Donald Kipnis v. Bayerische Hypo-Und Vereinsbank, etc., 202 So. 3d 859

Kipnis and Kibler entered a CARDS tax-shelter transaction in 2000, paying promotional fees to banks and facilitators that represented the transaction as legitimate and tax-beneficial.
The CARDS transaction was terminated early by the banks in 2001. Promoters later admitted in a deferred prosecution agreement (2006) that CARDS transactions were used to assist tax evasion.
The IRS issued notices of deficiency to Kipnis and Kibler in 2007 disallowing CARDS-related deductions; taxpayers litigated the deficiencies in Tax Court.
The Tax Court ruled in 2012 that their CARDS transaction lacked economic substance and upheld the deficiencies.
In 2013 Kipnis and Kibler sued the banks in federal court on various Florida state-law claims; the district court dismissed as time-barred under Florida limitation statutes. The Eleventh Circuit certified to the Florida Supreme Court whether accrual occurs at the IRS notice of deficiency or when the taxpayers’ IRS dispute becomes final.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
When do taxpayers' state-law claims relating to the CARDS shelter accrue for Florida statutes of limitations?	Accrual should occur when the taxpayers’ underlying dispute with the IRS becomes final (after Tax Court judgment and expiration of appeal period).	Accrual should occur earlier — at the time the IRS issued the notices of deficiency (or other earlier event), so limitations would run before tax-court finality.	The court held accrual occurs when the underlying tax dispute becomes final (finality accrual rule): i.e., after the Tax Court judgment becomes final following expiration of the appeal period.

Kipnis v. Bayerische Hypo-Und Vereinsbank, AG, 784 F.3d 771 (11th Cir. 2015) (certified question prompting Florida Supreme Court review)
Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co. v. Lane, 565 So. 2d 1323 (Fla. 1990) (adopts finality-accrual rule where damages depend on underlying litigation outcome)
Blumberg v. USAA Cas. Ins. Co., 790 So. 2d 1061 (Fla. 2001) (prudence of avoiding disruptive simultaneous suits; finality accrual application)
Silvestrone v. Edell, 721 So. 2d 1173 (Fla. 1998) (importance of a bright-line rule for accrual to promote judicial efficiency)
City of Miami v. Brooks, 70 So. 2d 306 (Fla. 1954) (describes the "first injury" rule for accrual)
Major League Baseball v. Morsani, 790 So. 2d 1071 (Fla. 2001) (policy rationale for statutes of limitations: protect defendants from stale claims)