Nichols is a resident, property owner, and taxpayer in the City of Rehoboth Beach, Delaware. Rehoboth Beach held a special election, open to residents of more than six months, for approval of a $52.5 million bond issue to finance an ocean outfall project. The resolution passed. Nichols voted in the election. She then filed suit challenging the election and the resultant issuance of bonds. The district court, reasoning that Nichols was not contesting the expenditure of tax funds, but the legality of the Special Election; found that Nichols, having voted, lacked standing; and dismissed. The Third Circuit affirmed, stating that because Nichols failed to show an illegal use of municipal taxpayer funds, she cannot establish standing on municipal taxpayer grounds. The court rejected her claims of municipal taxpayer standing on the basis of two expenditures by Rehoboth Beach: the funds required to hold the special election and the funds used to purchase an advertisement in a local newspaper. View "Nichols v. City of Rehoboth Beach" on Justia Law

Prior to petitioner-appellant Corbin McNeill retiring as an executive to a utility company, "he came across a complicated little scheme suggested by some well-heeled tax advisors." At its core, the scheme was to transfer to McNeill losses that foreign debt holders had already suffered: McNeill would claim the losses as deductions against his income; the foreign debt holders would transfer their assets for a slight premium over their current (and much reduced) market value because McNeill could use them to secure a tax advantage they didn’t need. To accomplish this, McNeill's tax advisors established a series of partnerships to which the foreign debt holders contributed their underwater debt instruments and their basis in them. McNeill contributed a relatively small sum of money, but owned over 90% of the partnership. When the partnership sold the debt to third parties, it could claim to realize the whole of the losses, and McNeill could claim his income was offset by the losses. In aid of the scheme, various accounting and law firms supplied opinion letters affirming that the scheme would withstand IRS scrutiny. The IRS indeed questioned McNeill's partnerships, and determined McNeill owed back taxes. McNeill paid the tax then filed suit seeking a partial refund. McNeill didn’t suggest that the partnership scheme was lawful or that he should have been excused the taxes the IRS assessed. Instead, he argued only that he should have been excused from the penalties and associated interest the IRS had imposed. The district court declined to decide the merits of McNeill’s partner level defense, holding it was precluded from doing so by Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA). The Tenth Circuit concluded this judgment was made in error, reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Mc Neill v. United States" on Justia Law

Dahmes Stainless, Inc. challenged the additional use taxes and interest assessed by the Commissioner of Revenue on components that Dahmes purchased to manufacture its products. In making the assessment, the Commissioner determined that Dahmes’s products constituted improvements to real property because they were common law fixtures. The tax court disagreed, concluding that Dahmes’s products were tangible personal property rather than improvements to real property, and therefore, the Commissioner erred by assessing use taxes. Dahmes subsequently filed a Minnesota Equal Access to Justice Act (MEAJA) application for attorney fees. The tax court awarded fees, concluding that the Commissioner’s position was not “substantially justified” by a “reasonable basis in law and fact” under Minn. Stat. 15.472(a). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Dahmes’s MEAJA application for attorney fees was timely filed; and (2) the tax court did not abuse its discretion by awarding attorney fees. View "Comm’r of Revenue v. Dahmes Stainless, Inc." on Justia Law

The Commissioner of Revenue disallowed certain charitable-contribution deductions claimed on an income tax return filed by Respondents. The tax court reversed and granted summary judgment in favor of Respondents. In doing so, the court excluded evidence offered by the Commissioner of Revenue regarding a computational error made in calculating Respondents’ tax liability and thus failed to correct Respondents’ tax liability to account for the Commissioner’s computational error. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that (1) the tax court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the Commissioner’s evidence of a computational error; and (2) the tax court’s finding regarding Respondents’ tax liability was supported by the record. View "Antonello v. Comm’r of Revenue" on Justia Law

Michael and Christine Wu each have an individual retirement account (IRA); each contributed $200,000 after selling their home in 2007. For that tax year their maximum allowable deduction for IRA contributions was $4,000, and “excess contributions” incur a tax of up to 6% annually until withdrawn. 26 U.S.C. 219(b)(1), (b)(5)(A), 4973(a), (b). The Wus realized their mistake in 2010, informed the IRS, and corrected the problem by withdrawing the excesses from their accounts. The Wus paid the taxes for 2007-2009, and although they conceded liability for the first two years, they each sought a refund for tax year 2009, arguing that they had avoided incurring taxes for that year by adjusting the IRA account balances before the April 2010 filing deadline for their 2009 tax return. The IRS rejected this contention. The Wus filed suit under 28 U.S.C. 1346(a)(1). The district court and Seventh Circuit agreed with the government. Under section 4973(b), the consequence of taking a qualifying distribution under section 408(d)(4) is that the amount of the withdrawal “shall be treated as an amount not contributed,” but the Wus were not asking that their 2007 contributions be treated as if they were never contributed; they asked that those contributions be eliminated from the calculation for 2009 alone. View "Wu v. United States" on Justia Law

