SEALY CORP. v. C.I.R.

Nos. 98-70369, 98-70370, 98-70372, 98-70907, 98-71345, 99-70107, 99-70108, 99-70111.

171 F.3d 655 (1999)

SEALY CORPORATION, and Subsidiaries, F.K.A. the Ohio Mattress Company and Subsidiaries, Petitioner-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee. Sealy Corporation, and Subsidiaries, F.K.A. the Ohio Mattress Company and Subsidiaries, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent-Appellee. Sealy Corporation, and Subsidiaries, F.K.A. THE Ohio Mattress Company and Subsidiaries, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent-Appellee. The Ohio Mattress Company Licensing and Components Group and Subsidiaries, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent-Appellee. Sealy Corporation, and Subsidiaries, F.K.A. the Ohio Mattress Company and Subsidiaries, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent-Appellee. Sealy Mattress Co., and Subsidiaries, F.K.A. Ohio-Sealy Mattress Manufacturing Company and Subsidiaries, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent-Appellee. The Ohio Mattress Company Licensing and Components Group and Subsidiaries, F.K.A., Sealy, Incorporated and Subsidiaries, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent-Appellee. Sealy Mattress Co., and Subsidiaries, F.K.A. Ohio-Sealy Mattress Manufacturing Co. and Subsidiaries, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent-Appellee.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Filed March 26, 1999.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Joseph A. Castrodale, Calfee, Halter & Griswold, Cleveland, OH, for the petitioner-appellant.

Stuart L. Brown, Thomas J. Clark, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for the respondent-appellee.

Before: NOONAN, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges, and RESTANI, Judge.


NOONAN, Circuit Judge:

Sealy Corporation and its subsidiaries, formerly known as The Ohio Mattress Company and subsidiaries (Sealy) appeal the judgment of the tax court in favor of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (the Commissioner). The tax court held that the professional expenses incurred by Sealy in complying with the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (the 1934 Act), the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) and an Internal Revenue Service...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases