About Us

Amicus Brief Policies & Filings 

Procedure for Amicus Filing The filing of an amicus curiae brief by IPT requires a favorable recommendation by the Legal Committee and Corporate Counsel, and the approval of IPT’s Board of Governors. Requests should be made in writing and directed to Chris Muntifering, Executive Director (cmuntifering@ipt.org ).

Requests must be received at least forty-five (45) days before the deadline for any required motion, brief or other action by the Institute. That 45-day lead time is a minimum. The longer lead time that IPT has to review the case and solicit the aid of outside counsel on a pro bono basis, the greater the likelihood that IPT will be able to file an amicus brief that follows the criteria below.

The request should identify the party on whose behalf the amicus brief is requested, specify the deadline for filing the amicus brief, and be accompanied by copies of the following:
The final decision with respect to which review by the U.S. Supreme Court or state supreme court is sought. 
All lower court decisions. 
All briefs filed by the parties in lower court proceedings (including memoranda of law submitted in connection with the final judgment of the trial court). 
If and to the extent needed for meaningful review of the request and preparation of an amicus brief, excerpts from the record on appeal.  
The request should also indicate how the issue or issues under consideration would be of interest to IPT’s membership at large or to those members of one of the five categories of IPT membership (property tax, sales tax, income tax, value added tax, and credits & incentives).  It should also identify any taxpayers, taxpayer associations, or industries that oppose, or could reasonably be expected to oppose, the position taken by the party requesting that IPT file an amicus brief.  
If permitted by the applicable rules of court, the request should also indicate whether the requesting party proposes to bear any of the direct costs IPT might incur in engaging outside counsel and in printing and securing copies of the amicus brief.  If the requesting party is not willing or permitted to bear those costs, the requesting party should identify local counsel in the jurisdiction who would be willing to prepare the amicus brief on a pro bono basis.  
 

Amicus Brief Criteria


The following is a list of the most significant criteria that IPT considers in deciding whether to accept a request to file an amicus brief; and it will greatly assist in IPT’s analysis if the request includes, to the extent possible, a discussion of how these criteria are satisfied with respect to the case and the issues involved.

Does the case present a significant issue and one of broad import within IPT’s membership? IPT will ordinarily not act favorably on a request in a matter of interest to a small segment of its membership.

Would there be a strong consensus among IPT’s membership for the taxpayer’s position, or would the issue divide the membership? IPT is obliged to serve its members equally and generally avoids taking positions which pit some of its members’ interests against those of other members. Note: The Institute will not necessarily refrain from filing a brief simply because one or a few members oppose doing so if there is otherwise overwhelming support within the membership for the argument(s) to be made in the amicus curiae brief. The decision in such instances will be made by the Board of Governors on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration the overarching goal of promoting equitable administration of taxes and the recommendations of the Legal Committee and Corporate Counsel.

Is the issue clearly framed as a matter of law? IPT will not appear as a friend of the court where there are disputes over material, underlying facts.

Is the request for a brief to the United States Supreme Court or a state appeals court of last resort? IPT generally does not file amicus briefs in cases that are still making their way through the lower courts.

Is there an opportunity for an IPT amicus brief to make some meaningful contribution to the court’s deliberation of the case? The courts do not need or want briefs that simply parrot arguments presented by the parties. IPT’s policies reflect considerable restraint, in the belief that being selective in the filing of amicus briefs will enhance its credibility with the courts, and that filing friend-of-the-court briefs in cases that do not involve significant legal issues and/or where IPT cannot present a distinct perspective will dilute the impact that IPT’s participation might otherwise have in more appropriate cases.

What other organizations are filing, or are expected to file, amicus briefs in the case? While the submission of an amicus brief by another entity would not foreclose IPT from accepting an invitation to prepare one of its own, that fact would be a consideration, in that IPT might consider its members’ interests adequately served by the involvement of another group with a similar stake in the case. On the other hand, IPT might consider its participation necessary as a way of sending notice of the importance of the issue under review.

