• TAXATION

Nathel v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals (Decided on 02.06.2010)

Tax Exempt income - Instant Appeal against tax Court's decision - Contributions made by Petitioner to corporations claimed as "tax-exempt income" - capital contributions claimed as ordinary losses incurred in a trade or business - Whether petitioners' capital contributions constituted "tax-exempt income"?- Whether petitioners' were entitled to deductions from ordinary income pursuant to § 165(c)(2)?- § 165(c), § 1367(b)(2)(B) - 26 U.S.C.

Held, distinguishing the facts of various judicial pronouncements cited by the Petitioner affirming the Tax Court's decision that the Petitioners' capital contributions do not constitute "items of income (including tax-exempt income)" under § 1366(a)(1)(A) and cannot be used to restore their bases in indebtedness pursuant to § 1367(b)(2)(B).

Further it was held that because the petitioners have not met their burden of showing that the primary purpose of their capital contributions was to obtain releases from their loan guarantees, the petitioners were not entitled to deductions from ordinary income pursuant to § 165(c)(2).

• CRIMINAL

Susan swanson, v. Thomas Desantis, United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (Decided on 04.06.2010)

Exhaustion of Remedy - Lack of Jurisdiction - Petitioner convicted under hit and run case - Filed federal habeas corpus petition challenging said conviction - District Court concluded she had exhausted her state remedies for one of the claims but not the other - Then allowed the exhausted claim to proceed in federal court but stayed the unexhausted claim pending its review in state court - Hence present Appeal by State - Whether the District Court's ruling a "final decision? - Whether the instant Court has jurisdiction to entertain the instant appeal - 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

Held, the Court dismissing the District Court's grant of Petition in part for lack of jurisdiction observed that the District Court permitted Swanson to proceed with the merits of her Blakely claim, but it did not finally resolve the merits of that claim or for that matter even begin to resolve the merits of that claim. An order establishing that a court-at some point-will resolve the merits of a claim is not a final order, and that would be so even if this were the only claim in the case. But it was not even that. Swanson raised another ground for relief, her jury-instruction claim, and the court did not resolve the merits of that claim either. It did just the opposite, staying resolution of the claim until Swanson exhausted her state court remedies. Whether these classically interim orders are considered singly or together, they do not amount to "final decisions" under § 1291.