Justia Tax Law Opinion Summaries

The taxpayer, 480 McClellan LLC, leased property from the Massachusetts Port Authority (Massport) to construct and operate a cargo facility. The property, located in East Boston, was previously taxable before Massport acquired it in 1990. In 2017, the City of Boston began taxing the property, and the taxpayer sought abatements for the tax years 2017 through 2020, which were denied by the city's board of assessors.The taxpayer appealed to the Appellate Tax Board, arguing that section 53 of the 1993 supplemental appropriations bill exempted it from taxation because the property was used for "air transportation purposes." The board invited the parties to address whether section 53 had amended section 17 of the Massport enabling act, which governs the taxation of Massport lessees. The board concluded that section 53 was not enacted because the Senate did not finalize its reconsideration of the Governor's veto before the end of the 1993 legislative session. The board also determined that the property was leased for "business purposes" under section 17, making the taxpayer subject to taxation.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts reviewed the case and affirmed the board's decision. The court held that the Senate's initial vote to override the Governor's veto of section 53 was not final due to a timely motion to reconsider, which was not resolved before the legislative session ended. Therefore, section 53 did not amend section 17. The court also upheld the board's interpretation that "business purposes" under section 17 includes commercial, for-profit activities, and found that the taxpayer leased the property for such purposes. Consequently, the taxpayer was subject to taxation under section 17. View "480 McClellan LLC v. Board of Assessors of Boston" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Ahmad Skouti and Faten M. Kour purchased a citrus orchard using proceeds from a jury award for the destruction of their grapevines. Under Internal Revenue Code section 1033, taxpayers can avoid recognizing gain from involuntary conversions if they purchase similar property. The Franchise Tax Board (Board) determined that the citrus orchard was not similar to the grapevines and denied the plaintiffs the benefit of section 1033. After exhausting administrative remedies, the plaintiffs filed a complaint in the trial court seeking a tax refund.The Superior Court of Sacramento County reviewed the case. Both parties filed motions for summary judgment. The trial court granted the Board’s motion and denied the plaintiffs’ motion, concluding that the citrus orchard, which included both land and mature trees, was not sufficiently similar to the grapevines to qualify for nonrecognition of gain under section 1033. The plaintiffs appealed this decision.The California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court affirmed the trial court’s decision, agreeing with the Board that the properties were not similar under section 1033. The court held that the plaintiffs’ investment in grapevines, which are agricultural fixtures, was not equivalent to an investment in land with citrus trees. The court emphasized that the risks and management associated with grapevines were different from those associated with land containing citrus trees. Therefore, the plaintiffs did not achieve a sufficient continuity of investment to justify nonrecognition of the gain. The judgment of the trial court was affirmed, and the plaintiffs’ appeal was denied. View "Skouti v. Franchise Tax Board" on Justia Law

The City of East Lansing entered into an agreement with the Lansing Board of Water and Light (LBWL) in 2016, which included a franchise fee to be charged to LBWL consumers residing within the City. The fee was collected by LBWL and remitted to the City. Plaintiff James Heos, representing a class of LBWL consumers, filed a complaint against the City, alleging that the franchise fee was an illegal tax under the Michigan Constitution's Headlee Amendment and other state laws.The trial court granted summary disposition in favor of the plaintiff on most counts, ruling that the franchise fee was an illegal tax. The Michigan Court of Appeals reversed this decision, directing the trial court to grant summary disposition in favor of the City, concluding that the plaintiff was not a taxpayer and thus his claim was time-barred.The Michigan Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that the franchise fee was indeed a tax because it was used for general revenue-raising purposes, was not proportionate to any costs incurred by the City, and was not voluntary. The Court further held that the plaintiff was a taxpayer because the legal incidence of the fee fell on the LBWL consumers, not LBWL itself. The Court reversed the Court of Appeals' decision and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings, allowing the plaintiff to pursue his Headlee Amendment claim. View "Heos v. City Of East Lansing" on Justia Law

