Property owners appealed a special tax assessment the Board of County Commissioners levied against real property for cleanup costs the County claimed it incurred while removing dangerous structures and unsightly conditions on that property. The district court found subject matter jurisdiction lacking and granted the County's summary judgment motion. The court of appeals affirmed. At issue on appeal was whether the property owners' claims could be brought on direct review under Kan. Stat. Ann. 60-907(a), which provides injunctive relief against an illegal levy or enforcement of any tax, charge, or assessment. The Supreme Court affirmed and in part and reversed in part, holding (1) the property owners satisfied the jurisdictional burdens under section 60-907(a) on two of its three issues; and (2) because the district court went beyond the jurisdiction question and found for the County on the merits and the court of appeals stopped short of considering the merits of any claims when it found the entire case was jurisdictionally barred, the court of appeals erred in part in its jurisdictional ruling. Remanded to the court of appeals to determine whether the district court properly granted summary judgment as to the remaining claims.

Three defendants were charged with conspiring to defraud the U.S. by obstructing the functions of the IRS, endeavoring to obstruct administration of the Internal Revenue laws, filing false tax returns, making false statements to FBI agents, and scheming to conceal material facts from a federal agency in connection with a charitable organization founded in 1993, which promoted Islamic jihad. A 24-day trial resulted in acquittal on all charges for one defendant and sentences of 12 months and 11 months in prison for the others. The First Circuit reversed acquittal on conspiracy counts, reinstating a guilty verdict, and affirmed the convictions on other counts. The variance in proof at trial did not prejudice defendants' substantial rights and the evidence was sufficient to prove a conspiracy narrower than charged.

In 2004, Sherry Ray formed CFRE, a single-member limited liability company with herself as the sole member. CFRE conducts no business and was formed solely for estate planning and asset protection purposes. To that end, Ray declined to have CFRE taxed as a corporation and, in 2006, deeded the title in her home to it. Because there was a conveyance by deed of the property, the Greenville County Assessor automatically commenced a reassessment of the property for the 2007 tax year. Accordingly, the property was subjected to the default property tax ratio of six percent until CFRE could prove entitlement to the lower ratio under section 12-43-220. When CFRE sought the four percent ratio, the Assessor denied it eligibility. CFRE, LLC appealed the decision of the Administrative Law Court (ALC) that held that real estate owned by the company was not entitled to the residential tax ratio. Furthermore, CFRE argued the ALC erred in not sanctioning the Assessor for failing to respond to discovery requests from CFRE. While the Supreme Court held the ALC did not abuse its discretion in not sanctioning the Assessor, the Court reversed the ALC's conclusion regarding CFRE's entitlement to the legal residence tax ratio and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Plaintiffs, landowners, challenged special assessments against their property for public improvements to a residential subdivision made by the city. Plaintiffs argued that the city council's decision to make public improvements within a subdivision rendered the city unable to assess the costs of the improvements to the landowners when a city ordinance provided for the improvements to be made by the subdivider. The district court (1) determined the city failed to enforce a subdivision ordinance requiring the subdivider to pay for street improvements but concluded that Plaintiffs failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted because a city cannot be sued for its failure to enforce ordinances; and (2) found the assessments were not excessive. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Plaintiffs failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, (2) the city's failure to require the subdivider to personally make all improvements did not invalidate the authority of the city to assess property owners, and (3) the Plaintiffs did not establish the assessments to their property exceeded the special benefits provided by the improvement.

A sausage manufacturer brought claims against its former business partner, Pizza Hut, in 1993. In 2002 the manufacturer agreed to drop its last remaining claim, trade secret misappropriation, in exchange for a $15.3 million payment. When it received its $6.12 million take-home portion of the settlement, C&F, a shareholder and an S corporation, reported the income as long-term capital gain. Its shareholders reported their passed-through pro rata shares the same way. The IRS concluded that the settlement income should have been taxed as ordinary income and issued each of the shareholders a deficiency notice. The tax court and Seventh Circuit affirmed. The tax court found that Pizza Hut paid for lost profits, lost opportunities, operating losses and expenditures and rightly concluded that the settlement did not represent the final phase of a 13-year-long transfer of a capital asset. Because there was not a complete transfer of all substantial rights, there was no sale of a capital asset or long-term capital gain resulting therefrom.

Flight Options, LLC challenged the constitutional and statutory authority of the Department of Revenue to assess apportioned property taxes against a fleet of airplanes it managed. Specifically, Flight Options argued that its airplanes did not have a tax situs in Washington state, and that the due process clause of the federal constitution prohibited assessment of taxes on them. Upon review of the briefs submitted and the applicable legal authority, the Supreme Court rejected each of Flight Options’ contentions and affirmed the lower court decision dismissing Flight Options’ case.

In 2007, Davison County adopted a county-wide plan to reassess agricultural structures. The County reassessed agricultural structures in four of its twelve townships that year. Donald and Gene Stehly, who owned agricultural structures in the four reassessed townships, initiated a declaratory judgment action, alleging that the plan to reassess four townships each year created an unconstitutional lack of uniform taxation within the county. The trial court concluded that the Stehlys' claim failed because they did not establish lack of uniformity within a single taxing district as required by the South Dakota Constitution. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) townships are taxing districts under the Constitution, and (2) a reassessment plan that creates a temporary lack of uniform taxation among townships within a county is constitutional.

Berry and Co. petitioned the tax court for relief from the County's property tax assessment of its property for 2007 and 2008. At trial, Berry and the County each offered expert appraiser testimony as to the estimated market value of the property. Both appraisers used the market sales comparison approach to value the subject property. The tax county determined that the highest and best use for the subject property was redevelopment and agreed with the County's expert on the valuation, which was higher than the original assessment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the tax court's determination that the highest and best use of the subject property was redevelopment was not erroneous, and (2) the tax court's valuation of the subject property was supported in the record and was not clearly erroneous.

This tax case concerned the procedures to be followed when the IRS conducted a partnership proceeding under the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA), I.R.C. 6221-6233. Plaintiffs, individual taxpayers and limited partners in partnerships that were the subject of such proceedings, filed suit on grounds that the lack of deficiency notices rendered the IRS's assessments invalid. At issue was whether the IRS was required to issue notices of deficiency before assessing additional tax payments from plaintiffs. The court held that the assessments in this case amounted to computational adjustments and therefore, no deficiency notices were necessary. The court noted that the three remaining questions the court put to the parties as part of en banc rehearing each presumed that a deficiency notice was required. Because the court's holding here definitively contradicted that presumption, the court need not analyze those questions. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgement of the Court of Federal Claims.

This case arose from the IRS's investigation of a type of tax shelter known as a "Son-of-Boss" (a variant of the Bond and Options Sales Strategy (BOSS) shelter). Petitioner appealed the Tax Court's decision in favor of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. The court held that the IRS properly sent petitioner an affected item notice of deficiency because the deficiency required a partner-level determination. The court also held that the Tax Court had jurisdiction to redetermine affected items based on the partnership item determinations in the Final Partnership Administrative Adjustment (FPAA). Therefore, the court affirmed the judgment of the Tax Court.