Chemtech Royalty Associates, L.P. v. United States of America
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
|Date Filed||#||Document Text|
|May 8, 2015
SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM RULING: The Corrected Judgment and Order (Doc. 157) issued in this matter is AMENDED, such that Paragraph 5 reads, in full:40 percent valuation misstatement penalty. It is further DETERMINED and ADJUDGED that, for the taxable years 1998 through 2006, the forty percent gross-valuation misstatement penalty is applicable. The remainder of this Court's judgment remains undisturbed, and AMENDED JUDGMENT is hereby ENTERED in accordance with the instant Memorandum Ruling. Signed by Chief Judge Brian A. Jackson on 05/08/2015. (NLT)
|February 9, 2015
ORDER denying 186 Motion for Clarification and Extension of Time. Signed by Chief Judge Brian A. Jackson on 2/9/2015. (LLH)
|February 26, 2013
MEMORANDUM RULING: The Court finds that the Chemtech transactions and partnerships should be disregarded for tax purposes. The Court also finds that the foreign banks were not partners in Chemtech for tax purposes. Finally, the Court finds that a 20& #037; penalty applies in this case for the tax years over which this court has jurisdiction. The parties are directed to confer and submit, within 15 days, a proposed form of judgment (agreed if possible) consistent with this opinion. Signed by Chief Judge Brian A. Jackson on 02/26/2013. (NLT)
|March 30, 2009
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 46 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Docia L Dalby on 3/30/2009. (JDL, )
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system.
A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Louisiana Middle District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?