Justia Tax Law Opinion Summaries

This matter concerned a parcel of commercial/industrial property located in Springettsbury Township, which was owned by appellee Harley-Davidson Motor Company. Approximately 110 acres of the parcel contained buildings and other improvements, and the remaining 119 acres were considered “excess” land. Previously, the United States Navy, from 1941 until 1964, and, later, a private firm, American Machinery and Foundry Company (“AMF”), with whom Harley-Davidson merged in 1969, used the parcel to operate a weapons manufacturing plant and, in the course of their business, buried numerous contaminants (as well as unexploded military ordnance) in the subsurface strata. This use caused significant environmental damage to the property. In 1993, Harley-Davidson repurposed a portion of the site to operate a motorcycle manufacturing plant. In 2003, the Assessment Office of York County notified Harley-Davidson that it intended to increase the parcel’s property tax assessment. Harley-Davidson filed an appeal with the York County Board of Assessment Appeals, which affirmed. Harley-Davidson then filed a de novo appeal with the trial court. Appellant Central York School District (“School District”) intervened, and the parties proceeded to a three-day bench trial to determine the parcel’s assessments for tax years 2004 through 2010, pursuant to the Second Class A and Third Class County Assessment Law. This appeal by allowance before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court involved the proper determination of the fair market value of Harley-Davidson's property for purposes of property tax assessment, including consideration of environmental contamination, remediation, and stigma, as well as the potential for future subdivision of the property. After review, the Supreme Court found: (1) hypothetical ways in which a property could be used by potential buyers are properly considered by an expert in evaluating what a willing buyer would pay for a property; (2) the potential effect of agreements concerning possible environmental remediation liability and ongoing environmental restrictions and maintenance is a relevant factor that must be taken into account when determining the fair market value of property, and (3) environmental stigma may be relevant to determining fair market value of real estate for tax purposes in appropriate circumstances. The Supreme concluded: (1) the Commonwealth Court erred in concluding that the School District’s expert valued the subject property as already subdivided, and, thus, its determination in this regard was reversed; (2) the Commonwealth Court properly concluded that these agreements were not accounted for by the trial court; thus, the Commonwealth Court’s remand was affirmed; and (3) the trial court properly relied upon the School District’s expert’s opinion regarding a 5% environmental stigma devaluation for the property; thus, reversed the Commonwealth Court’s rejection of the trial court’s reliance upon such stigma in its valuation of the property. View "Harley-Davidson v. Central York Sch District et al" on Justia Law

Taxpayer brought a mandamus action to compel state officials to collect the gross premium tax from Real Parties. At issue was whether Real Parties are "insurers" under the California Constitution's gross premium tax provision. The trial court sustained Real Parties' demurrers without leave to amend. The court concluded, however, that pursuant to People ex rel. Roddis v. California Mut. Assn., the taxpayer can maintain this action because the complaint alleges facts sufficient to support an inference that indemnifying against future contingent medical expenses represents a significant financial proportion of Real Parties’ businesses. Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment. View "Myers v. St. Bd. of Equalization" on Justia Law

Plaintiff challenged the Appeals Board's denial of his application for a refund of property taxes paid to the County relating to a ground lease and a hangar at the Santa Monica Municipal Airport. The trial court granted summary adjudication with respect to the hangar and subsequently ruled in favor of plaintiff with respect to the ground lease. The County appealed. The court concluded that, with respect to the ground lease, the lease affords plaintiff a private benefit - the exclusive right to store his aircraft and equipment on the leased premises - that is sufficiently independent of the interests retained by Santa Monica to constitute a taxable possessory interest. In regard to the hangar, Revenue and Taxation Code section 107, subdivision (b) defines possessory interests to include “Taxable improvements on tax-exempt land.” Therefore, the court concluded that the trail court improperly granted summary adjudication because the County’s evidence raised a triable issue as to whether the hangar fits this definition. The court reversed and vacated the post-judgment orders. View "Seibold v. County of Los Angeles" on Justia Law

