Whether an administrative agency finding should be presumed correct when the agency conducted no independent review prior to filing suit

Question Presented The questions underlying this petition are: 1. Whether, under a proper application of law, an administrative agency finding should be given the presumption of correctness when it is uncontroverted that the agency conducted no independent review prior to filing a lawsuit against a taxpayer, such that a Court applies such a presumption resulting in the Grigsbys being prohibited from presenting their evidence, which included both documents and testimony, to the triers of fact. 2. Whether the petitioners had the burden of proof on summary judgment motion despite the government being both plaintiff and the movant. 3. Whether the existence of a fixed fee contract to deliver a flood control structure, constituted a payment for research activities or an end product. Cajun Industries, a highly skilled construction S corporation, of which the taxpayers are shareholders, and which handles large scale industrial projects, built four structures, two flood control systems in Louisiana, and structures for two refineries to which led to improved and increased refining capacity. The tax credits which flowed from Cajun Industries’ work resulted in a tax refund for its shareholders, the Grigsbys. After the Grigsby’s receipt of the tax refund, the Internal Revenue Services (“IRS”), without i conducting any audit of the tax year in question made a demand for the return of the full amount of the tax refund and referred the matter to the Justice Department. The Justice Department, without seeking any information or documents themselves from the taxpayers, filed suit just prior to the limitations period. Neither agency conducted any independent review of tax positions taken prior to filing a wholly unsupported complaint against the taxpayers. The Grigsbys subsequently requested a jury trial for the highly fact-intensive case. However, summary judgment was granted for the government just prior to jury trial on the basis that there was insufficient evidence of a process or product being developed and because the research activities for the four sample projects were found to fall under a “funding exclusion” to the tax credit. The Grigsbys were never able to put their documentary and witness testimony evidence in front of a trier of fact, nor was the evidence weighed to determine fact questions under the four-part test for the R&D tax credit. ii