The Pascagoula School District (which contains a Chevron crude oil refinery and a Gulf liquified natural gas terminal) brought suit, seeking a declaration that a new law that mandated that revenue the District collected from ad valorem taxes levied on liquified natural gas terminals and crude oil refineries be distributed to all school districts in the county where the terminals and refineries were located was unconstitutional and requesting injunctive relief. All parties filed for summary judgment. After a hearing, the trial judge ruled that the law was constitutional, and the plaintiffs appealed that decision. Because the Supreme Court found the contested statute violated the constitutional mandate that a school district's taxes be used to maintain "its schools," it reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Pascagoula School District v. Tucker" on Justia Law

Married couples formed Virgin Islands corporations that were limited partners in a VI limited liability limited partnership, Four Points, and derived all of their income from Four Points. The couples assert that they were not bona fide residents of the Virgin Islands in 2006, but that a portion of their income was derived from sources there, I.R.C. 932(a)(1)(A)(ii). Both couples filed 2006 tax returns with the U.S. and with the Virgin Islands, but, rather than paying the Virgin Islands, they paid all taxes to the U.S., claiming that they believed that the IRS would pay the Virgin Islands or that the VIBIR would obtain the amounts from the IRS. The couples filed suit to compel the VIBIR to declare whether the income was derived from sources within the Virgin Islands and, against the U.S., requested refunds. The district court dismissed with respect to the Virgin Islands and transferred the claim against the U.S. to Florida. The Third Circuit affirmed. Taxpayers stated no cause of action against the Virgin Islands and any claims are not ripe, as there has been no administrative action against them. The District Court of the Virgin Islands may transfer VI tax cases to other district courts. View "In re:Birdman" on Justia Law

John and Minerva Sutherland entered into a mining lease granting Meridian Granite Company the right to conduct mining operations on the Sutherlands' property. A dispute developed between the Sutherlands and Meridian regarding the Sutherlands' obligation to pay taxes relating to the mineral production. The dispute led to litigation. The district court granted Meridian's motion for summary judgment, ruling that the Sutherlands were obligated to pay the disputed taxes. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in allowing Meridian to deduct ad valorem and severance taxes from payments to the Sutherlands when such tax payments were not required by the State, as the Sutherlands and Meridian agreed in the mining lease that the Sutherlands would pay the taxes. View "Sutherland v. Meridian Granite Co." on Justia Law

Appellant sought judicial review of the Commissioner's notice of determination sustaining a proposed levy to collect his delinquent income tax liabilities for 1996-2002 and a tax-lien filing for 1998 and 2000-2002 tax liabilities. Appellant also sought review of the Commissioner's denial of collection due process (CDP) hearings to his purported nominees and alter egos. Following trial, the tax court upheld the Commissioner's determinations and appellant appealed. The court agreed with the tax court that appellant was not denied a fair CDP hearing based on the IRS settlement officer's purported reliance on information that was not part of the administrative record in making his determination where the officer provided a complete administrative record to the tax court. Even assuming that the officer did rely on documents outside of the administrative record, the error was harmless. The court also held that the tax court lacked jurisdiction to review letters from an IRS revenue officer to the purported alter egos and nominees because that court's jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. 6330(d)(1) was limited to reviewing determinations by the IRS Appeals Office. View "Gillum v. CIR" on Justia Law

The issue before the Supreme Court in this case concerned the validity of two 2005 Kenai Peninsula Borough (Borough) ordinances: one enacted by the Borough Assembly and the second enacted by voter initiative. The Borough Assembly enacted an ordinance in June 2005 that increased the sales tax rate from two percent to three percent. In an October 2005 election, Borough voters passed an initiative that required prior voter approval for all Borough capital projects with a total cost of more than one million dollars. The Alliance for Concerned Taxpayers (ACT) challenged the sales tax increase and sought to enforce the capital projects voter approval requirement. The superior court granted summary judgment to the Borough on both matters: on the sales tax issue, reasoning that a 1964 voter action allowed the increase and the 2006 referendum defeat ratified it; and on the capital projects voter approval issue, reasoning that Proposition 4 was an unconstitutional use of the initiative power to appropriate a public asset. ACT appealed. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the superior court's grant of summary judgment on the sales tax issue and the capital project voter approval issue, concluding the 1964 voter authorization of a three-percent sales tax preserved the Borough's right to raise the rate to three percent, and that the 2006 defeat of the referendum to repeal the rate increase constituted a ratification of the increase. On the voter approval issue, the Court concluded that allowing voters to veto any capital improvement projects of over $1 million had the effect of diluting the Borough Assembly's exclusive control over the budget and was therefore an impermissible appropriation. View "Alliance of Concerned Taxpayers, Inc. v. Kenai Peninsula Borough" on Justia Law

