Defendants owned an engineering and surveying company. Between 2002 and 2008, it failed to pay the IRS more than $500,000 in taxes withheld from employee paychecks. They were convicted of conspiracy to defraud the United States, 18 U.S.C. 371, and 21 counts of failure to account and pay over employment taxes, 26 U.S.C. 7202. The Third Circuit affirmed the convictions, rejecting claims of evidentiary errors, but remanded for resentencing. The district court erred in imposing a two-level increase to the offense levels for abuse of a position of trust, pursuant to U.S.S.G. 3B1.3.View "United States v. DeMuro" on Justia Law

On April 30, 2010, Midwest Renewable Energy and Marquette Equipment Finance (Marquette) filed a Nebraska personal property return that reported a value of zero dollars for three items involving ethanol manufacturing equipment. The tax assessor determined that the taxable value of the property should have been $4,170,149 and changed the value on the return. Marquette appealed the action of the assessor. On July 19, 2010, the county board of equalization upheld the assessor's action. Republic Bank, which had rights in the property, did not receive a copy of the Board's decision from Marquette until August 20, 2010. Republic subsequently appealed. The Nebraska Tax Equalization and Review Commission (TERC) received the appeal on August 23, 2010. TERC dismissed the appeal as untimely under Neb. Rev. Stat. 77-12.33.06(4) because it was filed more than thirty days after the decision of the county board of equalization. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that TERC correctly concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to consider the appeal, as it was not timely filed under section 77-1233.06(4). View "Republic Bank v. Bd. of Equalization" on Justia Law

Midwest Renewable Energy and Marquette Equipment Finance (Marquette) executed a master lease agreement for certain manufacturing equipment, including two distillation columns. Later, Marquette assigned its interest in the lease to Prime Alliance Bank and agreed to file personal property tax returns on the equipment as an agent for Prime Alliance. On April 30, 2010, Marquette filed a personal property return with the county assessor that showed the taxable value of the two distillation columns as $0. The assessor changed the value of the columns to $776,832. Prime Alliance challenged the assessor's change, and, on July 19, 2010, the county Board of Equalization upheld the change. On August 23, 2010, Prime Alliance filed an appeal from the order to the Nebraska Tax Equalization and Review Commission (TERC). TERC dismissed the appeal as untimely. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that TERC did not err in dismissing the appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as the appeal was not timely filed under Neb. Rev. Stat. 77-1233.06(4). View "Prime Alliance Bank v. Bd. of Equalization" on Justia Law

Taxpayer appealed a judgment of the Tax Court rejecting two contentions: first, a constitutional claim that certain employees of the IRS's Office of Appeals were "Officers of the United States," so that their appointments must conform to the Constitution's Appointments Clause, art. II, section 2, cl. 2, and second, an argument that the employees in question abused their discretion in rejecting his proposed compromise of the collection of his tax liability. Because the authority exercised by the Appeals Office employees whose status was challenged here appeared insufficient to rank them even as "inferior Officers," the court rejected the constitutional claims. Furthermore, the court found no abuse of discretion in those employee's decision in this case. View "Tucker v. Commissioner, IRS" on Justia Law

Taxpayers filed original federal income tax returns for 2003 through 2006, followed by alleged amended returns seeking refunds for those same years. They filed original returns in 2007 and 2008, seeking refunds. In 2010, they filed a complaint seeking a claim for refund for tax years 2003 through 2008 and damages for a tax lien filed as a result of penalties. The Claims Court dismissed, finding that the statute of limitations had expired with regard to 2003 and that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction with respect to other years because amended returns and original returns that contained zeros in place of income did not constitute returns and were not proper claims for refund. Taxpayers did not allege any facts sufficient to state a plausible claim for a tax refund. The Federal Circuit affirmed. The amended returns replaced income previously reported, consistent with third-party information provided the IRS, with zeros; taxpayers took no action to obtain corrected third party forms that would corroborate the claims. The returns do not implicate an "honest and reasonable intent to supply information required by the tax code" or rise to the level of specificity required by regulation. View "Waltner v. United States" on Justia Law

