Since at least 1986, the town had a deteriorating sewer system. Defects allowed inflow and infiltration (I/I). Wet weather caused overflow, contaminating the ocean, rivers, and wetlands. To avoid overflow into housing, the town installed, without approval, a bypass pump that discharged raw sewage into the Saugus River. In 2005, the town entered into a consent order with the Department of Environmental Protection, acknowledging violations of the Clean Water Act and state law; the town was required to implement plans to eliminate I/I. There was a moratorium on new connections until the problem was addressed. The town embarked on a 10-year, $27 million dollar plan. Ratepayers were to finance the majority of the plan. In the interim, the town required new connections to pay an I/I reduction contribution, calculated by multiplying, by a factor that decreased as repairs were completed, the number of gallons of new flow to be generated. Plaintiff, developers, paid $670,460 to accommodate new flow from the single-family houses and multifamily housing. The trial court concluded that the charge provided no particularized benefit to the developers; that the amount was excessive compared to regulatory costs involved; and that the charge was an impermissible tax. The Massachusetts Supreme Court vacated, finding that the charge is a fee. View "Denver St. LLC v. Town of Saugus" on Justia Law

Hill and his wife incorporated a tax service business, run out of their apartment, then obtained the names, birth dates, and social security numbers of real individuals and filed approximately 121 false tax returns for the tax year 2005, amounting to approximately $525,460 in false filings. In total, the IRS issued approximately $353,500 in tax refunds, which were electronically transferred to value cards which Hill was able to redeem for cash. Hill pled guilty to conspiracy to defraud the U.S.,18 U.S.C. 286 and one of 20 charged counts of fraud in connection with identity theft, 18 U.S.C. 1028(a)(7) and was sentenced to 92 months in prison. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, finding the sentence reasonable. View "United States v. Hill" on Justia Law

In this case, Appellants, Cincinnati Golf Management, Inc. (CGMI) and the City of Cincinnati, challenged a consumer's use-tax assessment issued by the tax commissioner against CGMI. The commissioner assessed tax with respect to purchases that the commissioner deemed to be taxable under the sales and use tax laws of Ohio. Appellants asserted that because CGMI made the purchases as an agent for the City, the purchases were exempt as sales to a political subdivision pursuant to Ohio Rev. Code 5739.02(B)(1). Both the commissioner and the Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) found that CGMI, acting in its capacity as an independent contractor under the management agreement between it and the City, did not qualify as an agent of the City with respect to the sales at issue. Accordingly, the BTA upheld the assessment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Appellants' arrangements did not satisfy the elements of agency for purposes of section 5739.02(B)(1); and (2) purchases by CGMI did not constitute sales to the City under the sales tax law's definition of a sale. View "Cincinnati Golf Mgmt., Inc. v. Testa " on Justia Law

In this appeal, a property owner challenged an increase to the 2006 valuation of its property that was ordered by the Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) at the instigation of the Bedford Board of Education. The BTA reversed the decision of the Cuyahoga County Board of Revision (BOR), which had retained the auditor's valuation of $3,713,500. The BTA valued the property by using the allocated portion of the March 2006 sale price, which increased the valuation to $4,835,000. The owner appealed, contending that the allocated sale price was not reflective of market value. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the BTA erred by ignoring and failing to weigh the significance of testimony regarding the seller's tax motivations in allocating the sale price to the subject property; and (2) because it is the duty of the BTA to weigh the evidence and determine the facts concerning valuation, the case was remanded for proper consideration of the effect of that testimony. View "Bedford Bd. of Educ. v. Bd. of Revision" on Justia Law

Appellants, three individuals who participated in businesses that helped customers evade federal and state income taxes, were convicted for conspiracy to defraud the United States, mail fraud, false representation of a Social Security number, passport fraud, and failure to file income tax returns. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions and sentences for all Appellants with the exception of one Appellant (Giordano)'s restitution order, which was vacated and remanded for recalculation, holding (1) Appellants' convictions did not violate the First Amendment, as Appellants did far more than advocate tax evasion and instead developed a vast enterprise that helped clients hide their income from federal and state tax authorities; (2) the indictment did not erroneously include misdemeanor crimes among the eighty-one objects of the felony conspiracy count; (3) the district court did not err in instructing the jury on the crime of failure to file income taxes; but (4) the district court failed to consider evidence that Giordano presented at sentencing. View "United States v. Meredith" on Justia Law