Has the request been made sufficiently in advance for IPT to arrange for a well-conceived and executed brief? Last minute requests cannot be accommodated.

Do the benefits of the preparing and filing the brief justify the resources that IPT will expend on it? In weighing the costs and benefits, IPT will take into account whether outside counsel in the jurisdiction is willing to prepare the brief on a pro bono basis.

Review of state tax disputes by the United States Supreme Court is extraordinarily rare, and review by state supreme courts may be discretionary, so that the chance of securing review is often remote. Where the request is for IPT to file an amicus brief in support of a taxpayer’s petition for review or other request for the court to hear an appeal, the decision whether to accept the amicus request ordinarily will not be based on the probability that the case will be heard but on IPT’s view of the taxpayer’s position and arguments on the merits of the case, and the likelihood that the taxpayer’s position will prevail in the event that the case is accepted.

Selected Filings

Date Filed Jurisdiction Case Title
February 15, 2024 State Cargil v. Director, New Hersey Division of Taxation
December 22, 2023 State The Walt Disney Company v. The Tax Appeals Tribunal of the State of New York
November 10, 2023 Federal Vectren Infrastructure Service Corp v. Department of Treasury
April 8, 2022 State Board of County Commissioner of Johnson County v. Walmart Stores, Inc.
March 3, 2022 Federal Washington Bankers Association v. State of Washington DOR
December 1, 2021 Federal Ferrellgas v. Director, Division of Taxation
December 14, 2020 State Amazon Services, LLC V. South Carolina Department of Revenue
February 22, 2019 State Newell Normand, Sheriff & Ex-Officio Tax Collector Parish of Jefferson v. Wal-Mart.com USA
October 11, 2016 Federal Dot Foods v. Dept. of Revenue for the State of Washington
June 23, 2016 State Nextel Communications of the Mid-Atlantic, Inc. v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
April 11, 2016 State BOE Columbus City v. Franklin County
September 30, 2015 State 926 North Ardmore Ave, LLC v. County of Los Angeles
July 21, 2015 State People of the State of New York v. Sprint Nextel Corp.
February 2, 2015 State State Vodafone Americas Holdings, Inc. v. Robe (supporting Vodafone’s principal brief on appeal)
September 15, 2014 Federal Direct Marketing Association v. Brohl
September 9, 2014 State Vodafone Americas Holdings, Inc. v. Roberts
March 14, 2014 Federal Equifax Inc. & Equifax Credit Information Services, Inc. v. Mississippi Department of Revenue
October 18, 2013 State The Gillette Company & Subsidiaries v. California Franchise Tax Board
July 29, 2013 State Equifax, Inc. and Equifax Credit Information Services, Inc. v. Mississippi State Tax Commission
June 19, 2013 State Easylink Services Int’l v. N.Y. State Tax Appeals Tribunal
May 30, 2012
State
Elk Hills Power, LLC v. California State Board of Equalization
September 9, 2011
State
Tesoro Refining and Marketing Company V. State of Washington, Department of Revenue
July 21, 2011
State
Elk Hills Power, LLC v. California State Board of Equalization - Letter in Support of Petition
May 27, 2011
Federal
KFC Corporation v. Iowa Department of Revenue
March 29, 2011
State
Equifax, Inc. and Equifax Credit Information Services, Inc. v. Mississippi State Tax Commission
March 23, 2010
Federal
Johnson Controls, et al. vs. Kentucky Department of Revenue, et al.
February 5, 2010
State
Level 3 Communications, LLC vs. Arizona Department of Revenue, et al.
April 29, 2009
Federal
Geoffrey, Inc. vs. Commissioner of Revenue
February 20, 2009
Federal
VFJ Ventures, Inc., f/k/a VF Jeanswear, Inc. vs. G. Thomas Surtees