TweetShareSharePin0 SharesWe invite back guest blog writer Bob Probasco for a three-part collection influenced by the Federal Circuit’s current 2-1 choice throwing General Mills’ reimbursement insurance claim as unexpected under TEFRA, although the insurance claim would certainly have been prompt under the conventional durations of area 6511. Component 1 establishes the phase and also takes
TweetShareSharePin0 Shares In today’s post Bob Probasco concludes his three-part series on General Mills and the intersection of TEFRA and “hot interest.” Part One can be found here. Part Two, here. Christine In Part 1, I described the decision by the Court of the Appeals for the Federal Circuit in General Mills, Inc. v. United
TweetShareSharePin0 Shares In Part Two of this three-part series, Bob Probasco examines the dissenting view in the recent General Mills case out of the Federal Circuit. Part One can be found here. Christine In Part 1, I described the decision by the Court of the Appeals for the Federal Circuit in General Mills, Inc. v.
TweetShareSharePin0 Shares We welcome back guest blogger Bob Probasco for a three-part series inspired by the Federal Circuit’s recent 2-1 decision tossing General Mills’ refund claim as untimely under TEFRA, although the claim would have been timely under the standard timeframes of section 6511. Part 1 sets the stage and examines the majority’s reasoning. Christine