Justia Tax Law Opinion Summaries

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

Edward Bachner filed fraudulent tax returns for three years, inflating his income and tax withholdings to claim unwarranted refunds. The IRS detected the fraud and imposed civil penalties. Bachner petitioned the United States Tax Court for a redetermination but did not attend the trial, which resulted in the Tax Court sustaining the penalties. Bachner and his wife, Rebecca, who filed joint tax returns, appealed the Tax Court’s judgment.The Tax Court rejected the Bachners' arguments that the IRS’s notice of deficiency was invalid, that the limitations period had expired, and that the IRS had ignored certain procedures. The court also dismissed their claim that they had not underpaid taxes, as well as their assertion of the privilege against self-incrimination. The Tax Court accepted the IRS’s evidence and sustained the fraud penalties against Edward.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that Edward had standing to appeal but dismissed Rebecca from the appeal due to her innocent-spouse status. The court held that the Tax Court had jurisdiction to review the IRS’s determinations based on the penalties listed in the notice. The court also upheld the Tax Court’s imposition of fraud penalties, explaining that Edward’s fraudulent overstatement of withholdings constituted an underpayment of taxes under the relevant Treasury Regulations. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the Tax Court’s decision to sustain the penalties against Edward and dismissed Rebecca from the appeal. View "Bachner v CIR" on Justia Law

In 2020, Bryce D. Hovannisian and Lindsay E. Hovannisian purchased several tax-defaulted properties at a tax sale from the City of Fresno. Prior to the sale, the City had recorded special assessments for nuisance abatement costs and unpaid penalties against these properties. After the purchase, the County of Fresno issued tax bills to the appellants, which included these special assessments. The appellants sought to pay only the portion of the tax bills excluding the special assessments, arguing that the tax sale should have removed these liens. The County rejected their partial payments, leading the appellants to sue the City and the County to quiet title to the properties.The Superior Court of Fresno County sustained three separate demurrers filed by the City and the County, asserting that Revenue and Taxation Code section 4807 barred the suit as it impeded tax collection. The court granted leave to amend after the first two demurrers but denied it after the third. The court found that the appellants were required to pay the taxes and then seek a refund, rather than challenging the assessments prepayment.The California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, reviewed the case and affirmed the trial court's ruling. The appellate court held that the special assessments were collected at the same time and in the same manner as county taxes, thus falling under the definition of "taxes" in section 4801. Consequently, section 4807 barred the appellants' prepayment suit. The court also found that the appellants had an adequate remedy at law through a refund action, which precluded them from seeking equitable relief. The judgment of the lower court was affirmed, and the appellants were directed to pay the taxes and seek a refund if necessary. View "Hovannisian v. City of Fresno" on Justia Law

Prospect Crozer, LLC owned and developed 57.7 acres of real property in Upland Borough, Delaware County, assessed at $80,166,493 for tax years 2017-2019. Prospect appealed the assessment, but the Delaware County Board of Assessment Appeals denied it. Prospect then appealed to the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas, where the Chester Upland School District intervened. Senior Judge John L. Braxton, assigned by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, presided over the de novo tax assessment proceedings. During this time, Judge Braxton was appointed to the Philadelphia Board of Revision of Taxes and received his first payment from the Board on June 16, 2019. He continued to preside over the tax appeals and issued orders in October 2019.The Delaware County Court of Common Pleas conducted a hearing to determine the timeline of Judge Braxton's dual service and found that he began receiving compensation from the Board on June 16, 2019. The Commonwealth Court then vacated the orders issued by Judge Braxton, concluding that his simultaneous service on the Board and as a judge violated Article V, Section 17(a) of the Pennsylvania Constitution, which prohibits judges from holding an office or position of profit in the government. The court held that this violation resulted in the automatic forfeiture of his judicial office, rendering the orders legal nullities.The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reviewed the case and agreed that Judge Braxton violated Section 17(a) by holding a position of profit with a municipal corporation while serving as a judge. However, the court rejected the Commonwealth Court's conclusion that this violation resulted in the automatic forfeiture of his judicial office. Instead, the Supreme Court held that the violation created a constitutionally impermissible conflict of duties, requiring the vacatur of the orders entered in the tax appeals. The case was remanded to the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas for reassignment to a new judge. View "In re: Appeal of Prospect Crozer LLC From the Decision of the Board of Assessment Appeals of Delaware County, PA" on Justia Law

