Roger J. Jones represents clients in tax controversy and litigation matters at all levels of the federal court system, before the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), and before various state courts and tax agencies. He has represented taxpayers, including numerous Fortune 500 companies, in more than 80 docketed cases before the US Supreme Court, most of the US courts of appeals, federal district courts, the US Court of Federal Claims and the US Tax Court.
Roger has also successfully settled numerous tax disputes short of litigation through administrative appeals procedures, mediation and other alternative dispute resolution processes. In addition, he advises clients on issues related to federal and state tax planning, compliance and transactional work, with particular emphasis on transfer pricing, Subpart F, foreign tax credits, financial instruments, reorganizations and other corporate transactions.
Roger speaks frequently at seminars and symposia and has authored articles on a wide range of tax topics.
United States of America v. Home Concrete & Supply, LLC, et al., 566 US ___, 132 S.Ct. 1836 (2012) (rejecting IRS argument that overstatement of basis triggered the six-year limitations period for assessment of tax and holding Treasury Regulations invalid)
The Boeing Company and Consolidated Subsidiaries v. United States of America, 537 US 437 (2003) (allocation of research and development (R&D) costs in determination of sales income under domestic international sales corporation (DISC) and foreign sales corporation (FSC) rules)
The Limited, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 286 F.3d 324 (6th Cir. 2002), rev’g, 113 T.C. 169 (1999) (reversing the US Tax Court’s holding that the controlled foreign corporation (CFC)’s purchase of certificates of deposit (CDs) from an affiliated credit card bank failed to qualify as a § 956(b)(2)(A) “deposit with a person carrying on the banking business”)
United Parcel Service of America v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 254 F.3d 1014 (11th Cir. 2001), rev’g and remanding, T.C. Memo. 1999-268 (vacating the US Tax Court’s holdings on sham transaction, assignment of income and penalty issues)
Nestlé Holdings, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 152 F.3d 83 (2d Cir. 1998) (successfully resolving issues arising from the Carnation acquisition, including debt-equity and valuation of trademarks)
Ralphs Grocery Company and Subsidiaries v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, T.C. Memo. 2011-25 (rejecting the IRS argument that a transaction structured to qualify for a § 338(h)(10) election was a tax-free reorganization)
Comcast MO Group, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, T.C. Docket No. 6957-07, decision entered February 9, 2009 (successful resolution of an IRS challenge to the deductibility of $1.5 billion termination fee paid to terminate a merger transaction)
State University of New York – Buffalo Law School, JD, magna cum laude, 1984
State University of New York – Buffalo, PhD, 1979
State University of New York – Buffalo, MA, 1976
State University of New York – Buffalo, BA, cum laude, 1973
Supreme Court of the United States
US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
US District Court for the District of Colorado
US Court of Federal Claims
US Tax Court
Do not send any information or documents that you want to have treated as secret or confidential. Providing information to McDermott via email links on this website or other introductory email communications will not create an attorney-client relationship; will not preclude McDermott from representing any other person or firm in any matter; and will not obligate McDermott to keep confidential the information you provide. McDermott cannot enter into an attorney-client relationship with you until McDermott has determined that doing so will not create a conflict of interest and until you and McDermott have entered into a written agreement or engagement letter that sets forth the terms of our relationship.