Overview

William Schmalzl focuses on tax litigation, corporate tax planning and state tax advice. He represents clients in all stages of tax litigation including audits, administrative proceedings, United States Tax Court, federal district court and courts of appeals and Illinois state courts. The issues he has litigated include I.R.C. § 482, the investment tax credit, research tax credit, sale-leasebacks, foreign tax credits, franchises, patents and other intangibles. William’s undergraduate majors in economics and mathematics have proven invaluable in the preparation of expert reports and in the examination of expert witnesses at trial.  William’s trial experience includes Seagate Technology, National Semiconductor, United Parcels Service, RJR Nabisco, ConEd and Flextronics.

Prior to joining Mayer Brown, William served as a Clerk to the Honorable Robert A. Ainsworth, Jr., of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals (1977-1978).

Spoken Languages

  • English
Highlights
Tax Controversy Team of the Year

Experience

  • Represented client in economic substance case Flextronics America, as Alternative Agent for C-Mac Holdings, Inc. and Subsidiaries Consolidated Group, Petitioner-Appellee v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent-Appellant. 2012-2 U.S.T.C. 50,701 (9TH Cir. 2012) aff’g 100 T.C.M. 394 (2010)
  • Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y., Inc. & Subsidiaries v. United States, 2013 WL 93110 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 9, 2013), rev’g 90 Fed. Cl. 228 (2009) (recharacterizing lease-in lease-out (“LILO”) transaction under substance over form doctrine).
  • Represented client in economic substance case Flextronics America, LLC, as Alternative Agent Pursuant to Treas. Reg. §1.1502-77A(e)(4)(ii) For C-MAC Holdings, Inc. & Subsidiaries Consolidated Group v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (basis in acquired inventory) 100 T.C.M. 394 (2010)
  • Wells Fargo & Company v. United States, Docket No. 06-628-T, 105 A.F.T.R.2d 2010-377 (Ct. Fed. Cl., Jan. 8, 2010), (denying deductions for leveraged leases of transit equipment and technical equipment).
  • Represented a client in a matter involving a Lease-in-lease-out (LILO) transaction involving Dutch power facility (Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. & Subsidiaries v. The United States, 90 Fed. Cl. 228 (2009).
  • Represented a client in a matter involving the vacating the Tax Court’s finding on sham, assignment of income and penalties (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, 78 T.C.M. (CCH) 262 (1999)).
  • Represented a client in a matter involving the deductibility of package design costs and the characterization of income from foreign expropriation under I.R.C. § 1231 (RJR Nabisco, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 76 T.C.M. (CCH) 71 (1998)).
  • Represented a client engaged in business issues arising under I.R.C. §§ 882 and 842; conceded by IRS (Overseas Partners Ltd. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, T.C. Docket No. 15966-95).
  • Represented a client in a matter involving a debt-equity swap, asbestos removal expense, and lease portfolio valuation (Norwest Corporation and Subsidiaries v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 108 T.C. 358 (1997)).
  • Represented a client in a matter involving the amortization of trademarks pursuant to I.R.C. § 1253 (Nabisco Brands, Inc. (RJR) v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 69 T.C.M. (CCH) 2230 (1995)).
  • Represented clients in matters involving I.R.C. § 482 reallocations (National Semiconductor Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 67 T.C.M. (CCH) 2849 (1994), acq. in result, 1995-2 C.B. 1; also in Seagate Technology, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 102 T.C. 149 (1994).
  • Represented a client in a matter involving the allocation of income partly from sources within a foreign country under Treas. Reg. § 1.863-3(b)(2) (Intel Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 100 T.C. 616 (1993), aff’d, 67 F.3d 1445 (9th Cir. 1995)).
  • Represented a client in a matter involving the allocation of income between foreign parent corporation and U.S. subsidiary (Westreco, Inc. (Nestlé) v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 64 T.C.M. (CCH) 849 (1992)).
  • Represented a client in a matter involving the burden of proof in an I.R.C. § 482 case (National Semiconductor Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 61 T.C.M. (CCH) 2005 (1991)).~~
  • Represented a client in a matter in which the appeal was dismissed and a writ of mandamus was denied (Westreco, Inc. (Nestlé) v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 923 F.2d 855 (6th Cir. 1991)).
  • Represented a client in a matter involving a protective order restricting IRS use of summons in the Tax Court (Westreco, Inc. (Nestlé) v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 60 T.C.M. (CCH) 824 (1990)).
  • Represented a client in a matter involving the calculation of the amount in receipt of preferred stock for property (Nestlé Holdings, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 94 T.C. 803 (1990)).
  • Represented a client in a matter involving the application of I.R.C. § 1253 to cable television franchises (Tele-Communications, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 95 T.C. 495 (1990)).
  • Represented a client in a matter involving the method of accounting and investment tax credit (Illinois Power Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 792 F.2d 683 (7th Cir. 1986)).
  • Represented a client in a matter involving the sale and leaseback of nuclear fuel (Illinois Power Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 87 T.C. 1417 (1986)).
  • Represented a client in a matter involving the method of accounting and investment tax credit (Illinois Power Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 83 T.C. 842 (1984)).
  • Represented a client in a matter involving the taxation of variable annuity (Christoffersen v. United States, 578 F. Supp. 398 (N.D. Iowa 1984), rev’d, 749 F.2d 513 (8th Cir. 1984)).
  • Represented a client in a matter involving the capitalization of publishing costs (Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 685 F.2d 212 (7th Cir. 1982)).
  • Authored an amicus brief on behalf of Deere & Company and Reynolds Metals Company (Searle Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Illinois Dept. of Rev., 117 Ill. 2d 454 (1987)).

Education

Harvard Law School, JD, magna cum laude

Articles Editor, Law Review

University of Pittsburgh, BA, summa cum laude

Admissions

  • Illinois

Court

  • US Tax Court
  • US Supreme Court
  • US Court of Federal Claims
  • 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 District Court for the Northern District of Illinois

Memberships

  • American Bar Association, (Section on Taxation)
  • Chicago Bar Association, (Federal Tax Committee, State & Local Tax Committee)