Donald Kipnis v. Bayerische Hypo-UND Vereinsbank, AG, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 6327

Plaintiffs (owners of a construction company) participated in a CARDS tax-shelter transaction arranged by HVB and promoters in 2000–2001; the transaction closed on December 5, 2001.
CARDS produced an illusory paper tax loss by treating a currency-exchange event as if the taxpayer’s basis equaled the full loan, though collateral and repayment realities left no economic loss.
HVB publicly admitted in a 2006 deferred-prosecution agreement that it participated in fraudulent tax-shelter transactions (including CARDS) and paid restitution and penalties.
The IRS issued notices of deficiency to Plaintiffs in October 2007; Plaintiffs petitioned the Tax Court, which ruled for the IRS on November 1, 2012.
Plaintiffs filed this diversity suit against HVB on November 4, 2013 asserting RICO, fraud, conspiracy, breach of fiduciary duty, aiding-and-abetting, and negligent supervision claims.
The district court dismissed the complaint as time-barred under Florida’s statutes of limitations, concluding accrual (at the latest) occurred by December 31, 2007; the Eleventh Circuit certified a question to the Florida Supreme Court about the accrual date.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
When do Plaintiffs’ claims accrue for Florida statutes of limitations: at IRS notice of deficiency or upon final resolution of the tax dispute?	Accrual occurs when the Tax Court issues final judgment (Nov. 1, 2012); no cognizable injury existed earlier because tax liability—hence damages—was uncertain.	Accrual occurred no later than the first actual injury (Dec. 5, 2001) or at least by the time Plaintiffs filed Tax Court petitions (Dec. 31, 2007); fees and lost financing were actual injuries earlier.	Eleventh Circuit did not decide; certified the question to the Florida Supreme Court: whether accrual is at IRS notice of deficiency or when the taxpayers’ dispute with the IRS is concluded/final.

Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co. v. Lane, 565 So. 2d 1323 (Fla. 1990) (professional-malpractice accrual may be delayed until final adjudication of underlying tax dispute to avoid inconsistent positions)
Blumberg v. USAA Cas. Ins. Co., 790 So. 2d 1061 (Fla. 2001) (applies Peat, Marwick rationale to similar malpractice accrual context; client should not sue professional before underlying adverse adjudication determines damages)
City of Miami v. Brooks, 70 So. 2d 306 (Fla. 1954) (first-injury principle: statute runs from first appreciable injury even if greater damages accrue later)
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Lee, 678 So. 2d 818 (Fla. 1996) (cause of action accrues when an action may be brought—i.e., when last element occurs)
Hearndon v. Graham, 767 So. 2d 1179 (Fla. 2000) (explains Florida’s delayed-discovery accrual framework and statutory scope)
Davis v. Monahan, 832 So. 2d 708 (Fla. 2002) (claims founded upon fraud accrue when plaintiff knows or should know of the tortious act)
Larson & Larson, P.A. v. TSE Indus., Inc., 22 So. 3d 36 (Fla. 2009) (limits Peat, Marwick; malpractice accrual rule should not be overbroadly extended to non-malpractice claims)
Olson v. Johnson, 961 So. 2d 356 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007) (conspiracy claim accrues when plaintiff suffers damage from the conspiracy)