Selected United States Supreme Court Cases
The firm represented a taxpayer in the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals
and before the United States Supreme Court in the case of Cockrell v.
Commissioner. Though unsuccessful in overturning the Tax Court
decision against her claiming innocent spouse relief, we continued to
represent her in her pursuit to have the laws changed. The efforts of
Ms. Cockrell with our assistance, in the United States Congress led in
1998 to retroactive relief to her and to all others similarly situated.
This new congressional Act in 1998 was codified in Section 6015 of the
Internal Revenue Code. The act was co-sponsored by Senator Alphonse
D’Amato and Senator William Roth. These efforts led to an
appearance by Jay Freireich on "Good Morning America" and CNN and
Mr. Freireich has been quoted in various news media such as the New
York Times, Wall Street Journal, New York Post, among others.
The firm represented the Estate of Rose D’Ambrosio in the United
States Tax Court, the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals and the United
States Supreme Court against the Internal Revenue Service. The issue
was whether an estate planning tool known as the sale of a reminder
interest for a private annuity could work to prevent the transferred
assets from being subject to the Estate Tax as long as it was transferred
for adequate and fair consideration. The case was the first one
approving the specific technique after other similar cases had failed.
While we were successful for our client, Congress has since shut down
the technique (loophole). The case is known as Est. of Rose D’
Ambrosio v. Commissioner, 101 F.3d 309 (3d Cir.) cert. denied, 520 U.
S. 1230, 137 L. Ed. 2d 1030, 117 S. Ct. 1822 (1997). Its decision has
found prominence in case books for law students studying tax law cases.
Other Selected prominent Appellate Cases
In the case of Friedman v. Commissioner, 53 F.3d 523 (3rd Cir. 1995)
The firm was able to successfully overturn most of the decision of the
Tax Court which had denied the taxpayer innocent spouse relief. The
Circuit Court ruled that the taxpayer’s subjective beliefs needed to be
reconsidered by the Tax Court. Eventually the Taxpayer obtained full
relief when she was able to take advantage of the retroactive relief in
Section 6015 (see Cockrell discussion above).
Precedent Setting District Court Case
In a case of first impression in New Jersey, Poe and Freireich
pioneered the recovery of interest damages against a tax advisor in a
professional malpractice action against under New Jersey law. In
Ronson v. Talesnick, 33 F. Supp. 2d 347 (D.N.J. 1999), Jay J. Freireich
successfully argued that under New Jersey law, clients are not barred
from recovering interest owed to the Internal Revenue Service as
damages in a malpractice action. This ruling was made under the
principle that the harmed plaintiff should be permitted to recover
damages from the wrongdoing of the tortfeasor, although the client’s
recovery should be reduced by any benefits received from the
wrongdoers’ action.
The firm represented a taxpayer in the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals
and before the United States Supreme Court in the case of Cockrell v.
Commissioner. Though unsuccessful in overturning the Tax Court
decision against her claiming innocent spouse relief, we continued to
represent her in her pursuit to have the laws changed. The efforts of
Ms. Cockrell with our assistance, in the United States Congress led in
1998 to retroactive relief to her and to all others similarly situated.
This new congressional Act in 1998 was codified in Section 6015 of the
Internal Revenue Code. The act was co-sponsored by Senator Alphonse
D’Amato and Senator William Roth. These efforts led to an
appearance by Jay Freireich on "Good Morning America" and CNN and
Mr. Freireich has been quoted in various news media such as the New
York Times, Wall Street Journal, New York Post, among others.
The firm represented the Estate of Rose D’Ambrosio in the United
States Tax Court, the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals and the United
States Supreme Court against the Internal Revenue Service. The issue
was whether an estate planning tool known as the sale of a reminder
interest for a private annuity could work to prevent the transferred
assets from being subject to the Estate Tax as long as it was transferred
for adequate and fair consideration. The case was the first one
approving the specific technique after other similar cases had failed.
While we were successful for our client, Congress has since shut down
the technique (loophole). The case is known as Est. of Rose D’
Ambrosio v. Commissioner, 101 F.3d 309 (3d Cir.) cert. denied, 520 U.
S. 1230, 137 L. Ed. 2d 1030, 117 S. Ct. 1822 (1997). Its decision has
found prominence in case books for law students studying tax law cases.
Other Selected prominent Appellate Cases
In the case of Friedman v. Commissioner, 53 F.3d 523 (3rd Cir. 1995)
The firm was able to successfully overturn most of the decision of the
Tax Court which had denied the taxpayer innocent spouse relief. The
Circuit Court ruled that the taxpayer’s subjective beliefs needed to be
reconsidered by the Tax Court. Eventually the Taxpayer obtained full
relief when she was able to take advantage of the retroactive relief in
Section 6015 (see Cockrell discussion above).
Precedent Setting District Court Case
In a case of first impression in New Jersey, Poe and Freireich
pioneered the recovery of interest damages against a tax advisor in a
professional malpractice action against under New Jersey law. In
Ronson v. Talesnick, 33 F. Supp. 2d 347 (D.N.J. 1999), Jay J. Freireich
successfully argued that under New Jersey law, clients are not barred
from recovering interest owed to the Internal Revenue Service as
damages in a malpractice action. This ruling was made under the
principle that the harmed plaintiff should be permitted to recover
damages from the wrongdoing of the tortfeasor, although the client’s
recovery should be reduced by any benefits received from the
wrongdoers’ action.
POE & FREIREICH, P.A.
Your Success Through Our
Experience
Experience
Representative Cases
The Experience
You Want, The
Attention You Need.
You Want, The
Attention You Need.
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |