Justia Tax Law Opinion Summaries

The tax commissioner issued commercial-activity tax (CAT) assessments against the Crutchfield Corporation on revenue it earned from sales of electronic products that it shipped from the state of Ohio. Crutchfield, whose business in Ohio consisted solely of shipping goods from outside the state to its consumers in Ohio using the United States Postal Service or common-carrier delivery services, challenged the issuance of CAT assessments against it, arguing that Ohio may not impose a tax on the gross receipts associated with its sales to Ohio consumers because Crutchfield lacks a “substantial nexus” with Ohio. Citing case law interpreting this substantial-nexus requirement, Crutchfield argued that its nexus to Ohio was not sufficiently substantial because it lacked a “physical presence” in Ohio. The Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) affirmed the assessments issued by the tax commissioner. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the BTA and upheld the CAT assessments against Crutchfield, holding (1) the physical presence requirement recognized by the United States Supreme Court for purposes of use-tax collection does not extend to business-privileges taxes such as the CAT; and (2) the statutory threshold of $500,000 of Ohio sales constitutes a sufficient guarantee of the substantiality of an Ohio nexus for purposes of the dormant Commerce Clause. View "Crutchfield Corp. v. Testa" on Justia Law

W. Va. Code 11-15A-10a affords taxpayers a credit for sales taxes paid to other states, which offsets the West Virginia Motor Fuel Use Tax (“use tax”) a fuel importer must pay under W. Va. Code 11-15A-13a. After it was assessed a use tax on the fuel it uses in West Virginia, CSX Transportation sought a refund of the sales taxes it had paid on its motor fuel purchases to cities, counties, and localities of other sales pursuant to section 11-15A-10a. The Tax Commissioner rejected the refund request. The Office of Tax Appeals (OTA) granted CSX’s refund request and vacated the assessment, finding that CSX was entitled to a credit under section 11-15A-10a for the sales taxes it paid to other states’ subdivisions on its purchases of motor fuel therein. The circuit court affirmed. The Tax Commissioner appealed, arguing that the circuit court erred by not limiting the credit to sales taxes paid only to other states upon the purchase of a motor fuel. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the sales tax credit afforded by section 11-15A-10a applies both to sales taxes paid to other states and to sales taxes paid to the municipalities of other states. View "Matkovich v. CSX Transportation, Inc." on Justia Law

After a bench trial, defendant-appellant Eldon Boisseau was convicted of tax evasion The district court determined that Boisseau, a practicing attorney, willfully evaded paying his taxes by: (1) placing his law practice in the hands of a nominee owner to prevent the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) from seizing his assets; (2) causing his law firm to pay his personal expenses directly given an impending IRS levy, rather than receiving wages; and (3) telling a government revenue officer that he was receiving no compensation from his firm when in fact the firm was paying his personal expenses. On appeal, he challenged the sufficiency of the evidence and argued that the district court wrongly convicted him: (1) without evidence of an affirmative act designed to conceal or mislead; and (2) by concluding that proof satisfying the affirmative act element of tax evasion was sufficient to prove willfulness. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "United States v. Boisseau" on Justia Law

This proceeding consisted of four consolidated appeals. The issue in two of the appeals was whether the alternative-energy infrastructures installed by Petitioners for their businesses met the statutory definition of “qualified alternative fuel vehicle refueling infrastructure” for the purpose of receiving an alternative-fuel infrastructure tax credit. The issue in the other two appeals was whether the alternative-energy infrastructures installed by Petitioners for their residences met the statutory definition of “qualified alternative fuel vehicle home refueling infrastructure” for the purpose of receiving an alternative fuel-infrastructure tax credit. The circuit court affirmed the final orders of the West Virginia Office of Tax Appeals that denied Petitioners’ requests for alternative-fuel infrastructure tax credits under W. Va. Code 11-6d-4(c). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in its judgment. View "Martin Distributing Co. v. Matkovich" on Justia Law

After Little Salt failed to pay its taxes, the Commissioner issued notices of transferee liability to the former shareholders. The tax court concluded that the former shareholders are liable for a portion of Little Salt's tax deficiency and the IRS appealed. The court agreed with the IRS that the Tax Court should have considered whether the stock sale should be recharacterized as a liquidating distribution to the shareholders under Nebraska law. However, the court declined to resolve the issue in the first instance. Accordingly, the court vacated the judgment and remanded to the tax court to consider whether the IRS is entitled to a full recovery from the former shareholders as transferees under Nebraska law. View "Stuart, Jr. v. CIR" on Justia Law