Philip Morris USA, Inc. (Philip Morris) disputed with the North Carolina Department of Revenue (Department) over tax credits for manufacturing cigarettes for exportation (Export Credits). The issue was whether the "credit allowed" in N.C.G.S. § 105-130.45(b) (2003) limited the Export Credits such that they could not be carried forward to future years.The Department audited Philip Morris' tax returns for 2012-2014 and disallowed the Export Credits claimed, arguing that the statute capped the credits generated each year at six million dollars, thus no credits were available to carry forward. Philip Morris objected and requested a review, but the Department upheld the disallowance. Philip Morris then petitioned the Office of Administrative Hearings, where the administrative law judge granted summary judgment in favor of the Department. Philip Morris appealed to the Superior Court, which affirmed the ALJ's decision, stating that the statute limited credit generation to six million dollars per year.The Supreme Court of North Carolina reviewed the case and found the statute ambiguous. The Court held that the term "credit allowed" in subsection (b) should be interpreted as "credit generated," allowing any generated Export Credit in excess of the annual cap to be carried forward for the next ten years. The Court reversed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of the Department and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Department of Revenue" on Justia Law

Centene Corporation’s subsidiaries, Envolve Pharmacy Solutions and Coordinated Care, administer health insurance benefits in Washington under a state contract. Coordinated Care collects premiums from consumers and forwards payments to Envolve for administering the benefits. Coordinated Care pays a premiums tax instead of a business and occupation (B&O) tax. The issue is whether Coordinated Care’s payment of the premiums tax exempts Envolve from paying the B&O tax under RCW 82.04.320.The Department of Revenue historically exempted secondary corporate affiliates from the B&O tax if the primary affiliate paid the premiums tax. Envolve sought a refund based on this precedent, but the Department denied it, audited Envolve, and assessed over $3 million in back taxes, arguing that Envolve’s services were not all functionally related to insurance business.Envolve appealed to the Board of Tax Appeals, which partially upheld the Department’s decision, finding some of Envolve’s services were not functionally related to insurance. The King County Superior Court reversed, ruling that Envolve’s activities were exempt under RCW 82.04.320. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Envolve’s services were functionally related to insurance business and thus exempt from B&O tax.The Supreme Court of Washington affirmed the Court of Appeals, holding that RCW 82.04.320 exempts Envolve from B&O taxation because Coordinated Care paid the premiums tax on Envolve’s work related to insurance business. The court emphasized that the statute’s plain language exempts any person engaged in insurance business upon which a premiums tax is paid, without specifying who must pay the tax. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Envolve Pharmacy Solutions, Inc. v. Dep't of Revenue" on Justia Law

Murphy Oil USA (Murphy) and the Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration (DFA) disputed the categorization of interest expenses related to a corporate spin-off. Murphy, a retail motor-fuel and convenience-store operator, spun off from its parent company in 2013, resulting in interest expenses from issuing senior notes and borrowing funds. Initially, Murphy apportioned these expenses among all states where it conducted business. In 2018, Murphy amended its Arkansas tax returns for 2014 and 2015 to allocate all interest expenses to Arkansas, seeking a tax refund of nearly $4 million.The Union County Circuit Court granted summary judgment in favor of Murphy, allowing the amended tax returns and the allocation of 100% of the interest expenses to Arkansas. DFA appealed, arguing that the interest expenses were business-income expenses under the Uniform Division of Income for Tax Purposes Act (UDITPA) and should be apportioned among all states, that a state statute made the expenses non-deductible if allocable to Arkansas, and that it was unfair to allow Murphy a tax refund in Arkansas without amending returns in other states.The Supreme Court of Arkansas affirmed the circuit court's decision. The court held that Murphy's spin-off was an extraordinary, nonrecurring event, classifying the interest expenses as nonbusiness income under UDITPA, thus allocable entirely to Arkansas. The court also found that Arkansas Code Annotated section 26-51-431(c) did not prohibit the deduction of these expenses, as the statute was intended to prevent deductions for expenses related to tax-exempt income, which was not applicable in this case. Finally, the court rejected DFA's fairness argument, stating that it was not the court's role to adjust Arkansas tax returns based on potential unfairness to other states. View "Hudson v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc." on Justia Law