In an effort to raise more tax revenue, the Puerto Rico legislature amended the corporate alternative minimum tax (AMT) in 2015. Wal-Mart Puerto Rico, Inc., the largest private employer in Puerto Rico, brought this action seeking an injunction against the continued enforcement of the AMT against it and a declaration that the AMT was unlawful. The district court permanently enjoined and declared invalid the enforcement of the AMT, concluding that the AMT violates the dormant Commerce Clause, the Federal Relations Act, and the Equal Protection Clause. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the federal district court had jurisdiction over the suit; and (2) the AMT is a facially discriminatory law that does not survive the heightened level of scrutiny under the dormant Commerce Clause. View "Wal-Mart Puerto Rico, Inc. v. Zaragoza-Gomez" on Justia Law

The Commissioner appeals the Tax Court's decision in these consolidated cases that SHI did not have deficiencies for the tax years under consideration and that SHLP and Vistancia had no adjustments to partnership items for their tax years which were under consideration. The tax court determined that the Taxpayers had used an accounting method that clearly reflected their income during the tax years under consideration. The court affirmed the tax court's decision that on the record before it, the Taxpayers used a permissible method of accounting and that method of accounting clearly reflected their income. The Tax Court determined that, as a matter of fact, the subject matter included the house, the lot, “the development . . . and its common improvements and amenities.” In this case, the Tax Court did not clearly err when it determined the subject matter of the Taxpayers’ home construction contracts; the Taxpayers’ application of the 95 percent test and the CCM logically flows from that determination. View "Shea Homes v. CIR" on Justia Law

The Commissioner appealed the tax court's judgment in favor of the Estate and the Government of the United States Virgin Islands. In 2010, the IRS issued notices of deficiency to Travis L. Sanders, before his death in 2012, alleging that he had not been a bona fide USVI resident during those years and that Madison, a USVI-based consulting firm that Sanders was a limited partner in, was an illegal tax shelter. Because Sanders was not a bona fide USVI resident, the Commissioner claims, Sanders was required to file tax returns with the IRS and was not entitled to the Economic Development Program (EDP) tax reduction. The court held that the statute of limitations was triggered only if Sanders actually was a bona fide resident of the USVI; in this case, the facts relied on by the tax court are insufficient to establish that Sanders ever became a bona fide resident of the USVI; and thus the court vacated the tax court's judgment. The court remanded for further proceedings. View "Commissioner v. Estate of Travis L. Sanders" on Justia Law

Two churches (the Churches) located in the City of Saint Paul were subject to a right-of-way assessment (ROW assessment) that the City assessed to nearly every owner of real property within the city limits to pay for public right-of-way maintenance services. The Churches appealed their 2011 ROW assessment, arguing that the charge was a tax and was not imposed uniformly upon the same class of property and that the assessed amount improperly exceeded the special benefit to the Churches’ properties. The district court upheld the assessments after applying a reasonableness test, concluding that the ROW was not a tax imposed under the City’s taxing power but was a fee imposed under the City’s police power and, therefore, was not subject to constitutional restrictions on taxation. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the ROW assessment was imposed as an exercise of the City’s taxing power rather than its police power; and (2) summary judgment was inappropriate because a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding the extent of special benefits to the Churches’ properties attributable to the right-of-way services. View "First Baptist Church of St. Paul v. City of St. Paul" on Justia Law

Blandin Paper Company (Blandin) owned 4,680 parcels of timberland located in Aitkin, Itasca, St. Louis, and Koochiching Counties (the Counties). Blandin challenged tax assessments of market value for the timberland properties. Before trial, the Counties filed a motion to exclude evidence Blandin offered regarding the unit-rule method for determining the market value of the property at issue. The tax court denied the motion, determining that the unit-rule method is admissible in property tax proceedings. At trial, the court adopted Blandin’s appraisal values based on the unit-rule method and reduced the assessor's aggregate market value of the properties. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the unit-rule method to determine the fair market value of real property may be admissible in a property tax proceeding; (2) the record in this case does not establish that the appraisal evidence offered by Blandin satisfied the requirements set forth in this opinion for admitting such evidence; and (3) the case must be remanded for both parties to have the opportunity to present evidence in favor of their respective positions. View "County of Aitkin v. Blandin Paper Co." on Justia Law