In 1999-2001, Diversified sold tax avoidance strategies to 192 clients: Option Partnership Strategy and the Financial Derivatives Investment Strategy. Each involved transactions, exercised by an individual client, to yield an artificial tax loss or deduction. Each client contributed the initial investment and paid a fee. Diversified did not register the services as tax shelters under 26 U.S.C. 61111. In 2002, the IRS began an audit of Diversified, and, in 2013, issued notices assessing penalties of $24,868,451 for failure to register OPS and $17,241,032 for failure to register FDIS. According to the IRS, the Strategies qualified as tax shelters because the computed tax shelter ratio was greater than 2:1 and each was a “substantial investment” under section 6111(c)(4). Diversified paid the assessments with respect to two clients, then unsuccessfully sought a refund. The Claims Court held, and the Federal Circuit affirmed, that it lacked jurisdiction because Diversified did not comply with the full payment rule. The courts rejected an argument that the penalties were divisible. Section 6707(a) provides that “if a person . . . fails to register such tax shelter . . . such person shall pay a penalty with respect to such registration.” Liability for a section 6707 penalty arises from the single act of failing to register. View "Diversified Group, Inc. v. United States" on Justia Law

The Montana Department of Revenue (DOR) informed Alpine Aviation, Inc. that it would be centrally assessed pursuant to Mont. Code Ann. 15-23-101 and 15-6-145. The DOR denied Alpine’s request for reclassification. After Alpine appealed to the State Tax Appeal Board, DOR brought an interlocutory appeal to the district court seeking an adjudication of the meaning of “scheduled airline” and “scheduled air commerce” for property tax purposes. Those terms are further informed by the statutory phrase “regularly scheduled flights.” After the district court interpreted the phrases as requested, Alpine appealed, arguing that the court incorrectly interpreted the phrase “regularly scheduled flights.” The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that the district court’s definition of “regularly scheduled flight” was satisfactory with the exception of its use of the phrase “patterned but not necessarily uniform.” View "Department of Revenue v. Alpine Aviation, Inc" on Justia Law

Menard, Inc. challenged Clay County’s assessment of the market value of Menard’s home improvement retail store as of January 2, 2011 through January 2, 2014. A trial ensued before the tax court, after which the court adopted market valuations below the County’s assessment values but above Menard’s expert appraiser’s valuation. Both Menard and the County appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed the tax court’s value determinations, holding that the tax court did not err in weighting the sales comparison approach and the cost approach for the valuation years at issue and did not fail adequately to explain its reasoning for that decision. View "Menard, Inc. v. County of Clay" on Justia Law

Hennepin County assessed real estate taxes on two properties owned by STRIB IV, LLC. STRIB IV applied to the County to classify the properties under Minnesota’s Green Acres statute, but the County denied the application. The tax court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed the tax court’s order, holding that STRIB IV’s subject properties did not qualify for Green Acres classification, as the Green Acres statute does not include properties owned by single-member LLCs such as STRIB IV, and the result required by the Green Acres statute’s plain language is not absurd. View "STRIB IV, LLC v. County of Hennepin" on Justia Law

BCN Telecom, Inc. was assessed a state service provider tax on certain flat charges that BCN imposed on some business customers’ lines from 2008 to 2011. The charges were designed both to reimburse BCN for presubscribed interexchange carrier charges that it paid to access local telephone infrastructure and to generate profits. The Sales and Use Tax Division of Maine Revenue Services affirmed the assessment. The Maine Board of Tax Appeals affirmed. On judicial review, the superior court granted summary judgment in favor of BCN, concluding that BCN’s charges were not part of the “sale price” of telecommunications service and that, even if they were, they were exempt from taxation under Me. Rev. Stat. 36, 2557(34) because they were charges for interstate telecommunications services. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment entered by the superior court, holding (1) the amounts received by BCN were subject to the service provider tax as part of the sale price for telecommunications services; and (2) BCN failed to provide prima facie proof that the tax exemption for interstate telecommunications services applied as a matter of law to these charges. View "BCN Telecom, Inc. v. State Tax Assessor" on Justia Law