The issue this case presented for the Oklahoma Supreme Court's review centered on a dispute between Defendants-Appellants The Board of County Commissioners of Canadian County and certain citizens and officers of Canadian County, over the legal usage of funds generated from a sales tax enacted by the voters of Canadian County in 1996. In response to concerns raised over the legality of using funds generated by the Tax to pay for juvenile programs and services, in addition to the physical structures, an Attorney General Opinion was requested. The Attorney General issued an opinion concerning the matter in 2014. The Attorney General examined the resolution in question, Resolution No. 96-20, and determined that the language did not authorize use of the Tax for the funding of programs, salaries and expenses related to operation of the juvenile bureau, or even certain aspects of the physical facilities. In the wake of the Opinion, the Board ceased using the Tax for funding the programs, services, and salaries deemed outside the purpose of the Tax, and instead sought other funding sources for those items. Plaintiffs filed suit against the Board in the District Court in late 2014, seeking declaratory relief, a temporary restraining order and temporary injunction pending a declaratory ruling, and a writ of mandamus by way of ancillary relief. In an order filed on January 28, 2015, the trial court granted Citizens' request for a temporary injunction, determining: (1) Citizens were likely to prevail in their request for a declaratory judgment; (2) the Board would not suffer irreparable harm if the temporary injunction was issued; and (3) Citizens would suffer irreparable harm if the temporary injunction was not issued. The Board appealed, arguing that Plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of proof for a temporary injunction. After examining the available evidence, the Supreme Court determined that that the trial court's issuance of a temporary injunction was not an abuse of discretion or against the clear weight of the evidence. Accordingly, the order of the trial court granting a temporary injunction was affirmed. View "Edwards v. Bd. of Cty. Commr's." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit for wrongful levy after the IRS levied her account at a bank, which she asserts was her separate property, when her husband incurred a tax liability. The district court dismissed the suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court concluded that plaintiff, as the person who paid a tax assessed against another person, is a “taxpayer” under the Internal Revenue Code’s default definition, and nothing in the Taxpayer Assistance Order (TAO) statute, 26 U.S.C. 7811, redefines or is manifestly incompatible with that definition. Further, the court concluded that her TAO application tolled the running of the statute of limitations under the plain language of section 7811(d). Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Rothkamm v. United States" on Justia Law

From 2002 to 2007, Defendant-appellant Jerold Sorensen, an oral surgeon in California, concealed his income from the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) and underpaid his income taxes by more than $1.5 million. He used a “pure trust” scheme, peddled by Financial Fortress Associates (“FFA”), in which he deposited his dental income into these trusts without reporting all of it to the IRS as income. Over the years, he also retitled valuable assets in the trusts’ names. In 2013, after a series of proffers, the government charged him with violating 26 U.S.C. 7212(a) for corruptly endeavoring to obstruct and impede the due administration of the internal-revenue laws. A jury convicted him of the charged offense. On appeal, Sorensen argued his conduct amounted to evading taxes so it was exclusively punishable under a different statute; that the prosecution misstated evidence in its closing rebuttal argument; and (7) cumulative error. Furthermore, he argued the district court erred: (2) by refusing his offered jury instruction requiring knowledge of illegality; (3) by giving the government’s deliberate-ignorance instruction; (4) by instructing the jury that it could convict on any one means alleged in the indictment; and (5) by refusing to allow him to provide certain testimony from a witness in surrebuttal. Finding no merit to any of these contentions, the Tenth Circuit affirmed Sorensen's conviction. View "United States v. Sorensen" on Justia Law

Appellant AT&T (together with subsidiaries) appealed a Tax Court judgment that denied AT&T's claim for a refund of a portion of the Oregon corporate excise taxes it paid for tax years 1996 through 1999. The dispute centered on AT&T's sale of interstate and international phone and data transmissions. The issue this case presented on appeal to the Supreme Court was whether those sales were counted in determining the fraction of AT&T's income that Oregon can tax. AT&T presented a cost study that purported to show that Oregon did not have the greatest share of the "costs of performance." The Department of Revenue challenged AT&T's interpretation of "income-producing activity" and attacked the validity of its cost study. The Tax Court ruled in favor of the department. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that AT&T did not use a correct definition of "income-producing activity [:] AT&T's proposed interpretation [was] network-based; it focused on the operation of its network as a whole. The correct understanding, however, is transaction-based; it examines individual sales to customers. AT&T thus failed to meet its burden of proof, because it did not correctly calculate the 'costs of performance' for the correct 'income-producing activities.'" View "AT&T Corp. v. Dept. of Rev." on Justia Law

