judgment must be final with respect to one or more claims. The resolution of individual issues within a claim does not satisfy the requirements of Rule 54(b). Compare Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Wetzel, 424 U.S. 737, 742-43, 96 S.Ct. 1202, 1205-06, 47 L.Ed.2d 435 (1976) (entry of judgment under Rule 54(b) was not proper where district court determined issue of liability in employment discrimination claim but requests for relief, including damages, remained). Houston Indus., Inc., 78 F.3d at 567 (emphasis in the original). Instead, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals considered whether the judgment resolved one or more entire “causes of action,” not just “issues,” to determine whether there was a final judgment on a “claim” for Rule 54(b) purposes. Houston Indus., Inc., 78 F.3d at 567-68 (<HOLDING>). Likewise, Rule 54(b) does not permit
holding refund of discriminatory tax required because predeprivation remedy not clearly available for tax years at issue holding that determination of a tax refund for a particular tax year creates a single claim under rule 54b because the total tax liability for each taxable year constitutes a single unified cause of action regardless of the variety of contested issues and points that may bear on the final computation quoting finley v united states 612 f2d 166 170 5th cir 1980 but determination of a single issue for a single tax year was not resolution of a unified cause of action holding that a single cause of action arises out of the same set of facts holding that interest received by a foreign corporation on a tax refund from the united states was interest on an interestbearing obligation of a resident of the united states within income tax statute holding that preemption was not required because michigans single business tax had only an incidental effect on erisa plans despite fact that tax was calculated based on plan contributions