TAX & ACCOUNTING SOFTWARE v. COMMISSIONER
Download the complete brief here: 301 F.3d 1254 (10th Cir. 2002)
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
TENTH CIRCUIT
TAX AND ACCOUNTING SOFTWARE CORPORATION; TIM E. KLOEHR; and SHERYL KLOEHR,Plaintiffs – Appellees,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,Defendant – Appellant.
COLORADO SOFTWARE AND INTERNET ASSOCIATION;SOFTWARE FINANCE AND TAX EXECUTIVES COUNCIL, Amici Curiae.
No. 00-5196
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma
(D.C. No. 98-CV-363)
Curtis C. Pett (Richard Farber with him on the briefs), Attorneys, Tax Division, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for the Defendant-Appellant.
Rebecca M. Fowler (Richard H. Foster with her on the brief), Tulsa, Oklahoma, for the Plaintiffs-Appellees.
Mark Reinhardt, Denver, Colorado, filed an amicus brief on behalf of Colorado Software and Internet Association.
Mark E. Nebergall, Washington, D.C., filed an amicus brief on behalf of Software Finance and Tax Executives Council.
Before LUCERO and McWILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and STAGG,* District Judge.
LUCERO, Circuit Judge.
Plaintiff taxpayers filed a refund suit seeking money allegedly owed them from a tax credit for research and development expenses under I.R.C. § 41. In a matter of first impression in this circuit, we interpret the scope of “qualified research” under I.R.C. § 41, including the requirement in § 41(d)(1) that the taxpayer must intend to “discover[] information” using a “process of experimentation.” The district court granted summary judgment to the taxpayers and the government appealed. Our review of this case was abated from January 18, 2002, until May 24, 2002, pursuant to the government’s request. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we reverse and remand.
—-footnotes—-
* The Honorable Tom Stagg, District Judge for the Western District of Louisiana, sitting by designation.
