In 1997 plaintiff held a 25% stake in a utility in the United Kingdom that was one of 32 U.K. companies subject to a one-time "windfall tax." After it paid that tax, plaintiff claimed a foreign tax credit on its U.S. tax return under I.R.C. 901. The windfall tax emerged from a backlash against the privatization of British utilities and transit operators. In concept, the windfall tax was a one-time 23% tax on the difference between each company’s "profit-making value" and the price for which the U.K. government had sold it. The public believed that the government had sold the companies too cheaply. In 2007, the IRS denied plaintiff's claim and issued a notice of deficiency. The Tax Court agreed that plaintiff was entitled to a foreign tax credit. The Third Circuit reversed, holding that the windfall tax does not qualify for a foreign tax credit. Whether a foreign tax qualifies requires analysis of the timing and the base of the foreign tax; a realization requirement, one of timing, ensures that the taxpayer has received income before being obligated to pay taxes on it.

In a consolidated appeal, the Commonwealth's Department of Revenue appealed the Commonwealth Court's decisions which held Appellees Northeastern Pennsylvania Imaging Center and Medical Associates of the Lehigh Valley P.C.'s MRI and PET/CT systems were not tangible personal property subject to sales tax under the Tax Reform Code of 1971 because they were part of real estate structures. Finding that the preparation for the installation of the systems and the special way the systems were "annexed" to the buildings in which they were placed, the Commonwealth Court concluded the systems were not tangible personal property subject to the tax but parts to the realty. The Department appealed both decisions. Upon review of the applicable sections of the Tax Code, the Supreme Court found that the equipment was subject to sales tax, and reversed the Commonwealth Court’s decision.

Missouri law provides for two sales tax rates: a standard rate of four percent that applies to most retail sales, and a reduced rate of one percent that applies to some, but not all, sales of food. Krispy Kreme sought review of a decision of the Administrative Hearing Commission (AHC) that Krispy Kreme must collect tax at the four percent rate on all retail food sales at its Missouri locations. At issue on appeal was whether Krispy Kreme's product fell under the definition of "food" in Mo. Rev. Stat. 144.014.1, which establishes the lower sales tax rate for purchases of food. The Supreme Court reversed in part and affirmed in part, holding (1) the phrase "food prepared by such establishment for immediate consumption on and off the premises" in section 144.014.1 means all food that is eaten at the place of preparation and purchase, or while traveling to, or immediately upon arrival at another location without any further preparation; (2) affirmed the AHC's decision to overrule Krispy Kreme's motion for summary decision because neither party was entitled to summary decision; and (3) reversed the portion of the AHC's decision sustaining the director's motion. Remanded.

Humboldt Field Research Institute and Eagle Hill foundation applied for a property tax exemption pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. 36, 652(1)(A) and (B), which the Town assessors denied. The county commissioners upheld the Town's denial, and the superior court affirmed. Humboldt and Eagle Hill appealed, arguing (1) the Town was required to continue Humboldt's and Eagle Hill's tax exemptions from the prior year, which were based on their status as charitable institutions, absent evidence of an organizational change; and (2) the organizations were exempt as literary and scientific institutions. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Maine law consistently places the burden on the taxpayer to prove entitlement to a tax exemption, even when an exemption has been granted in prior years, if the assessor challenges the exemption; and (2) the commissioners did not err in determining that Humboldt and Eagle Hill did not meet their burden to prove entitlement to an exemption.

Defendant appealed from a conviction of 16 counts of aiding and assisting in the preparation of false federal income tax returns and was sentenced to concurrent terms of 41 months incarceration, three years' supervised release, and restitution and a special assessment. The court affirmed the conviction except with respect to certain aspects of the sentence, as to which the judgment was vacated and remanded for: (1) resentencing within the range authorized by statute, and (2) amendment of the restitution order to: (a) determine whether the State and the City of New York were victims entitled to restitution, (b) exclude payments already made by the five taxpayer-clients to the IRS, and (c) exclude losses associated with a 2001 tax return that did not serve as a basis for any of the 16 counts of conviction.

