Justia Tax Law Opinion Summaries

When Mary Stewart failed to pay real property taxes on her property, the Flathead County Treasurer held a tax lien sale for the delinquent taxes. The County was listed as the purchaser of the tax lien. In 2013, RN & DB, LLC paid the delinquent taxes, penalties, interests, and costs for the property and applied for a tax deed. The County issued a tax deed to RN & DB, after which RN & DB filed an action to quiet title in the property. The district court granted RN & DB’s motion for summary judgment and entered a decree quieting title in favor of RN & DB. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in not applying the statutory homestead exemption to the tax lien sale on Stewart’s property; (2) Stewart’s claim that the district court should have considered the tax assessor’s failure to investigate Stewart’s complaints regarding irregular tax assessments on Stewart’s property was barred; and (3) the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting summary judgment without holding a hearing. View "RN & DB, LLC v. Stewart" on Justia Law

Plaintiff claimed that it acquired title to the foreclosed property at issue by a tax sale and filed suit to quiet title in state court. Defendant removed the action to federal court and counter-claimed for declaratory relief. The district court dismissed the suit and found that the tax sale was void, quieting title in favor of defendant. The court determined that the district court properly concluded that it did not have subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff’s suit. A quiet title action against the federal government must be brought in federal court, and when the state court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, no jurisdiction is added by removal to federal court. The court also concluded that in the absence of consent from the federal government, the sale of the property under state law was invalid. While the statute preserves local “power to tax,” it does not permit local governments to seize and sell federal government property. Therefore, the tax sale of federally owned real estate was null and void, and the district court rightly quieted title in favor of the Secretary. The court affirmed the judgment. View "Equity Trust Co. v. McDonald" on Justia Law

Marlton appealed from the denial of its verified petition for peremptory writ of mandate, seeking to overturn a decision by the County denying Marlton's request for cancellation of tax penalties. The court concluded that, under Revenue and Taxation Code section 4985.2, a tax payer may not be in delinquent status as to any tax period in excess of four years in order to seek relief for penalties accrued. In this case, the trial court properly considered lack of payment and correctly concluded that section 4985.2 requires timely payment. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Marlton Recovery Partners, LLC v. County of L.A." on Justia Law

At issue in these cross-appeals by Verizon Telephone Company of Pennsylvania and the Commonwealth was the taxability of Verizon’s gross receipts under the Pennsylvania Gross Receipts Act, for: (1) the installation of private phone lines; (2) the provision of directory assistance services; and (3) certain non-recurring charges levied on its customers for the installation of telephone lines; moves of, and changes to telephone lines and services; and from repairs of telephone lines. After careful consideration, the Supreme Court concluded that revenue derived from all such activities constitutes gross receipts taxable under 72 P.S. 8101(a)(2), and, thus, affirmed the portion of the order of the Commonwealth Court which determined revenue from the first two above-enumerated activities were taxable. The Supreme Court reversed the portion of the Commonwealth Court’s order finding revenue from the third activity was not. View "Verizon, PA, Inc. v. Pennsylvania" on Justia Law

About five hours prior to filing for bankruptcy, debtor received an income tax refund for her federal and state income taxes, including an earned income tax credit (EIC). The bankruptcy court exempted some of debtor’s 2012 income tax refund, but denied her claimed exemption of the EIC under Mo. Rev. Stat. 513.430.1(10)(a), requiring her to turn over the nonexempt portion. The court determined that the language of section 513.430.1(10)(a) does not exempt “public assistance benefit[s]” received by the debtor prior to filing for relief in bankruptcy court. In this case, the parties do not dispute that debtor received the EIC prior to filing for bankruptcy. Therefore, the district court correctly affirmed the bankruptcy court's judgment. View "Dittmaier v. Sosne" on Justia Law

