Taxpayer was awarded and received a net $5.25 million qui tam payment from the government as a "relator" in two lawsuits settled against a government contractor under the False Claims Act (FCA), 31 U.S.C. 3729-3733. Taxpayer asserted that the award was not taxable. The court held that the Tax Court correctly concluded that the entire qui tam payment award to taxpayer under the FCA was includable in gross income and that taxpayer was liable for the I.R.C. 6662(a) accuracy-related penalty.

Ivory Homes purchased various concrete products from a company that, when it delivered the products, provided an invoice that charged a single sales price without indicating separate delivery charges. Ivory Homes then discovered if it structured its transactions with the company differently and bargained for separate and independent delivery charges, the charges would not be taxable. Subsequently, Ivory Homes filed a refund request with the Utah Taxpayer Services Division for sales tax it paid for several years on expenses associated with the concrete products. The Division denied the refund. The Utah State Tax Commission also denied the refund request. The Supreme Court affirmed the Tax Commission's decision that it did not erroneously receive any tax and that Ivory Homes was not entitled to a tax refund where (1) under a substantial evidence standard of review, the Commission correctly made findings of fact that the parties did not intend delivery charges in their original transactions; and (2) alternatively, a plain language interpretation of the Refund Statute requires that the Tax Commission commit some error in its receipt of taxes before a taxpayer is entitled to a refund.

The Tribes of the Yakima Nation claimed that the principle of Indian tax immunity had been violated by the State of Washington's current cigarette excise tax, which the Tribes argued left their retailers liable for payment of the tax when retailers sold cigarettes to non-Indians. The court held that, although some elements of Washington's cigarette tax law had been modified over the past thirty years, the court concluded that none of those changes had materially altered the legal incidence of the cigarette tax approved of in Confederated Tribes of Colville Indian Reservation v. Washington. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the state.

The Mississippi Tax Commission (Commission) assessed a contractor’s tax against Walter Akins, d/b/a Akins Construction Company. Akins challenged the assessment administratively. After exhausting his administrative remedies, Akins appealed to the Chancery Court. The chancellor dismissed his complaint for failure to comply with Mississippi Code Section 27-77-7 (Rev. 2005), which required a taxpayer seeking judicial review to pay the amount ordered before filing the petition or attach a security bond, for double the amount in controversy, with the petition to appeal. Akins appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that he was deprived of his right to due process because the appeal provisions codified in Section 27-77-7 are unconstitutional. Finding that the statute does meet constitutional standards and that Akins failed to pay the tax or post a bond in order to grant jurisdiction to the chancery court, the Court affirmed the chancellor's decision.

Plaintiff, a Delaware taxpayer, asserted claims against defendant, the State of Delaware Auditor of Accounts, for claims related to defendant's alleged noncompliance with 29 Del. C. 2906(f), which stated, in part, that the "Auditor of Accounts shall conduct postaudits of local school district tax funds budget and expenditures annually" and for claims related to defendant's alleged violation of Delaware's Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 29 Del. C. ch. 100., by failing to provide plaintiff with copies of certain employee time sheets which he duly requested. The court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the audit claims and the FOIA claims must be dismissed because of plaintiff's failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

McCarthy Holdings filed a complaint against Vincent Burgher, seeking a declaratory judgment concerning an easement agreement. McCarthy, the owner of the dominant estate, sought a declaration that it had the right, as a matter of law, to bar Burgher, the owner of the servient estate, from any use of the easement. The circuit court found that the easement agreement was unambiguous and that it did not bar Burgher from reasonable use of the easement area. McCarthy appealed, arguing that the circuit court erred in construing the easement agreement. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court did not err in denying McCarthy's request to bar Burgher, as a matter of law, from any use of the easement area based upon the easement agreement; and (2) the circuit court did not improperly consider parol evidence in interpreting the easement agreement.

This case involved a constitutional challenge to an occupation tax levied pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. 2-3226.05. Appellant landowners, who were residents and taxpayers of natural resources districts in the Republican River basin, brought an action for declaratory and injunctive relief seeking to have the occupation tax declared unconstitutional and its levy and collection enjoined. The district court upheld the constitutionality of the occupation tax, determining that it did not violate the Nebraska Constitution as (1) the occupation tax was not a property tax but, rather, an excise tax levied upon the activity of irrigation; (2) the occupation tax did not result in a commutation of taxes; and (3) section 2-3226.05 was not special legislation. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the judgment in Garey v. Nebraska Department of Natural Resources did not bar this action under the doctrine of res judicata; and (2) the landowners did not meet their burden of establishing that the occupation tax was unconstitutional.

Summit Water was a mutual water company providing culinary grade water to residential and commercial shareholders. After the Utah State Tax Commission audited Summit Water's annual property tax affidavit and concluded that the value of the distribution facilities was substantially higher than Summit Water reported that year, Summit County assessed Summit Water for the back taxes owed for the previous four years. In all, Summit County assessed Summit Water $204,020 in additional taxes. The Summit County Board of Equalization determined that Summit Water failed to establish that the taxation of the property was incorrect or illegal, concluding (1) Summit Water was not eligible for the constitutional tax exemption afforded to entities that own a water distribution system providing water for irrigating lands because the water used by Summit Water's shareholders was for nonagricultural purposes, and (2) there was no double taxation of Summit Water's property. The Commission affirmed. The district court reversed in part, holding that the constitutional exemption at issue includes any artificial watering of land, including nonagricultural properties. The Supreme Court affirmed, concluding that the constitutional exemption encompasses the nonagricultural watering of lands and that no double taxation occurred.

This case stemmed from a tax transaction involving Henry Samueli, the co-founder of Broadcom Corporation, and his investment advisor. At issue was whether a purported securities loan with a fixed term of at least 250 days and possibly as long as 450 days, entered into not for the purpose of providing the borrower with access to the lent securities, but instead for the purpose of avoiding taxable income for the lender, qualified for nonrecognition treatment as a securities loan pursuant to section 1058 of the Internal Revenue Code. The court agreed with the Tax Court's conclusion that the transaction did not meet the requirements of section 1058 and therefore affirmed the judgment of the Tax Court.

Defendants, online booking companies, acquire inventories of hotel rooms at negotiated rates (wholesale rate) and rent the rooms to consumers at higher retail rates; they charge consumers a separate amount for hotel taxes. Defendants pay the taxes to the hotels, which in turn remit it to the state taxing authority. Plaintiff brought a claim on behalf of a putative class of New Jersey municipalities, alleging that basing the tax on the wholesale rate, rather than the retail rate, is a form of tax evasion. The district court granted defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on grounds of prudential standing ground, reasoning that the municipality was attempting to assert a legal right that was reserved to the Director of the Division of Taxation (aided by the Attorney General) to enforce municipal hotel occupancy taxes by determining the amount of tax due and then collecting the related revenue. The Third Circuit affirmed, reasoning that municipalities have authority to impose a local hotel tax under N.J. Stat. 40:48F, but enforcement is reserved to state officials.