Magellan Pipeline Company, LP appealed a sales tax assessment levied by the state Department of Revenue and Regulation on its additive injection and equipment calibration services. The Hearing Examiner, Department Secretary and trial court all found Magellan's services were non-exempt from tax. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that under the plain language of the applicable statute, Magellan's services were exempt from sales tax. View "Magellan Pipeline Co v. Dept. of Revenue & Regulation" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit to recover withheld Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA), 26 U.S.C. 3101, taxes from Credit Suisse and the IRS, to which Credit Suisse had forwarded the withheld taxes. Plaintiff had filed a complaint under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. 621 et seq., against Credit Suisse and the parties subsequently settled on a lump sum payment of $250,000. At issue was whether, under FICA, these settlement proceeds were fairly characterized as "wages" received by plaintiff "with respect to employment," and were thus subject to FICA taxes. The court concluded that plaintiff had not offered sufficient evidence to suggest that the settlement payment was anything else but the "[w]ages, tips, other comp[ensation]" that Credit Suisse had classified the settlement payment as. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court granting the IRS summary judgment and dismissing the complaint against Credit Suisse. View "Gerstenbluth v. Credit Suisse, et al." on Justia Law

The Tax Court upheld the IRS’ disallowance of losses claimed by various LLCs that had been created by a tax attorney as tax shelters and a 40 percent penalty for a “gross valuation misstatement,” 26 U.S.C. 6662(a). An LLC is generally treated as a partnership for tax purposes, so that its income and losses are deemed to flow through to the owners and are taxed to them rather than to the business. How much income or loss should be recognized on the owners’ tax returns is now determined by an audit of the business. The LLCs at issue were formed to reduce taxes by transferring the losses of a bankrupt Brazilian electronics retailer to create what is called a distressed asset/debt (DAD) tax shelter, based on a tax loophole closed by the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004, 26 U.S.C. 704(c) the year after creation of the tax shelters at issue. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, characterizing the LLCs as entities without economic substance, not recognized for federal tax law purposes. View "Superior Trading, LLC v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue" on Justia Law

The Tax Court found that in 2003 Rogers and his wife failed without justification to report $984,655 of taxable income attributable to income of PPI, an S corporation wholly owned by Rogers, and to a distribution that he had received from PPI. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting arguments that the disputed income had been held in trust for third parties and was not taxable to Rogers. View "Rogers v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue" on Justia Law

A tour company claimed fraud and misconduct on the part of a borough in the course of a fraudulent conveyance trial concerning liability for property taxes. Specifically, the company argued that a police officer falsely testified at trial concerning a conversation he allegedly had with the company president regarding the company's obligation to pay borough taxes. The superior court denied relief under Rule 60(b)(3), finding that the company had failed to establish clear and convincing evidence of fraud. The company appealed, arguing that the superior court applied the incorrect legal standard and that the company presented clear and convincing evidence of fraud. The company also appealed various orders relating to discovery and the award of attorney's fees. Because the superior court applied the correct legal standard and did not abuse its discretion in finding that there was not clear and convincing evidence of fraud, the Supreme Court affirmed its denial of the Rule 60(b) motion. Furthermore, the Court affirmed the lower court's refusal to reopen discovery or awarding attorney's fees. View "Alaskan Adventure Tours, Inc. v. The City and Borough of Yakutat" on Justia Law

When passing a 1997 ordinance, the Anchorage Municipal Assembly amended the boundaries of a proposed Downtown Improvement District to exclude some properties on K and L Streets. The building at 420 L Street, the property owned by appellant L Street Investments, was in the original proposal but was subsequently carved out by the Assembly. In 2000 the Assembly extended the life of the District for ten years. Beginning in 2009, the Anchorage Downtown Partnership canvassed businesses hoping to extend the term of the District and expand it to include businesses between I and L Street. After the majority of business owners in the proposed District approved the extension and expansion, the Assembly extended the term of the District and expanded it to include businesses between I and L Streets, including the building at 420 L Street. L Street Investments filed suit, arguing: (1) Section 9.02(a) of the Municipality of Anchorage's Charter did not authorize the Municipality to finance services within the District by an assessment; and (2) the District is a "service area," and AS 29.35.450(c) prohibits the expansion of a service area unless a majority of voters in the area to be added vote in favor of expanding the service area. The Anchorage Downtown Partnership intervened, and all parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The superior court granted summary judgment to the Municipality and the Anchorage Downtown Partnership. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed the grant of summary judgment. View "L Street Investments v. Municipality of Anchorage" on Justia Law

