. We cannot improve upon the district court’s opinion, which carefully and correctly sets out the law governing the issues raised, and clearly articulates the reasons underlying its decision. Issuance of a full written opinion by this court would therefore serve no useful purpose. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the district court’s opinion, we AFFIRM.