Bombardier operated a fractional-aircraft-ownership program called “Flexjet.” In this appeal, Bombardier claims it is not required to remit federal excise tax on fees collected from participants in Flexjet. The court concluded that the district court's interpretation of 26 U.S.C. 6415(a) is consistent with the statute’s plain language and with authority from this and other circuits; this outcome does place an additional burden on entities already saddled with the responsibility of collecting the tax, but it also prevents unjust enrichment; and it was proper for the district court to dismiss Bombardier’s refund claim. The court also concluded that Bombardier is in possession, command, and control of the means of transportation, and is therefore required to submit section 4261 tax on fees collected from Flexjet participants. The court further concluded that the district court did not err in concluding that the fees collected by Bombardier, including the monthly management fees, are subject to section 4261 excise tax. Finally, the IRS did not violate any duty of clarity it owed to Bombardier, and the unfair competitive disadvantage principle has no application in this case. The district court did not err in denying Bombardier's motion to supplement the complaint. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment in the Government's favor. View "Bombardier Aerospace Corp. v. United States" on Justia Law

MediMarts, a nonprofit collective, paid the Marijuana Business Tax (MBT) for a year, then began submitting returns showing no money due. The City of San Jose sent notices and found that MediMarts owed $58,788.53 as of August 2012, plus future penalties and interest. MediMarts owed $215,111.17 as of November 2013. The city sued MediMarts and its president, Armstrong, for $767,058.60. Defendants filed a cross-complaint under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 1988, arguing that payment of the MBT would subject them to self-incrimination because it “forces [defendants] to admit to the sale or possession for sale of marijuana.” The tax also violated defendants’ due process rights by failing to provide for notice or a hearing before declaring MediMarts a nuisance and forcing it to cease operations. Armstrong was not afforded a hearing on his personal liability for the taxes. Finally, the cross-complaint alleged that the MBT “unjustly treats collectives and medical marijuana patients differently from other similarly situated individuals and organizations.” Applying the “collective entity rule,” the court determined that neither MediMarts nor Armstrong was entitled to assert the Fifth Amendment to resist the tax. The court of appeal affirmed. Neither assertion of Armstrong’s constitutional rights nor their accommodation would abate MediMarts’s duty to pay the tax. View "City of San Jose v. MediMarts, Inc." on Justia Law

Washington resident Stuart Etter was an aircraft dispatcher for Horizon Air Industries, Inc. who worked almost entirely in Portland. To work as a dispatcher, however, he had to spend five hours each year riding along in the cockpit for each aircraft group that he dispatched. Taxpayer argued that, pursuant to 49 USC § 40116(f), that flight time exempted him from paying Oregon income tax in the tax year 2000. The Oregon Tax Court concluded that taxpayer did not meet the requirements of the federal statute and denied his exemption. On appeal, taxpayer renewed his arguments. Finding no reversible error, the Oregon Supreme Court affirmed. View "Etter v. Dept. of Rev." on Justia Law

King, now deceased, was a lawyer. For several years he failed to pay his quarterly payroll taxes. The IRS stated that it would grant his request for an installment payment plan, but requested additional financial information to determine his eligibility. Eventually, the IRS decided that King had enough income and assets to pay the taxes when they were due, plus penalties and interest that had accrued. He paid the taxes in October 2011 but requested abatement of interest accrued after the date on which the IRS told him it would honor his request for an installment plan. He argued that had the IRS informed him from the outset that he would not be allowed an installment plan, he would have paid the taxes sooner and would have owed less interest. The IRS denied the request. Although 26 U.S.C. 6404(a) allows abatement under certain circumstances, the IRS determined that the interest was “not excessive” and “was not erroneously or illegally assessed.” The Tax Court abated interest for two months, holding that the “failure to communicate … the deficiencies … was unfair.” The Seventh Circuit reversed, finding the Tax Court’s approach inconsistent with a Treasury Department regulation, 26 C.F.R. 301.6404–1(a), which eliminates the vagueness of “excessive” and leaves no room for consideration of “unfairness.” View "King v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue" on Justia Law

Appellant, a property owner, applied to exempt real property used as a public community school for tax year 2010. The tax commissioner denied the exemption to the property that Appellant leased to the community school. Appellant appealed, arguing that because it was wholly owned by a 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation whose members include the community school to whom the property is leased, the property should qualify for exemption under the public-schoolhouse exemption and an exemption for exclusive charitable use. The Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) affirmed the denial of an exemption, concluding that the record showed a “view to profit” on the part of the lessor. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the record contained sufficient support for the BTA’s view-to-profit finding. View "250 Shoup Mill, LLC v. Testa" on Justia Law