At issue in this appeal was whether the Maryland Credit Services Businesses Act (CSBA) applies to a tax preparer who receives payment from a lending bank for facilitating a consumer's obtention of a refund anticipation loan (RAL) where the tax preparer receives no direct payment from the consumer for this service. In this case, the circuit court dismissed Consumer's CSBA claim for failure to state a claim, concluding that the General Assembly enacted the CSBA to regulate credit repair agencies and not RAL facilitators. The court of special appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the plain language of the CSBA most logically is understood as reflecting the legislative intent that the "payment of money or other valuable consideration" in return for credit services flow directly from the consumer to the credit service business; and (2) therefore, under the CSBA, Tax Preparer in this case was not a "credit services business" nor a "consumer"; and (3) accordingly, the CSBA did not apply in this case. View "Gomez v. Jackson Hewitt, Inc." on Justia Law

Former co-pastors of the Greater Salem Church in North Carolina Defendants-Appellants Anthony and Harriet Jinwright appealed their convictions and sentences arising from a tax evasion scheme in which they omitted millions of dollars in taxable income from their jointly filed returns. Defendants raised a variety of challenges on appeal. Finding each contention to be without merit, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment. View "US v. Jinwright" on Justia Law

106 Ltd. (Partnership), a limited partnership, appearing through its tax matters partner David Palmlund, appealed a decision of the United States Tax Court upholding the imposition of a forty per cent accuracy-related penalty by the IRS. The IRS determined that the Partnership had utilized a so-called "Son of BOSS" tax shelter to overstate its basis in Partnership interests by approximately $3 million and to thereby reduce Palmlund's individual federal income tax liability by nearly $400,000. The sole issue before the D.C. Circuit was whether the Tax Court erred in determining that the Partnership failed to establish a reasonable cause defense to the accuracy-related penalty pursuant to 26 U.S.C. 6664(c)(1). The D.C. Circuit affirmed, holding that the Tax Court did not err in concluding that the Partnership failed to establish the reasonable cause defense to the forty per cent accuracy-related penalty. View "106 Ltd. v. Comm'r of IRS" on Justia Law

In this appeal, 1495 Jaeger LLC challenged the denial by the board of tax appeals (BTA) of a motion through which Jaeger sought to carry forward a stipulated value for tax year 2008 to subsequent tax years. On February 1, 2011, the BTA issued a dispositive order that adopted a property value that had been stipulated by the parties for the tax year 2008. On July 11, 2011, Jaeger filed its motion for an additional BTA order that would require that the stipulated value be carried forward through tax year 2011. The BTA denied Jaeger's motion on the grounds that it had no jurisdiction, reasoning that it lost jurisdiction when the thirty-day period for appealing its February 1 dispositional order expired. Jaeger appealed, arguing that the continuing-complaint provision of Ohio Rev. Code 5715.19(D) conferred jurisdiction on the BTA. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the BTA correctly concluded it lacked jurisdiction to modify its decision after expiration of the thirty-day appeal period. View "1495 Jaeger LLC v. Bd. of Revision" on Justia Law

In this case the Supreme Court examined whether income received by a corporation's affiliated foreign reinsurance companies falls within the ambit of Indiana's gross premium privilege tax statute and is on that basis exempt from Indiana adjusted gross income tax. The corporation in this case was UPS, which protested the Indiana Department of Revenue's audit, which disallowed the exclusion from Indiana adjusted gross income the income of UPS's affiliates. The Indiana tax court granted UPS's motion for summary judgment, reasoning that because UPS was "subject to" the premium tax, it was exempt from the adjusted gross income tax. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that because the record did not establish that during the years in question UPS's affiliates were doing business within the state of Indiana, which was a necessary condition in order to be "subject to" the premium tax, UPS failed in its burden of establishing that it was entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. Remanded. View "Ind. Dep't of Revenue v. UPS" on Justia Law