Appellants were three municipal corporations located in Washington State: The City of Seattle, the City of Tacoma, and Public Utility District No. 1 of Snohomish County (taxpayers). Each taxpayer owned an interest in electrical transmission capacity that was purchased from the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) and was used for transmitting electricity over the Northwest's federally-administered power transmission grid. Together, the taxpayers appealed the grant of summary judgment in which the OregonTax Court, citing "Power Resources Cooperative v. Dept. of Rev.," (996 P2d 969 (2000)), concluded that taxpayers' interest in electrical transmission capacity could (because much of that grid was located in Oregon) be taxed by the department as a property interest "held" by taxpayers, under ORS 307.060. On appeal, taxpayers argued that: (1) "Power Resources" was wrongly decided; (2) the Oregon Supreme Court's decision in "Pacificorp Power Marketing v. Dept. of Rev.," (131 P3d 725 (2006)) did not apply in this case; and (3) the Oregon legislature's repeal of the 2005 property tax exemption benefitting out-of-state power-generating municipalities was enacted in violation of Article IV, section 18, of the Oregon Constitution, a provision that required bills for raising revenue originate in the House of Representatives. The Oregon Court rejected the taxpayers' arguments and affirmed the Oregon Tax Court. View "City of Seattle v. Dept. of Rev." on Justia Law

For more than a decade, the City of Columbia has been allocating substantial amounts of revenue generated from user fees for water and sewer services to its General Fund and for economic development purposes. Appellants filed this action contending the City's practices violated sections 6-1-330 and 6-21-440 of the South Carolina Code. The trial court granted the City summary judgment. Because there were genuine issues of material fact as to whether the City's expenditures of water and sewer revenues were lawful, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded for further proceedings to determine whether the funds transferred into the City's General Fund were properly considered "surplus revenues" under section 6-21-440 and could therefore be spent for unrelated purposes and whether the City's direct economic-development expenditures bore a sufficient nexus to its provision of water and sewer services such that they would be considered "related" expenditures under the terms of section 6-1-330(B) of the South Carolina Code. View "Azar v. City of Columbia" on Justia Law

In these appeals and cross-appeals, the taxpayers claim they are entitled to tax credits associated with foreign transactions that the government disallowed because it contends the transactions lacked economic substance. The court rejected AIGʹs contention that foreign tax credits, by their nature, are not reviewable for economic substance; in determining whether a transaction lacks economic substance, the court considered: (a) whether the taxpayer had an objectively reasonable expectation of profit, apart from tax benefits, from the transaction; and (b) whether the taxpayer had a subjective non‐tax business purpose in entering the transaction; the court concluded, as a matter of first impression in this Circuit, that foreign taxes are economic costs and should thus be deducted when calculating pre‐tax profit; the court also concluded that it is appropriate, in calculating pre‐tax profit, for a court both to include the foreign taxes paid and to exclude the foreign tax credits claimed; under the subjective prong, a court asks whether the taxpayer has a legitimate, non‐tax business purpose for entering into the transaction; as to AIGʹs transactions, the court held that there are unresolved material questions of fact regarding the objective factors and subjective business purpose for entering the cross-border transactions; as to BNYʹs transactions, the court held that the Tax Court correctly concluded that the Structured Trust Advantaged Repackaged Securities loan product (STARS) trust transaction lacked economic substance; and the court also held that the Tax Court did not err in concluding that the $1.5 billion loan from Barclays had independent economic substance, and that BNY was therefore entitled to deduct the associated interest expenses. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment in its entirety. View "Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. Commissioner" on Justia Law