Justia Tax Law Opinion Summaries

At issue in this case was the Director of Revenue’s final determination regarding Harry Fischer’s 2007 income tax liability. Fischer appealed the Director’s decision to the Administrative Hearing Commission (AHC), arguing that the Director erred in assessing additions and interest under Mo. Rev. Stat. 143.741.1 and 143.731.7 in calculating his tax liability for 2005, 2006, and 2007. The AHC affirmed the Director’s final determination. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the AHC, holding (1) the addition to Fischer’s 2007 tax liability was properly assessed; and (2) interest on Fischer’s 2007 tax liability was properly assessed. View "Fischer v. Dir. of Revenue" on Justia Law

Vee’s is a Subchapter S corporation wholly owned by Vee, who reports its income on his own tax returns. Vee sought a refund of $40,000 in penalties that the IRS had assessed because he took deductions for contributions to a benefit plan from 2004-2007 but did not file a Form 8886. In a separate Tax Court suit, the government is arguing that the deductions were improper. Contributions to multi-employer benefit plan, like the Vee's, are deductible unless the plan “maintains experience-rating arrangements with respect to individual employers,” 26 U.S.C. 419A(f)(6). Experience rating means that rather than pooling the risks and contributions of all the employees of the different employer-members to determine benefits, benefits are determined separately for each employer according to that employer’s contributions. If contributions go to purchase life insurance policies that accumulate cash value, the contributions are not tax deductible; such a plan is mainly an investment vehicle rather than insurance. Vee’s plan included no medical benefits. Vee’s contribution in ithe first year was $165,000, but the cost of the term life insurance purchased was only $5,400. The difference was invested to earn interest for and is the property of Vee. The district judge denied a refund. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Vee’s plan was enough like the plan described in the IRS notice to require lForm 8886. View "Vee's Mktg., Inc. v. United States" on Justia Law

Michael Boulware, the president and sole owner of two companies, was convicted of tax evasion and tax fraud. The companies paid for his legal and professional fees in the criminal trial and other litigation. The IRS subsequently issued deficiency notices because Boulware did not report the payments, which totaled approximately $2 million, as income. The Tax Court held that the payments were taxable as corporate distributions. The Ninth Circuit affirmed and the Supreme Court denied certiorari. Because Boulware did not post a bond while pursuing his appeals, the IRS immediately collected on his liability. In this appeal, Boulware challenges a Settlement Officer's rejection of his proposed installment agreement and refusal of his request for a face-to-face hearing. The Tax Court upheld the determination. The court concluded that the Settlement Officer did not abuse her discretion by denying a request for an installment agreement when Boulware is not in compliance with his current tax obligations. The court need not decide whether the aggregation of Boulware’s particular circumstances were “special,” Boulware failed to raise the argument during his CDP hearing. Further, nothing in the record supports Boulware's contention that the Settlement Officer improperly considered his criminal conviction for tax evasion in rejecting his proposed installment agreement. Finally, given that Boulware’s failure to comply with his tax obligations made him generally ineligible for a collection alternative, the Settlement Officer's denial of a face-to-face hearing was reasonable. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Boulware v. Commissioner" on Justia Law

In 2011, Cheyenne County conducted its annual tax sale. Rather than using a traditional “round robin” format at the sale, the county treasurer used the “bid down” format provided by Neb. Rev. Stat. 77-1807. Adair Asset Management, LLC purchased a tax sale certificate on certain real estate, now owned by Terry’s Legacy, LLC, after offering to pay the taxes due for a one percent undivided interest in the property. After paying delinquent taxes on the property, Adair filed a complaint and obtained a decree judicially foreclosing the lien provided by the tax sale certificate. The complaint alleged that there was a potential claim against the property by First State Bank. The subsequent decree, in effect, ordered a sale of a 100-percent interest in the property. Terry’s Legacy appealed, arguing that the district court erred by failing to determine that it retained a ninety-nine-percent interest in the property. The Supreme Court modified the decree of foreclosure to apply only to Adair’s undivided one percent interest in the property and, as so modified, affirmed, holding that Adair’s lien to be foreclosed is limited to one percent of the property. Remanded. View "Adair Asset Mgmt., LLC v. Terry’s Legacy, LLC" on Justia Law