San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) owns an interstate electric transmission line running from Arizona to California. The Arizona Department of Revenue (ADOR) is responsible for valuing SDG&E's property in Arizona for tax purposes. In 2020, SDG&E reported a net "original plant in service" valuation of $48,817,396 and a net "related accumulated provision for depreciation" amount of $51,446,397, resulting in a negative valuation of $2,629,001. ADOR disagreed with this calculation and determined a different accumulated depreciation amount, resulting in a positive valuation.The Arizona Tax Court granted summary judgment in favor of SDG&E, finding that their valuation correctly followed the statutory requirements. ADOR appealed, and the Arizona Court of Appeals reversed the Tax Court's decision, holding that the statute did not permit a negative valuation for a plant in service and that accumulated depreciation could not reduce the full cash value to a negative number. The Court of Appeals remanded the case for further proceedings.The Arizona Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that the calculation prescribed by the statute for determining a reduced plant in service cost does not preclude a negative valuation. The Court found that the statutory language did not limit the reduction of the original plant in service cost by accumulated depreciation to a non-negative number. Additionally, the Court clarified that a negative valuation for one component, when summed with other component valuations, reduces the overall full cash value but does not "offset" the valuation of other components. The Supreme Court vacated the relevant portions of the Court of Appeals' opinion and affirmed the Tax Court's grant of summary judgment in favor of SDG&E. View "San Diego Gas & Electric Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue" on Justia Law

An individual, referred to as "Client," became the target of a criminal investigation into alleged tax evasion. The grand jury issued a subpoena to Client, who invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and refused to produce documents. Subsequently, the grand jury subpoenaed the law firm that had represented Client in tax matters, requesting documents related to that representation and instructing the firm to provide a privilege log if any documents were withheld. The law firm declined to produce certain documents or provide a privilege log, citing attorney-client privilege, the work-product doctrine, and Client’s Fifth Amendment rights.The United States District Court for the Central District of California ordered the law firm to provide the Government with a privilege log, rejecting the firm's assertion of Client’s Fifth Amendment rights. The district court temporarily stayed enforcement of its order, and Client filed an interlocutory appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that an attorney cannot be compelled to provide the Government with a privilege log of documents protected under Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391 (1976). The court explained that providing a privilege log would reveal the existence, authenticity, and Client’s custody of the documents, thus undermining Client’s Fifth Amendment act-of-production privilege. The court determined that to assess whether the documents are indeed protected under Fisher, the district court should conduct an in camera review.The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s order and remanded the case for further proceedings, instructing the district court to conduct an in camera review to determine the applicability of the Fisher privilege. View "In re Grand Jury Subpoena, Dated July 21, 2023" on Justia Law

The plaintiffs, property owners in Danbury, Connecticut, challenged the tax assessments on their properties, each valued at over one million dollars, by appealing to the Superior Court. They were required by statute to file appraisals of their properties within 120 days of filing their appeals. The plaintiffs requested extensions to this deadline, which the court granted. However, they failed to file the appraisals with the court by the extended deadlines, although they did provide the appraisals to the defendant's counsel.The trial court initially dismissed five of the six tax appeals for failure to meet the filing deadline, concluding it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The court later granted the plaintiffs' motions to open the judgments of dismissal and for reargument, citing similar cases where the court had not dismissed appeals under similar circumstances. The court denied the defendant's corrected motion to dismiss the sixth appeal, finding no prejudice to the defendant from the late filing.The defendant appealed to the Connecticut Supreme Court, arguing that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction due to the plaintiffs' failure to timely file the appraisals. The plaintiffs contended that the appeal was moot because they had filed new tax appeals under a recent statutory amendment allowing for such actions if previous appeals were dismissed under certain conditions.The Connecticut Supreme Court held that the appeal was not moot, as the underlying appeals were not "dismissed" for purposes of the new statutory provision, given that the judgments of dismissal had been opened. The court further held that the appraisal filing requirement in § 12-117a (a) (2) is not subject matter jurisdictional. The requirement is mandatory but arises after the commencement of a tax appeal, and the time period for filing the appraisal can be extended by the court for good cause. The judgments of the Superior Court were affirmed. View "7 Germantown Road, LLC v. Danbury" on Justia Law

