The core of Gerald Brantley’s federal tax practice is handling cases in Tax Court or those that may end up in Tax Court. Because the Tax Court is a court of national jurisdiction, Mr. Brantley represents clients from across the country.
Combining his background with the government as an IRS attorney and in private practice representing taxpayers, Mr. Brantley has broad experience on both sides of federal tax controversies. Since returning to private practice in 2007, Mr. Brantley’s representative litigation and administrative experience includes:
- A decision restoring exempt status to a charitable organization in a case where the IRS had revoked exempt status.
- An order requiring the IRS to withdraw jeopardy assessments of over 35 million dollars in trust fund recovery penalties.
- A complete administrative concession by the IRS Examination Function in a case involving the exemption for the members of a religious organization.
- A complete administrative concession by the IRS Appeals Function of income tax adjustments totaling over one million dollars.
- Settlements and partial concessions with the IRS Appeals Function in cases involving income tax and penalties and trust fund recovery cases.
- Negotiations of offers in compromise and installment agreements with the IRS Collection Function.
- Cases currently pending in Tax Court.
In his tenure with the government, Mr. Brantley received the Office of Chief Counsel Special Act Award as lead counsel in Estate of Strangi v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-145 (Strangi III), a widely reported and important estate tax case. The Wall Street Journal reported that Strangi III “set off alarm bells in the normally placid world of estate planning” and “sent estate planners and their clients scrambling….” (December 2, 2003). Mr. Brantley litigated other important federal tax cases for which he received awards, including a multimillion dollar case involving the taxation of a damage award. In recognition of his trial experience, he was selected as a guest instructor by the National Institute of Trial Advocacy (“NITA”). A partial list of Gerald’s reported opinions is provided.