Taxpayer C&S Wholesale Grocers, Inc. disputed sales tax assessed by the Vermont Department of Taxes on the purchase of reusable fiberglass freezer tubs used in the transport of perishable items, as well as the Department’s refusal to refund sales tax paid on diesel fuel used to power refrigeration systems mounted on taxpayer’s tractor trailers. Taxpayer also contested the penalty assessed by the Commissioner of the Department of Taxes, arguing that it was unreasonable. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the Department of Taxes. View "C & S Wholesale Grocers, Inc. v. Dept. of Taxes" on Justia Law

The Oregon Tax Court set aside a determination by the Department of Revenue (the department) that taxpayer DIRECTV’s property in Oregon was subject to central assessment under ORS 308.505 to 308.665. The department argued that, contrary to the Tax Court’s opinion, DIRECTV was a “communications” business whose property is subject to central assessment under ORS 308.515(1). The Supreme Court agreed and, therefore, reversed and remanded. View "DIRECTV, Inc. v. Dept. of Rev." on Justia Law

Historically, sovereigns were not subject to statutes of limitations without their explicit consent. Washington State consented to some statutes of limitations but not to others. The issue this case presented for the Washington Supreme Court's review in this case was whether Washington consented to a statute of limitations that would bar this antitrust suit filed by the Washington State attorney general on behalf of the State against more than 20 foreign electronics manufacturing companies. The State alleged that between at least March 1, 1995, through at least November 25, 2007, the defendants violated RCW 19.86.030, which prohibited any "contract, combination ... or conspiracy in restraint of trade or commerce," by agreeing to raise prices and agreeing on production levels in the market for CRTs (cathode ray tubes) used in televisions and computer monitors before the advent of LCD (liquid crystal display) panels and plasma display technologies. Due to this unlawful conspiracy, the State alleges, Washington consumers and the State of Washington itself paid supracompetitive prices for CRT products. Ten of the defendants filed a motion to dismiss, arguing the claims were time barred because Washington's Consumer Protection Act (CPA) must be brought within four years. The State responded that RCW 19.86.120's statute of limitations did not apply to its claims under RCW 19.86.080. After review, the Supreme Court concluded the State's action for injunctive relief and restitution was exempt from the statute of limitations in RCW 19.86.120 and from the general statutes of limitations in chapter 4.16 RCW. View "Washington v. LG Elecs., Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff failed to timely file his 2001 tax forms and filed a Form 1040 seven years after it was due, and three years after the IRS assessed a deficiency against him. Plaintiff later filed for bankruptcy and sought to discharge his 2001 tax liability. The bankruptcy court permitted the discharge, but the district court reversed. In In re Hatton, the court adopted the Tax Court’s widely-accepted definition of “return.” The court held that plaintiff's tax liabilities are nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. 523(a)(1)(B)(i). The court also held that Hatton applies to the bankruptcy code as amended, and that plaintiff’s tax filing, made seven years late and three years after the IRS assessed a deficiency against him, was not an “honest and reasonable” attempt to comply with the tax code. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment. View "Smith v. IRS" on Justia Law

This case was one of several cases involving litigation between Lands’ End and the City of Dodgeville challenging the City’s property tax assessment of Lands’ End’s headquarters. In 2009, Lands’ End made an offer of settlement, which the City rejected. Eventually, the court of appeals remanded the matter to the circuit court with directions to enter judgment in favor of Lands’ End in the amount of $724,292 plus statutory interest. At issue on remand was whether Lands’ End was entitled to interest at the statutory rate of interest in effect when the offer of settlement was made under Wis. Stat. 807.01(4) or at the statutory rate of interest in effect when Lands’ End recovered the judgment under the amended version of the statute. The circuit court awarded interest at “1 percent plus the prime rate,” the rate in the amended version of the statute. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Lands’ End did not have a vested right in the twelve percent interest rate in effect in section 807.01(4) at the time Lands’ End made its offer of settlement; and (2) awarding interest under the amended version of the statute did not violate the Due Process or Equal Protection clauses of the federal and state constitutions. View "Lands' End, Inc. v. City of Dodgeville" on Justia Law