The City of Cranston, by and through its tax assessor, valued Plaintiff Narragansett Electric Company's tangible personal property located within that municipality at $23,290,814. Plaintiff appealed the tax assessment. The tax assessor and Tax Board of Review denied Plaintiff's appeal. Plaintiff then filed a complaint in the superior court, naming as defendants Cranston's finance director and its tax assessor. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, contending that the superior court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because Plaintiff had not timely filed his appeal to the tax assessor. The hearing justice agreed and granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the superior court, holding (1) because Defendants failed to plead as an affirmative defense Plaintiff's noncompliance with a condition precedent in accordance with R.I. Sup. Ct. 9(c), Defendants waived their contention that Plaintiff did not file its appeal with the tax assessor in a timely manner; and (2) therefore, the hearing justice should have exercised the superior court's subject matter jurisdiction and heard Plaintiff's appeal. View "Narragansett Elec. Co. v. Saccoccio" on Justia Law

The government asserted that petitioner had participated in a tax avoidance scheme to take advantage of the lower taxes in the Virgin Islands. At issue was whether the Tax Court abused its discretion in denying the motion of the Virgin Islands to intervene in this case, which was filed in response to a notice of deficiency issued by the IRS to petitioner for not paying U.S. income taxes. Because Tax Court Rule 1(b) gave the Tax Court broad discretion in deciding whether and to what extent to follow Rule 24 governing intervention and because Rule 24 itself conferred broad discretion on a trial court, the court gave deference to the Tax Court's decision to deny intervention, reviewing for only a clear abuse of discretion. Because the Tax Court's concerns over the consequences of granting the Virgin Islands' motion to intervene were not unreasonable, the court found no clear abuse of the Tax Court's broad discretion. View "McHenry v. Commissioner of IRS" on Justia Law

In 1998, the Supreme Court held that the Harbor Maintenance Tax, 26 U.S.C. 4461-4462, was unconstitutional as applied to exports. U.S. Customs enacted procedures for refunds and established a separate HMT database with data from its ACS database, through which HMT payments had been processed. Customs discovered wide-spread inaccuracies in its HMT database, but was unable to make corrections related to payments made before July 1, 1990, because it no longer had original documents. Customs established different requirements for supporting documentation, depending on whether an exporter was seeking a refund of pre- or post-July 1, 1990 payments. Ford sought HMT refunds for both pre- and post-July 1, 1990, payments and has received more than $17 million, but claims that Customs still owes about $2.5 million. In addition to a FOIA Report of Ford’s pre-July 1, 1990 payments was drawn from information in the ACS database, Ford submitted an affidavit attesting that it was only claiming refunds of HMT paid on exports and declarations about the consistency and quality of its quarterly HMT payment records. Customs denied the claims. The Trade Court entered judgment in favor of the government. The Federal Circuit affirmed. The claims were insufficient because there still was high potential for error. View "Ford Motor Co. v. United States" on Justia Law

Appellants in this case were nine Alabama municipalities and the Birmingham-Jefferson Civic Center Authority appealed the grant of summary judgment entered in favor of Appellees, sixteen online travel service companies and related entities (the "OTCs"). The issue was whether the OTCs were liable for paying the municipalities a lodgings tax under the local lodgings-tax ordinances of the respective municipal plaintiffs. After considering the record in this case, the briefs of the parties, and the trial court's order, the Supreme Court agreed with the trial court's reasoning in its summary judgment order, and therefore affirmed the judgment in favor of the OTCs. View "City of Birmingham v. Orbitz, LLC." on Justia Law

In 2006, Petitioner Chander Khurana was audited by the Mississippi State Department of Revenue (MSDR) and assessed taxes. Petitioner appealed the assessments to the Board of Review and eventually the full State Tax Commission, both of which affirmed the assessment. In 2007, Petitioner filed his appeal of the assessments to the Chancery Court; however he did not pay the taxes or post a bond at the time he filed his petition as required by statute. MSDR filed a motion for summary judgment and dismissal, arguing Petitioner failed to perfect his appeal. The chancellor denied the motion and ultimately affirmed the assessments. Petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court claiming the full Commission and chancery court acted arbitrarily and capriciously. MSDR cross-appealed, claiming the chancellor erred in denying its motion for summary judgment and dismissal. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded Petitioner failed to comply with the statutory requirements of paying the tax or bond. Therefore, the chancery court did not have appellate jurisdiction over Petitioner's appeal, and should have granted MSDR's motion for summary judgment and dismissal. The Court reversed the judgment of the chancery court and rendered judgment for the Mississippi Department of Revenue. Because the chancery court should not have reached the merits of the case, the chancery court's order affirming the assessments was vacated. The order of the Commission remained in effect. View "Khurana v. Mississippi Dept. of Revenue" on Justia Law