A Singularity, Validated in a Roughly Estimated $4,000,000,000 of Cases First-Chaired in the Federal-Court “Crucible”
- Tom’s name appears as counsel, almost always in a first-chair capacity, in more than 60 reported federal trial-court and appellate opinions. He has first-chaired, or directly supervised, perhaps 250 tax cases in federal trial and appellate courts across the Nation, including many cases directly controlling over $100 million in tax and interest. No attorney in the Pacific Northwest can make even half of this claim.
- First-chaired Charleston Area Medical Center et al. v. United States, 940 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Sought class-action certification on behalf of about 290 incorporated, tax-exempt teaching hospitals that were systematically paid a lower, non-standard rate of interest on refunds of employer-portion FICA tax made under the IRS’s 2010 global concession respecting FICA taxation of medical-resident stipends. The suit sought to recover from the IRS an estimated $400 to $600 million dollars in additional statutory interest on behalf of members of the proposed class. Tom was the only attorney in the nation to have handled this type of suit.
- First-chaired Wichita Center for Graduate Medical Education Inc. v. United States, 917 F.3d 1221 (10th Cir. 2019), addressing whether tax-exempt teaching hospitals are entitled to the standard rate of interest on prior refunds of overpaid employer-portion FICA tax.
- First-chaired Medical College of Wisconsin Affiliated Hospitals, Inc. v. United States, 854 F.3d 930 (7th Cir. 2017), a case seeking $6.7 million in additional statutory interest on a prior refund of FICA tax.
- First-chaired United States v. Detroit Medical Center, 833 F.3d 671 (6th Cir. 2016), a case seeking $9.1 million in additional statutory interest on a prior refund of FICA tax.
- First-chaired Maimonides Medical Center v. United States, 809 F.3d 85 (2nd Cir. 2015), a case seeking $5.6 million in additional statutory interest on a prior refund of FICA tax.
- Lead counsel in numerous cases presenting Chevron-deference issues. Recently, in an unprecedented move, the U.S. Department of Justice disclaimed reliance on a facially applicable Treasury Regulation in the face of Tom’s challenge to its validity. Some years earlier, Tom guided the briefing of a case in which a federal district court held a Treasury Regulation invalid under Chevron Step One.