select a case from the same list as you had for the first brief.  These cases have often established the precedent for the treatment of certain tax transactions, and serve as a source of tax research.  Assigned court cases will reinforce the key concepts learned in class.  Students will summarize their choice of the following court cases (or their own selection with pre-approval by the instructor), using the “FICA” model of analysis.  FICA stands for Fact, Issue, Conclusion, and Analysis and allows you to concisely summarize the conclusions of a court case. To summarize the case, follow these steps:        State the facts of the case in a clear and concise matter        Identify the issue(s)/laws at hand        State the conclusion of the court        Complete your analysis of the findings as presented in the case (answer the question: “why did the court rule this way on this issue?”) Use your own ideas as to why the ruling happened this way.  What are your thoughts?  Adding your thoughts, opinions, and additional research can make sure your paper is the required length. Briefs should be at least three pages long (not including cover page), double-spaced, 12-point font.  You will complete two separate court case briefs this term, to be submitted to your Assignments Folder by Sunday at 11:59 p.m. on the designated due date.  Use the template above, and create Level One Headings using Facts, Issue, Conclusion, and Analysis. A great place to find these tax cases is in the UIU Library.  Click on “Article & Databases,” then under “Recommended Databases” find “Nexis Uni.”  Search for a case by name, number, etc.  Ask your librarian if you need some help. Sample Court Cases: Cavaretta v. Comm’r, T.C. Memo 2010-4. Comm’r v. Indianapolis Power & Light Co., 493 US 203. Comm’r v. Lincoln Electric Co., 176 F.2d 815 Comm’r v. Sullivan, 356 US 27. Complete Auto Transit, Inc v. Brady, 430 US 274. Geoffrey, Inc. v. South Carolina Tax Commission, S.C. Sup. Ct., 313 S.C. Gregory v. Helvering, 293 US 465. Indopco v. Comm’r, 503 U.S. 79. Kerns v. Comm’r, T.C. Memo 2004-63. Lanco, Inc. v. Director, Division of Taxation, NJ Sup. Ct., Dkt. No. A-89-05. National Bellas Hess, Inc. v. Department of Revenue of the State of Illinois, 386 US 753. Northwestern Cement Co. v. Minnesota, 358 US 450. Quail Corporation v. North Dakota, 504 US 298. Renkemeyer, Campbell, & Weaver LLP v. Comm’r, 136 T.C. 137. Retief Goosen v. Comm’r, 136 T.C. No. 27. Scripto, Inc. v. Carson, Sherriff, et al., 362 US 207.