Utah's exemption statute provides that a retirement plan "that is described in" I.R.C. 401(a) is exempt from a debtor's bankruptcy estate. Upon filing for bankruptcy, Douglas Reinhart claimed that the funds in his Keogh retirement plan were exempt from bankruptcy proceedings. The bankruptcy court determined that the Keogh plan was not technically tax qualified under I.R.C. 401(a) due to certain operational defects. Although the Keogh plan was operationally in default, the bankruptcy court found the plan was described in section 401(a), and thus, the funds in the plan were exempt under the exemption statute. The bankruptcy court entered an exemption order, and the trustee of Reinhart's bankruptcy estate appealed. The U.S. district court affirmed. The Supreme Court accepted certification to answer the question of whether a retirement plan can be "described in" section 401(a) when it fails to fulfill that section's requirements for tax qualification. The Court held that a retirement plan is "described in" section 401(a) if it substantially complies with that section.

This case involved the regulations of the New York City Taxi & Limousine Commission, limiting rates that could be charged by owners of taxicabs who leased those cabs to drivers. Owners challenged a Commission regulation that prohibited owners from collecting sales tax in addition to the maximum permitted lease rates. The court held that the regulation must be annulled because the Commission had not shown any rational basis for it.

A tax employee of defendant, terminated after reporting an alleged tax fraud scheme to the company and federal enforcement agencies, filed suit asserting claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. 1962(c) and 1962(d). The district court dismissed, finding that the predicate acts alleged were either unrelated or did not proximately cause plaintiff's injuries. The Seventh Circuit reversed. The retaliatory actions were related to the alleged tax fraud scheme, under the Supreme Court's "continuity plus relationship" test. Since enactment of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, 18 U.S.C. 1513(e) retaliation against an employee constitutes racketeering. Retaliatory acts are inherently connected to the underlying wrongdoing exposed by the whistleblower, even though they occur after the coverup is exposed. In this case, the retaliatory acts were not isolated events, separate from the tax fraud. Plaintiff properly alleged that his termination was proximately caused by a RICO predicate act of retaliation.

Gibraltar brought this action against Boston Private for specific performance of Boston Private's obligations under the tax allocation provision of the stock purchase agreement between the parties. Both parties moved for judgment on the pleadings under Court of Chancery Rule 12(c) on the question of how the tax payment provided for in the Stock Purchase Agreement should be calculated. In support of their respective motions, both parties argue that Section 5.5(d) of the Stock Purchase Agreement was unambiguous and that their respective interpretation was the only reasonable interpretation. The court held that the relevant portion of Section 5.5(d) was ambiguous. Since each party had advanced a reading of Section 5.5(d) that was reasonable, neither party had met its burden of demonstrating that its interpretation was the only reasonable interpretation. Accordingly, judgment on the pleadings was denied.

Emerson Electric Company and its subsidiaries timely filed consolidated tax returns for South Carolina in fiscal years 1999 through 2002. The periods at issue in this appeal were tax years 1999, 2000, and 2001 (license tax years 2000, 2001, and 2002). In its initial returns, Emerson did not claim deductions for expenses related to its receipt of dividends from subsidiary corporations. Emerson later filed amended returns, claiming the deductions and seeking a refund. Emerson's claimed entitlement to the deductions on its South Carolina returns was the question before the Supreme Court. Emerson argued in the that section 12-6-2220(2), as applied, discriminated against non-resident taxpayers in violation of the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the record revealed Emerson availed itself of these same deductions numerous times against its taxable income in various other taxing jurisdictions. The Administrative Law Court properly found Emerson failed to carry its burden of proving that the application of section 12-6-2220 violated the Commerce Clause. The Department of Revenue properly disallowed Emerson's related expense deductions. Emerson's related expense deductions were properly allocated to the state of its principal place of business, Missouri.