For the 2006 tax year, taxpayers Mike and Sheri Hillenga claimed, among other things, a deduction based on a net operating loss carryover from their 2004 tax return. The Department of Revenue challenged the 2006 deduction, contending that taxpayers did not actually have a net operating loss in 2004 that could be applied against their 2006 taxes. The Tax Court held that the department could not challenge the 2004 deductions that resulted in the net operating loss carryover, because the 2004 tax year was closed by the statute of limitations. The department appealed. On appeal, the Supreme Court agreed with the department: by attempting to carry over their 2004 net operating loss to apply against their 2006 tax liability, taxpayers put the validity of their 2004 net operating loss at issue. Because the department was not trying to assess a deficiency for 2004, the statute of limitations did not apply. View "Hillenga v. Dept. of Rev." on Justia Law

The county seized and sold residential property that was in default on property taxes. Sale proceeds exceeded the tax delinquency. Carloss, the son of the deceased former resident of the property, made a claim under Rev. & Tax. Code, 4675(a), (e)(1)(B), (f), which permits a “person with title of record” to tax-defaulted property or the person’s successor to claim sale proceeds in excess of the tax liability. Carloss’s mother was listed as the property owner in county tax records and had lived in the house for over 50 years. The county denied the claim because no deed appears in the county records, reasoning that title of record can be established only with a recorded deed. The trial court found the action time-barred, as not filed within 90 days of the administrative decision. The court of appeal reversed, finding the action timely and that a recorded grant deed is not the exclusive means of proving title of record. While proving title may be difficult in the absence of such a deed, in unusual circumstances such as Carloss alleged, title of record may be established by various recorded instruments, assessor’s records, and testimony that, as a whole, proves that the claimant or the claimant’s predecessor in interest held title of record. View "Carloss v. County of Alameda" on Justia Law

Jerold Fisher entered a plea agreement and pled guilty to submitting fraudulent tax returns to the Internal Revenue Service. In return, the Government promised, among other things, not to charge Fisher with any further crimes arising out of the same underlying conduct. Following the plea agreement and before sentencing, the district court found Fisher had breached the plea agreement and released the Government from its no-new-charges obligation. The Government then indicted Fisher on related structuring charges. The court subsequently reversed itself and reinstated the plea agreement, but the Government did not dismiss the new indictment. At sentencing on the tax fraud charge, Fisher asked the district court to find that the Government: (1) had breached the plea agreement by failing to dismiss the structuring charges; and (2) had engaged in vindictive prosecution. The court sentenced Fisher to 41 months in prison without ruling on either of those requests. Fisher appealed, arguing the district court erred by declining to decide his governmental breach claim. Because that claim was moot, the Tenth Circuit concluded it lacked jurisdiction over it. To the extent Fisher tried to raise a similar argument regarding his vindictive prosecution claim, the Tenth Circuit concluded he forfeited that claim and waived it through inadequate briefing. View "United States v. Fisher" on Justia Law

Appellants challenged the magistrate judge's order denying a petition to quash an IRS summons. The court concluded that: (i) the attorney-client privilege was not waived by appellants’ provision of documents to a consortium of banks sharing a common legal interest in the tax treatment of a refinancing and corporate restructuring resulting from an ill-fated acquisition originally financed by the Consortium; and (ii) the work-product doctrine protects documents analyzing the tax treatment of the refinancing and restructuring prepared in anticipation of litigation with the IRS. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded. View "Schaeffler v. United States" on Justia Law

Appellant received his 2006 income tax refund twice and the IRS sought to recover the erroneous refund by levy. At the tax court stage, the IRS conceded that the levy was an improper collection method, zeroed out appellant's disputed tax liability and moved to dismiss the case as moot. Appellant objected to the dismissal. Appellant argued that, because he paid $5,100 to the IRS during the course of the administrative proceedings and he is entitled to a return of those funds, this controversy precludes dismissal on mootness grounds. The court affirmed the tax court's rejection of appellant's argument, concluding that the abeyance of a pending levy meant that no case or controversy remained. In this case, appellant has received all the relief that 26 U.S.C. 6330 authorizes the tax court to grant him, and he must seek relief in the Court of Federal Claims for the disputed $5,100. View "Willson v. Commissioner" on Justia Law