The case involves James B. Church & Associates, P.C. (the Church Firm), which served as legal counsel for Dennis Shogren, the personal representative of the estate of Loren R. Kirk, in a probate action. The estate beneficiaries, including Barbara Sagehorn and the Carter Beneficiaries, alleged that the Church Firm negligently failed to file a protective claim for a refund with the IRS or advise Shogren to do so. This failure purportedly resulted in the estate missing out on a potential $5,000,000 tax refund.The Superior Court of San Bernardino denied the Church Firm's special motion to strike the causes of action under the anti-SLAPP statute. The court found that the firm did not demonstrate that the causes of action arose from its constitutionally protected free speech or petitioning activities. The Church Firm appealed this decision.The Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, State of California, reviewed the case. The court conducted an independent review and agreed with the lower court's ruling. It determined that the alleged acts forming the basis of the petitioners' causes of action—specifically, the Church Firm's failure to file a protective claim for a refund and failure to advise Shogren to file such a claim—were not protected activities under the anti-SLAPP statute. The court emphasized that the anti-SLAPP statute protects statements or writings made before or in connection with an issue under consideration by a judicial body, not failures to act or speak.Therefore, the Court of Appeal affirmed the order denying the anti-SLAPP motion, concluding that the Church Firm did not meet its burden of proving that the causes of action arose from protected conduct. View "Callister v. James B. Church & Associates" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute between partners in a limited partnership formed to develop and operate an affordable housing project in Boston. The financing and structure of the project were driven by the Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program, which incentivizes private investment in affordable housing through tax credits. The partnership agreement included a right of first refusal (ROR) for the nonprofit general partner to purchase the property at a below-market price after the compliance period.In the Superior Court, the judge ruled on cross motions for summary judgment, concluding that the investor limited partner, AMTAX, did not have a consent right over a sale to the nonprofit general partner under the ROR agreement. However, the judge also ruled that the purchase price under the ROR agreement must include the limited partners' exit tax liability. The judge dismissed the remaining claims and counterclaims due to lack of evidentiary support or as a consequence of these rulings.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts reviewed the case. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, holding that AMTAX's consent was not required for the preliminary steps leading to a sale under the ROR agreement. The court also held that the limited partners' exit taxes were "attributable to" the sale of the property and must be included in the purchase price. The court found that the notice of consent rights recorded by AMTAX was accurate and did not constitute slander of title or tortious interference. Consequently, the plaintiffs' claims for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, tortious interference, slander of title, and violation of G. L. c. 93A were dismissed. The judgment was affirmed. View "Tenants' Development Corporation v. Amtax Holdings 227, LLC" on Justia Law

The case involves Russell County and its officials (collectively, the County parties) appealing a summary judgment from the Russell Circuit Court in favor of the City of Phenix City and the Town of Hurtsboro (collectively, the municipalities). The dispute centers on whether the Alabama Terminal Excise Tax Act (ATETA), effective October 1, 2012, repealed a local law (Act No. 859, Ala. Acts 1969) that required Russell County to distribute 10% of its share of state gasoline excise tax proceeds to the municipalities.The Russell Circuit Court ruled in favor of the municipalities, declaring that the ATETA did not repeal the local law, despite the ATETA repealing Act No. 224, which the local law referenced. The court found that the ATETA's provisions, which stated that local legislation governing the distribution of gasoline excise tax proceeds remained in force, supported this conclusion.The Supreme Court of Alabama reviewed the case de novo. The County parties argued that the local law was void because it specifically referenced Act No. 224, which the ATETA repealed, and that the ATETA was not a continuation of Act No. 224. They also contended that the ATETA implicitly repealed the local law. The Supreme Court found that the local law's reference to the "state gasoline excise tax" was a general reference, incorporating subsequent amendments, including the ATETA. The court also determined that the ATETA was a continuation of Act No. 224, as it did not substantially alter the distribution scheme. Additionally, the court held that the ATETA did not repeal the local law by implication, as it contemplated local variation in the distribution of tax proceeds.The Supreme Court of Alabama affirmed the circuit court's judgment, holding that the ATETA did not repeal the local law and that the local law remained in force, requiring Russell County to distribute 10% of its share of gasoline excise tax proceeds to the municipalities. View "Russell County, Alabama v. City of Phenix City, Alabama" on Justia Law

Payroll Management, Inc. filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy and received $1,070,330.23 from British Petroleum, Inc. for economic losses due to the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill. Sunz Insurance Company claimed a first-priority security interest in these funds, asserting that its security interest attached and perfected before any other creditor. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) contended that its federal tax lien had first priority as it attached and perfected first. Both parties filed cross motions for summary judgment.The bankruptcy court granted summary judgment in favor of the IRS, determining that Payroll’s BP claim was a commercial tort claim when the IRS filed its tax lien notice. The court found that the IRS’s tax lien attached and perfected first, while Sunz’s security interest did not attach to commercial tort claims. The district court affirmed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the lower courts' decisions. The court held that Payroll’s BP claim remained a commercial tort claim in March 2017 when the IRS filed its tax lien notice. The settlement agreement did not automatically convert the tort claim into a contract, as it did not create an automatic obligation for BP to pay Payroll a certain amount. Therefore, the IRS’s tax lien, which attached and perfected first, took priority over Sunz’s security interest. The court concluded that the IRS was entitled to the $1,070,330.23 payment. View "Sunz Insurance Company v. Treasury Department" on Justia Law