Tax Code Interpretation Presents an Issue for Congress, Not the Courts

The Sixth Circuit tackled a complex question involving the interpretation and application of Internal Revenue Code Section 1256 as it applies to so-called “major-minor” currency transactions. The term “major-minor” is a reference to the fact that a currency is considered “major” if positions in it are traded through regulated futures contracts and a currency is … Continue Reading

Sixth Circuit Rejects “He Started It” Challenge to Child Exploitation Conviction

In USA v. Wright today, the Sixth Circuit joined the First, Second, Fourth and Eighth circuits in holding that photographing  a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct suffices for a child pornography conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a), which provides that “Any person who employs, uses, persuades, induces, entices, or coerces any minor to engage … Continue Reading

Sixth Circuit Precedent Offers Responses To Four Common Interpretive Canon Arguments

The Sixth Circuit frequently draws on canons when interpreting contract or statutory language, but the canons “are at best only rough guides.”  United States v. York, 398 F.2d 582, 585 n.6 (6th Cir. 1968). The Court’s precedent provides litigants with ready responses to four of the most common canon arguments and offers guidance for those … Continue Reading

Does Your ERISA Benefit Denial Letter Limit Time To File Suit? Maybe Not!

A divided panel of the Sixth Circuit held yesterday in Moyer v. Met. Life Ins. Co. that an employee was entitled to bring suit against after the contractual limitations period in his ERISA-governed long term disability plan had expired, because the claim administrator failed to include the time limit for judicial review in the benefit revocation … Continue Reading

ADA Testing Protections Extend Only to the Disabled

On a discretionary appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), the Sixth Circuit recently held that section 12112(b)(6) of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which prohibits employers’ use of qualification standards and other tests that tend to screen out disabled individuals, only extends protection to disabled individuals.  Bates v. Dura Automotive Systems, Inc., No. 09-6351 (6th Cir. Nov. 3, 2010). In a unanimous … Continue Reading