The Mississippi Department of Revenue (MDOR) audited Hotel and Restaurant Supply (Hotel) and concluded that Hotel owed hundreds of thousands of dollars in underpaid sales tax. Hotel appealed the assessment to MDOR’s Board of Review, which upheld the assessment but reduced the amount owed. Hotel appealed to the Mississippi Board of Tax Appeals (MBTA), and MBTA abated the assessment in full. MDOR appealed MBTA’s decision; both parties filed motions for summary judgment, and the chancery court granted Hotel’s motion. MDOR appealed the chancery court’s decision to grant Hotel’s motion for summary judgment. The Supreme Court found no reversible error and affirmed the chancery court’s grant of Hotel’s motion for summary judgment. View "Mississippi Department of Revenue v. Hotel & Restaurant Supply" on Justia Law

Ronald Davis, the owner of a corporation, was liable for over $1 million in unpaid federal employment taxes and penalties. After demands for payment went unanswered, the government filed suit against Ronald to reduce its tax assessments to judgment and sought to enforce its tax liens through the sale of the primary residence of Ronald and his wife, Diane. The government named Diane, who did not owe any unpaid taxes, as a defendant in the action because she had an interest in the properties. The district court issued an order of sale authorizing the sale of the primary residence. Diane appealed, arguing (1) the district court should have allowed the government to sell only Ronald’s interest in the property; and (2) the order of sale violated 26 U.S.C. 7403 and the Fifth Amendment’s Just Compensation Clause. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s order of sale, holding (1) the district court did not err when it declined to limit the government to the sale of Ronald’s interest in the property; and (2) the order of sale did not violate section 7403 or the Just Compensation Clause. View "United States v. Davis" on Justia Law

The IRS sent petitioner a Letter 1153 (notice of proposed assessment) informing her that, pursuant to 26 U.S.C. 6672(a), she - as the chief operating officer of NPRN - was personally responsible for the company’s unpaid trust fund taxes for the second quarter of 2005. The IRS then made an assessment against her in the amount of $346,732.38. The court held that a taxpayer is entitled to a pre-assessment administrative determination by the IRS of her proposed liability for trust fund taxes if she files a timely protest. Therefore, in this case, the IRS erred by not making such a determination for petitioner after she filed a timely protest. The court vacated the judgment of the tax court and remanded so that it can address whether the IRS’ error, under the circumstances, is harmless or requires setting aside the 2007 assessment (or some lesser form of corrective action). View "Romano-Murphy v. Commissioner of IRS" on Justia Law

As part of an investigation into the 2008 tax liability of Defendant and his wife, the IRS served a summons on Defendant requiring him to appear for an interview and to produce banking and financial records. Defendant refused to answer any questions and did not provide the requested documents. The government filed a petition to enforce the portion of the summons seeking the production of the documents. In response, Defendant asserted a Fifth Amendment claim of privilege over his compelled act of producing the documents. The district court ultimately ordered Defendant to produce all of the requested documents, including those covered and those not covered by the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA). The First Circuit affirmed the district court’s enforcement of the summons as to documents required to be kept under the BSA and vacated the enforcement of the summons for documents not subject to the BSA, holding that a taxpayer must comply with an IRS summons for documents he or she is required to keep under the BSA, where the IRS is civilly investigating the failure to pay taxes and the matter has not been referred for criminal prosecution. View "United States v. Chen" on Justia Law

Buckeye Hospitality, Inc, the owner of a Comfort Inn hotel property located in Franklin County, filed a complaint seeking a reduction of the value assigned to its property. The Columbus City Schools Board of Education filed a countercomplaint seeking retention of the auditor’s valuation. The Franklin County Board of Revision (BOR) adopted the lower value set forth by Buckeye’s appraiser, with an adjustment. The Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) found that the valuation analysis of Buckeye’s appraiser was supported by the evidence and adopted the BOR’s approach. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the BTA, holding that the record contained sufficient evidence to support the decision of the BOR and the BTA. View "Columbus City Schs. Bd. of Educ. v. Franklin County Bd. of Revision" on Justia Law

Veolia Water North American Operating Services, Inc., the private owner and operator of a waste-water-treatment plant that serves both communities and certain manufacturers, sought exemption of real-estate improvements and all the personal property at the plant. The basis for its exemption claim was the treatment of industrial waste water generated by its manufacturing customers. The tax commissioner granted the exempt-facility certificate for a percentage of the personal property that reflected the amount of inflow that was industrial waste water but did not include the amount of residential waste water generated by the communities. The Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the BTA’s conclusion that certain property was not entitled to the partial exemption was both reasonable and lawful; and (2) the tax commissioner did not violate its duty to give some of Veolia’s supplemental documentation to the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. View "Veolia Water N. Am. Operating Servs., Inc. v. Testa" on Justia Law