Alan I. Horowitz’s practice focuses on appellate litigation, with a particular expertise in federal tax appeals.  Although he practices primarily in the U.S. Supreme Court and federal courts of appeals, he also represents clients in litigation of legal issues in trial court.

Prior to joining the firm, Mr. Horowitz worked in the Solicitor General’s Office at the Department of Justice from 1979 to 1990, serving under four Solicitors General.  During that time he argued more than 25 cases in the Supreme Court and briefed many others on a variety of topics, including constitutional, statutory, and criminal issues.  From 1986 to 1990, he served as the Tax Assistant to the Solicitor General and had primary responsibility both for conducting the government’s tax litigation in the Supreme Court and for overseeing the government’s determinations to appeal adverse tax decisions.

Among the cases Mr. Horowitz has argued are United States v. Goodyear, 493 U.S. 132 (1989) (computation of foreign tax credit where certain losses are deductible under foreign, but not U.S. law); Dow Chemical Co. v. United States, 476 U.S. 227 (1986) (Fourth Amendment challenge to EPA overflights of an industrial facility); United States v. Jeffrey MacDonald, 456 U.S. 1 (1982) (Speedy Trial claim of triple murderer); and Middlesex Cty. Sewerage Authority v. Nat’l Sea Clammers Ass’n, 453 U.S. 1 (1981) (existence of various remedies for water pollution, such as private right of action under Clean Water Act or federal common law action for nuisance).

Since coming to Miller & Chevalier, Mr. Horowitz has briefed numerous cases in the Supreme Court, including Empire Healthchoice Assurance, Inc. v. McVeigh, No. 05-200 (argued Apr. 25, 2006) (federal court jurisdiction in FEHBA cases); Sereboff v. Mid Atlantic Medical Services, Inc., No. 05-260 (May 15, 2006) (subrogation claims under ERISA) (amicus brief); Illinois Tool Works, Inc. v. Independent Ink, Inc., No. 04-1329 (March 1, 2006) (market power presumption of patent in antitrust litigation) (amicus brief); Vermont Agency of Natural Resources v. United States ex rel. Stevens, 120 S. Ct. 1858 (2000) (constitutionality of qui tam litigation) (amicus brief); Winstar v. United States, 518 U.S. 839 (1996) (ability to sue government for broken promise concerning accounting treatment of thrifts) (amicus brief); Allied-Signal, Inc. v. Director, Div. of Taxation, 504 U.S. 768 (1992) (unitary business principle of state taxation) (amicus brief).

He also has briefed many cases in the courts of appeals, including several cases in which his client prevailed on appeal and then successfully opposed the government’s petition for certiorari. Examples are:  Federal Nat’l Mortgage Ass’n v. United States, 379 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (availability of interest netting remedy in light of sovereign immunity); Robinson v. United States, 335 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1105 (2004) (executive compensation deduction); Amoco Corp. v. Commissioner, 138 F.3d 1139 (7th Cir. 1998) (foreign tax credit); Exxon Corp. v. United States, 88 F.3d 968 (Fed. Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1119 (1997) (gas depletion); and Weyerhaeuser Co. v. United States, 92 F.3d 1148 (Fed. Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1091 (1997) (timber casualty loss).

Mr. Horowitz is nationally ranked in Chambers USA and Legal 500 for his work in the area of Tax Controversy.  He graduated from Columbia Law School in 1977, where he served as Articles and Book Reviews Editor of the Columbia Law Review.