The government sued Defendant-Appellant/Cross-Appellant James Holmes to collect taxes owned on his now-defunct business, Colorado Gas Compression, Inc. The district court granted final judgment in favor of the government. Defendant appealed that judgment. The government cross-appealed the district court's decision regarding the date from which prejudgment interest would be awarded. Colorado Gas made a series of distributions to defendant from 1995 to 2002 as part of its winding-down process. The government brought suit in 2008 on state counts of fraudulent conveyances, unlawful distributions and as an owner of the company who received its assets. Defendant argued the government was estopped from bringing suit under the applicable state statute of limitations because the government's suit was based on state law. The government countered by arguing its claims were subject to a ten-year federal statute of limitations. Upon careful consideration, the Tenth Circuit concluded the district court did not err in ruling in favor of the government. The Court further concluded that the government did not properly preserve the issue of prejudgment interest for appeal, and declined to consider it. View "United States v. Holmes" on Justia Law

Broz started a cellular telephone business by organizing a wholly owned S corporation, RFB, in 1991 and purchasing an FCC license to operate a cellular network in Northern Michigan. Broz expanded by organizing additional entities. Alpine and limited liability companies that are taxed as partnerships, were formed to hold and lease FCC licenses. Alpine never operated on-air networks. For the years at issue, Broz deducted: flow-through losses of Alpine on his personal income taxes, on the grounds that he had debt basis in, and was “at risk” with respect to, Alpine; interest, depreciation, startup costs, and other business expenses of the Alpine entities; and the amortization cost of the FCC licenses held by the Alpine entities. The IRS Commissioner determined a deficiency of $18 million in Broz’s income tax filings for the tax years at issue, finding that Broz had insufficient debt basis in Alpine o claim flow-through losses, that Broz was not at risk with respect to investments in the Alpine entities, that the Alpine entities were not entitled to interest, depreciation, startup expense, and other business-related deductions because they were not engaged in an active trade or business. The Tax Court and the Sixth Circuit affirmed. View "Broz v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue" on Justia Law

During the 1970s and 1980s, American Agri‐Corp organized several limited partnerships, for which the company served as general partner. American solicited high‐income individuals to serve as limited partners, investing in supposed agricultural ventures. According to the IRS, the actual purpose was to shelter the income of limited partners from taxation. Plaintiffs were each limited partners (or spouses) in at least one partnership that was audited by the IRS during the mid‐1980s. Several years later, the IRS concluded that the partnerships were, essentially, tax‐avoidance schemes .In 1990 and 1991, the IRS issued Final Partnership Administrative Adjusts for the partnerships and disallowed several listed farming expenses and other deductions for the 1984 or 1985 tax years. The Tax Court consolidated cases, held that the IRS action was not time‐barred, and determined that the partnerships had engaged in “transactions which lacked economic substance” that resulted in a substantial distortion of income and expense. The district court held that it lacked subject‐matter jurisdiction over the taxpayers’ claims that the assessments were untimely and improperly included penalty interest. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The determinations at issue are attributable to partnership items over which courts lack subject‐matter jurisdiction. View "Acute Care Specialists II v. United States" on Justia Law

WFC challenged the district court's holding that WFC was not entitled to a tax refund for a capital loss it claimed as a result of a complex transaction involving the transfer of leases and the sale of stock. WFC argued that the district court erred in finding that the lease restructuring transaction (LRT)/stock transfer constituted a sham transaction. The court concluded that the district court did not err in finding that the LRT/stock transaction lacked objective economic substance; in finding that WFC failed to meet its burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that avoiding the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) regulations was its business purpose for the LRT/stock transfer; and in finding that WFC failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the LRT/stock transfer was motivated by a purpose to strengthen its hand with good bank customers or to create management efficiencies. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "WFC Holdings Corp. v. United States" on Justia Law