After an error resulted in omission of a will's residual clause, litigation between the decedent's son and a charitable trust settled with the son receiving $5,600,000 and property and the trust receiving $11,721,141. The Estate filed a claim for federal estate tax charitable deduction. The IRS disallowed the deduction, finding that the contribution was made by the son via the settlement. The district court granted the Estate summary judgment, but found the government's position substantially justified and did not award fees or costs. The Third Circuit affirmed. The award for prevailing parties under 26 U.S.C. 7430 incorporates the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. 2412(d)(1)(B), under which recovery of fees is barred if a party’s net worth exceeds the statutory amount. Parties seeking to recover under either the prevailing party provision or the qualified offer provision must satisfy the net worth requirements. Although the trust satisfied the net worth requirements as a tax-exempt charitable organization with fewer than 500 employees, the court rejected an argument that it was the real party in interest. View "Estate of Palumbo v. United States" on Justia Law

In August 2004, MMC began to look into filing a tax refund claim for reimbursement of FICA made on behalf of its medical residents in 2001. In March 2005, MMC discussed the matter with its accountants. On April 15, 2005, the day the claim was due, MMC completed the form; it has no evidence that it followed its standard practice and took the form to the post office. The IRS asserts that it has no record of receiving the claim. In December 2009, MMC filed a refund suit. The government refused to respond to discovery requests relating to the 2001 claim, arguing that the claim was not timely filed. The district court entered judgment for the government. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that MMC did not make an adequate threshold showing that its refund claim was timely filed, and thus the district court did not have jurisdiction to hear the case. View "ME Med. Ctr. v. United States" on Justia Law

The Carnegie Public Library is located within Carroll County. It and two other libraries within the county are maintained through funds generated by an ad valorem tax. Appellees, the county officials responsible for distribution of the tax proceeds, divided the library tax evenly between the three libraries. Appellants, the Carnegie Library, library board, and two individuals, filed a complaint alleging that, pursuant to section 19 of Act 74 of 1883, the county was required to divide the tax proceeds based on the division of the county into the Eastern and Western Districts, which would result in fifty percent of all tax revenue collected being distributed wholly to the Carnegie Library as the only public library in the Western District. The circuit court dismissed Appellants' complaint, holding (1) section 19 of Act of 1883 was unconstitutional, and (2) the Act did nothing more than create two judicial districts. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that a challenge to the distribution of the tax proceeds should have been raised in county court, and therefore, the circuit court lacked jurisdiction, as did the Supreme Court. View "Carnegie Pub. Library of Eureka Springs v. Carrroll County" on Justia Law

The New Hampshire Department of Revenue Administration (DRA) appealed a superior court order that reversed its decision assessing a real estate transfer tax against Petitioners Say Pease, LLC and Say Pease IV, LLC. Two International Group, LLC (TIG) is a real estate holding company. It owned a ground lease on property near Pease International Tradeport that it wanted to use to secure a mortgage loan. To obtain the loan, TIG’s prospective lender required that TIG, and all of its members, be "single purpose bankruptcy remote entities." To comply with the lender’s requirement, the members of Say Pease formed Say Pease IV, a new limited liability company (LLC) with the same members. Say Pease IV’s LLC agreement provides that it was "formed for the sole purpose of being a Managing Member and Member of [TIG]" and was not authorized "to engage in any other activity[,] business or undertaking so long as [TIG] shall be indebted under any mortgage or other securitized loan." Say Pease’s interest in TIG was transferred to Say Pease IV, and Say Pease IV replaced Say Pease as TIG’s managing member. As a result of these transactions, Say Pease IV owned a 47.5% interest in TIG as a sole purpose remote bankruptcy entity, Say Pease held no interest in TIG, and TIG obtained the loan. Based upon this transfer, DRA issued notices assessing the real estate transfer tax against Say Pease and Say Pease IV. After appealing unsuccessfully through DRA’s administrative appeal process, Say Pease and Say Pease IV appealed to the superior court. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, and the trial court reversed DRA's order, ruling that the transfer at issue was not a "[c]ontractual transfer," RSA 78-B:1-a, II (2003), and, therefore, the real estate transfer tax did not apply. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the parties did not employ a business entity as a shield for an otherwise taxable exchange of value for an interest in property. Instead, those that executed Say Pease IV’s LLC agreement sought to maintain TIG’s original ownership while placing it in a suitable financing vehicle; the promises exchanged related to the creation of the financing vehicle, Say Pease IV, not the subsequent property transfer. Thus, the substance of the transaction here failed to create a bargained-for exchange because there was no "exchange of money, or other property and services, or property or services valued in money for an interest in real estate." View "Say Pease IV, LLC v. New Hampshire Dept. of Rev. Admin. " on Justia Law

After Sawmill Creek's taxes became delinquent on its property, the Marion County Auditor set the property for tax sale. A tax deed was issued to McCord Investments upon the petition of the Auditor following the one-year redemption period after a tax sale. The trial court ultimately set aside the tax deed on grounds that the Auditor's effort to notify Sawmill of the tax sale was constitutionally deficient for failing to meet the requirements of due process. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the notices of the tax sale and of Sawmill's right to redeem did not violate due process because, under the Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust Co. standard, the Auditor's actions were reasonably calculated to provide notice to Sawmill. View "Marion County Auditor v. Sawmill Creek, LLC" on Justia Law