Case Citator › Chai v. Commissioner

Chai v. Commissioner

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Declined by some courts
Court
Second Circuit
Citation
851 F.3d 190
Decided
Confirmed treatments
2
Flagged citations read
90 of 90
Citing cases (total)
215
Treatment dates
2018–2022
Declined by some courts
At least one reviewed court has declined to follow this case. No reviewed court has overruled it. Chai v. Commissioner has been fully screened, and its strongest confirmed treatment is declined to follow: all 90 flagged citations have been read, with the 2 confirmed treatments listed below. Burt Kroner v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue rejected Chai's notice-of-deficiency deadline and adopted an approval-before-assessment rule for the same deficiency context.
More on how this was screened

Estate of Lydia Ramirez, Rowena L. Ramirez, Special Administrator v. Commissioner colorfully criticized an unforeseen consequence as a “Chai ghoul” while applying Chai. The other reviewed opinions followed or applied Chai, distinguished its deficiency-case boundary, reported Graev III's overruling of Graev II in history parentheticals, or used nearby adverse language for unrelated authorities. One citing opinion generated two flagged citations, both of which were read.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

215 later cases cite Chai v. Commissioner; 90 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Chai v. Commissioner?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Declined to Follow

  • The Eleventh Circuit declined to follow Chai's notice-of-deficiency deadline for approving penalties subject to Tax Court review, holding that supervisory approval remains timely if obtained before assessment.

    Burt Kroner v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue · Eleventh Circuit · filed

    We believe there are several problems with Kroner’s (and by extension the Tax Court’s) reliance on Chai. First, we think the Chai court missed an important aspect of the statute’s purpose: it is not just about bargaining, it is also a check on the imposition of erroneous penalties. ... Section 6751(b) serves its first function so long as a supervisor approves a penalty before the assessment is made; there is no need to set an earlier deadline. But the court in Chai did not discuss this first purpose at all.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Criticized

  • The Tax Court colorfully criticized an unforeseen consequence of Chai's penalty-approval rule as a lurking “Chai ghoul,” while applying the rule to determine the burden of production after an individual taxpayer's death.

    Estate of Lydia Ramirez, Rowena L. Ramirez, Special Administrator v. Commissioner · United States Tax Court · filed

    Lurking beneath this altogether common dispute about penalties, however, is a Chai ghoul that we had not seen before. See Chai v. Commissioner, 851 F.3d 190 (2d Cir. 2017), aff’g in part, rev’g in part T.C. Memo. 2015-42.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Chai v. Commissioner and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace