Justia Tax Law Opinion Summaries

Rogers is a tax lawyer. The Seventh Circuit previously characterized as an “abusive scam” a scheme Rogers implemented for the 2003 tax year. He implemented a similar scheme for later tax years: Rogers forms a partnership (Sugarloaf) that he uses to acquire severely-distressed accounts receivables from Brazilian retailers. For tax purposes, the partnership carries the receivables at their face amount, not at fair value. The partnership then conveys the receivables to U.S. taxpayers, who deem them uncollectible and deduct from their income the associated “loss.” A 2004 Tax Code amendment prohibits such partnerships from transferring built-in-losses on uncollectible receivables to U.S. taxpayers in this manner, 118 Stat.1589. Rogers modified his scheme to involve a trust in which Sugarloaf was both the grantor and beneficiary and additional maneuvering. Under the IRS’s sham determination, the Brazilian retailers’ purported contribution of receivables to Sugarloaf was recharacterized as a sale of assets; Sugarloaf’s original basis in the receivables was reduced to fair value—nearly nothing. The Tax Court and Seventh Circuit affirmed that Sugarloaf was a sham partnership; even if Sugarloaf were a legitimate partnership, the Brazilian retailers’ redemptions of their interest in the partnership was, in substance, a sale of receivables. A 40% penalty applied (26 U.S.C. 6662(h)(1); (2)(A)(1)) to Sugarloaf’s tax underpayment resulting from its gross misstatement of the 2004 cost-of-goods-sold expense, and a 20% penalty applied (section 6662(a), (b)(1) & (2)) to underpayments attributable to its negligence when failing to include certain income and taking disallowed business expense deductions. View "Sugarloaf Fund, LLC v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue" on Justia Law

In 1973, Bedrosian opened a UBS savings account in Switzerland to make work purchases while traveling abroad. Later, he began to use it as a savings account. From 1973-2007, Handelman prepared Bedrosian’s income tax returns. In the 1990s Bedrosian told Handelman about the Swiss bank account. Handelman replied that Bedrosian had been breaking the law every year by not reporting the account but that his estate could deal with it after he was dead. Bedrosian continued not to report his UBS account. In 2005, Bedrosian created a second (investment) account. Handelman died. Bedrosian authorized his new accountant, Bransky, to obtain his records from Handelman’s offices. Bransky prepared Bedrosian’s 2007 tax return, listing the bank account, and a Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (FBAR), 31 U.S.C. 5314, showing one of Bedrosian’s UBS accounts ($240,000); the account omitted contained $2 million. Bedrosian did not review the return but simply signed. He later sought legal counsel and began correcting his prior tax filings. In 2015 the IRS assessed a penalty for “willful” failure to disclose the larger UBS account at the statutory maximum of $975,789--50% of the undisclosed account. Bedrosian paid $9,757.89 and sought to recover that payment as an unlawful exaction. The government counterclaimed for $1,007,345. The district court concluded that Bedrosian’s violation was not willful.The Third Circuit remanded, reserving the question of whether federal court jurisdiction is established when a taxpayer files suit to challenge an FBAR penalty before fully paying it. The court clarified that, to prove a “willful” FBAR violation, the government must satisfy the civil willfulness standard, which includes both knowing and reckless conduct. View "Bedrosian v. United States" on Justia Law

In 2012, the Campbell Union School District (CUSD) Governing Board enacted a fee on new residential development under Education Code section 17620. The fee, $2.24 per square foot on new residential construction, was based on a study that projected that “it will cost the District an average of $22,039 to house each additional student in new facilities.” This figure was based on a projected $12.8 million cost to build a new 600-student elementary school and a projected $24.4 million cost to build a new 1,000-student middle school. SummerHill owns a 110-unit residential development project in Santa Clara, within CUSD’s boundaries. In 2012 and 2013, SummerHill tendered to CUSD under protest development fees of $499,976.96. The trial court invalidated the fee and ordered a refund of SummerHill’s fees. The court of appeal affirmed, holding that the fee study did not contain the data required to properly calculate a development fee; it failed to quantify the expected amount of new development or the number of new students it would generate, did not identify the type of facilities that would be necessary to accommodate those new students, and failed to assess the costs associated with those facilities. View "SummerHill Winchester LLC v. Campbell Union School District" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Administrative Hearing Commission finding Appellant’s claim for refund of sales tax untimely under Mo. Rev. Stat. 144.190.2, holding that the refund claim was untimely because it was filed more than three years after the tax return was due and more than three years after the date Appellant paid the tax.On appeal, Appellant conceded that it filed its refund request more than three years after remitting the sales tax. Appellant, however, asserted that the request was timely because 12 C.S.R. 10-102.016(2)(A) provides that a refund claim should also be considered timely if filed within three years of the date the tax return was due and that Appellant filed the refund request within three years of the latter date. The Supreme Court affirmed without reaching the issue of whether 12 C.S.R. 10-102.016(2)(A) is valid and consistent with section 144.190.2, holding that, even if 12 C.S.R. 10-102.016(2)(A) is applicable, Appellant was incorrect about when its return was due, and therefore, Appellant’s refund request was untimely. View "Crescent Plumbing Supply Company v. Director of Revenue" on Justia Law

A member of the public cannot use a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to obtain unrelated individual's tax records without his consent. The District Court affirmed the dismissal of EPIC's action seeking President Donald J. Trump's income tax records. The court held that the Internal Revenue Code's confidentiality protections extended to the ordinary taxpayer and the President alike. View "Electronic Privacy Information Center v. IRS" on Justia Law

The Second Circuit reversed the tax court's decision upholding 2008 tax deficiencies identified by the Commissioner upon application of the substance‐over‐form doctrine to recharacterize various lawful tax‐avoiding transactions as tax‐generating events for petitioners, their adult sons, a family trust, and a family‐controlled corporation. Specifically, petitioners challenged the tax court's decision to uphold a tax deficiency against them based on the Commissioner's recharacterization of Summa's tax‐deductible commission payments to a DISC as taxable dividends to Summa shareholders.The court held that the Commissioner was not precluded from defending the challenged recharacterization, but the substance‐over‐form doctrine did not support recharacterization of Summa's DISC commission payments as constructive dividends to its shareholders. Therefore, the court reversed the portion of the judgment holding petitioners liable for $77,850 in 2008 income taxes. View "Benenson v. Commissioner" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court upheld the Iowa Department of Revenue’s sales tax assessment on labor installing building components sold by Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC, except as to those transactions in which the predominant service or only service provided was carpentry installation work, holding that because the Department’s own regulations limit the definition of carpentry services subject to sales tax to those performed for repairs and omits installations services, the sales tax did not apply.The parties here disagreed whether the sales tax applied to labor installing items sold by Lowe’s to homeowners through installation contracts. The Supreme Court held that the sales tax did not apply to carpentry for installations other than repairs but that installation services by electrical and plumbing subcontractors, which involved no structural changes to the homes of customers, did not fall within the statutory exemption for “new construction, reconstruction, alteration, remodeling, or the services of a general building contractor.” See Iowa Code 423.3(37). View "Lowe's Home Centers, LLC v. Iowa Department of Revenue" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals affirmed the order of the Appellate Division determining that certain telecommunications equipment was taxable property pursuant to N.Y. Real Prop. Tax Law (RPTL) 102(12)(i), holding that the Appellate Division properly found that the equipment was taxable under the statute.The equipment at issue was certain large cellular data transmission equipment owed by T-Mobile Northeast, LLC and mounted to the exterior of buildings throughout T-Mobile’s service area in Mount Vernon. T-Mobile brought this hybrid declaratory judgment action and N.Y. C.P.L.R. 78 proceeding seeking a declaration that the property was not taxable. Supreme Court dismissed the proceeding, holding that the property was taxable under the RPTL. The Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that T-Mobile’s arguments on appeal lacked merit. View "T-Mobile Northeast, LLC v. DeBellis" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Plaintiffs, holding that the Tax Credit Program, which provides a taxpayer a dollar-for-dollar tax credit based on the taxpayer’s donation to a Student Scholarship Organization (SSO), violates Mont. Const. art. X, 6.SSOs fund tuition scholarships for students who attend private schools meeting the definition of Qualified Education Provider (QEP). Pursuant to its authority to implement the Tax Credit Program, Mont. Code Ann. 15-30-3111, the Montana Department of Revenue implemented Admin. R. M. 42.4.802 (Rule 1), which excluded religiously-affiliated private schools from qualifying as QEPs. Plaintiffs, parents whose children attended a religious-affiliated private school, challenged Rule 1. The district court granted summary judgment for Plaintiffs. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Tax Credit Program violates Article X, Section 6’s prohibition on aid to sectarian schools and that the Department exceeded the scope of its rulemaking authority when it enacted Rule 1. View "Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue" on Justia Law

Appellant the School District of Lower Merion challenged a Commonwealth Court decision to quash its appeal of the grant of an injunction. Appellees were residents and taxpayers of Lower Merion Township, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, who filed a multi-count, putative class action complaint against Appellant which asserted grievances about “proliferate spending and tax increases.” Appellees sought money damages in excess of $55,000,000 and the appointment of a trustee to undertake the responsibilities of the school board members. The amended complaint also contained a count seeking equitable relief, primarily in the form of court-supervised modifications of the procedures employed by the District’s administrators. Appellees submitted a “Petition for Injunctive Relief” seeking “immediate relief because without this [c]ourt’s intervention, the District will raise taxes and the bills for the same will go out July 1, 2016 to some 22,000 taxpayers.” Significantly, consistent with the prayer for immediate relief, the petition reflected criteria associated with a preliminary injunction, including an assertion of irreparable harm to the plaintiffs. In its written response, the District made clear -- consistent with the procedural posture of the case, the request for immediate relief, and the assertion of irreparable harm -- that it believed that Appellees were seeking a preliminary injunction, and the District proceeded to address Appellees’ petition on such terms. The dispute before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court centered on whether a post-trial motion was required, or whether the appellant was entitled to proceed with an interlocutory appeal as of right under Rule of Appellate Procedure 311(a)(4). The Supreme Court determined the common pleas court did not dispose of all claims for relief in its “Decision/Order”; therefore, “the decision” of the case was not rendered for purposes of Rule 227.1, and no post-trial motions were implicated under that rule. Rather, the District enjoyed the right to lodge an interlocutory appeal as of right under Rule of Appellate Procedure 311(a)(4). The Court reversed the Commonwealth Court's judgment holding to the contrary, and remanded this case for consideration of the merits of the District's interlocutory appeal filed as of right. View "Wolk v. Lower Merion SD" on Justia Law