Justia Tax Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff, the Town of Stratford, assessed hangars owned by Defendants and located at Sikorsky Memorial Airport as real property. When Defendants contested the classification of the hangars as real property instead of personal property, Plaintiff brought this action seeking a declaratory judgment that the hangars were properly classified as real property and were not exempt from taxation. The trial court ruled that the hangars were taxable as real property pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. 12-64(a) and were not exempted pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. 12-74. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court properly applied sections 12-64 and 12-74 to determine that the hangars were subject to municipal taxation. View "Stratford v. Jacobelli" on Justia Law

The IRS assessed deficiencies against Williams in connection with his income tax for 1996-2005, totaling, with interest and penalties, about $1.3 million. He did not pay. The IRS filed tax liens in Clark County, Indiana, where Williams and his wife Leslie jointly own land. The state and county also filed liens. The district court entered an order that specifies how much Williams owes to each of the three taxing bodies, orders the property to be sold and the net receipts applied to these debts, and details how the money will be divided among the United States, the state, the county, and Leslie. The order states that it is the court’s final decision; the Williamses appealed. The mortgage lender argued that foreclosure governed by Illinois law is not final, and not appealable, because the amount of a deficiency judgment depends on the reasonableness of the sale price, and the validity of the sale itself is contestable to determine whether the outcome is equitable. Illinois provides debtors with multiple opportunities to redeem before a transfer takes effect. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The foreclosure sale is governed by 26 U.S.C. 7403(c), which does not provide for deficiency judgments and does not give the taxpayer a right of redemption. View "United States v. Williams" on Justia Law

Petitioners, two unmarried co-owners of real property, each claimed a home mortgage interest deduction under Internal Revenue Code section 163(h)(3). Section 163(h)(3) allows taxpayers to deduct interest on up to $1 million of home acquisition debt and $100,000 of home equity debt. The tax court agreed with the IRS that taxpayers were jointly subject to section 163(h)(3)'s $1 million and $100,000 debt limits and were therefore disallowed a substantial portion of their claimed deductions. Although the statute is silent as to unmarried co-owners, the court inferred from the statute’s treatment of married individuals filing separate returns that section 163(h)(3)’s debt limits apply to unmarried co-owners on a per-taxpayer basis. Accordingly, the court reversed the decision of the tax court and remanded for a recalculation of petitioners’ tax liability. View "Voss v. Commissioner" on Justia Law

The Department of Revenue appealed a Tax Court decision that accepted the property valuation proposed by taxpayer Hewlett-Packard (HP). In reaching that conclusion, the Tax Court held that the highest and best use of HP's property was a continuation of its current use as a single-tenant, owner-occupied research and manufacturing facility. The Tax Court also held that, of the numerous buildings on the campus, a potential owner would anticipate using only certain "core" buildings and would not anticipate using the "non-core" buildings. As a result, those non-core buildings were components of the property that prevented it from cost-effectively serving its highest and best use. The Tax Court, therefore, assessed the value of the loss caused by the presence of the non-core buildings. To do so, the Tax Court calculated the additional operating expenses that an owner would incur while operating the subject property as compared to the operating expenses that an owner would incur while operating a cost-effective version of the property consisting of only the core space. On appeal, the department raised the narrow issue of whether the Tax Court properly applied the administrative rule defining the value of the loss, OAR 150-308.205-(F)(3)(k). The Supreme Court affirmed, finding that the Tax Court properly identified the value of the loss as the additional operating expenses that an owner would incur to operate the subject property compared to a more cost-effective option. View "Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Benton County Assessor" on Justia Law

The South Dakota Department of Revenue assessed Northern Border Pipeline Company, the operator of an interstate pipeline that provides transportation services to natural gas owners who desire to ship their gas, for use tax on the value of the shippers’ gas that the shippers allowed Northern Border to burn as fuel in compressors that moved the gas through the pipeline. An administrative law judge affirmed the assessment. The circuit court reversed, holding that Northern Border’s burning of the shippers’ gas was exempt from use tax under a tax exemption. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because Northern Border did not own the gas, use tax may not be imposed under this Court’s precedents. View "N. Border Pipeline Co. v. S.D. Dep’t of Revenue" on Justia Law

Relators were sixteen electric cooperatives located in Minnesota. The cooperatives filed amended sales-tax returns for tax periods spanning the years 2004-06 to recover sales taxes they had paid for the portion of the revenues that they later converted into equity. The Commissioner of Revenue initially granted the refunds claimed on the cooperatives’ amended returns. However, the Commissioner later determined that the refund was made in error and assessed the cooperatives to recover the amounts refunded to them. The cooperatives appealed. The tax court concluded that the cooperatives were not legally entitled to sales-tax refunds for any earnings that they later converted into equity and that the challenged assessments were timely. The Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded, holding (1) electric cooperatives may not reclassify portions of monthly payments by their customers as equity contributions and receive sales-tax refunds based on the reclassification; and (2) when the Commissioner assesses a taxpayer based on a deficiency created by an erroneous refund, the two-year statute of limitations for erroneous refunds generally applies. View "Connexus Energy v. Comm’r of Revenue" on Justia Law

Based on an indirect audit that the Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Revenue conducted of the sales and use tax returns for Conga Corporation for the tax periods from January 1, 2007 through March 31, 2010, the Commissioner determined that Conga had unreported revenues for the relevant tax periods and issued an order assessing additional sales, use, and entertainment taxes, plus penalties and interest. The tax court affirmed the Commissioner’s order with respect to the assessment of 2007 taxes but reversed with the penalty assessment for tax years 2008-2010, concluding that the Commissioner’s decision to use an indirect audit was not supported by the record. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Commissioner’s decision to use an indirect audit to assess taxes was supported by the record. Remanded. View "Conga Corp. v. Comm’r of Revenue" on Justia Law

The City filed timely proofs of claim for property taxes owed by a Chapter 11 debtor with respect to quarters of the 2009 tax year that had been billed pre‐petition, but did not file proofs of claim with respect to property tax bills for later quarters that were billed during the bankruptcy proceedings.  A single lien secured payment of the entire tax burden - both taxes that were the subject of claims and those that were not. The bankruptcy court ruled that the now-confirmed plan extinguished the lien and the district court affirmed. The court held that a lien is extinguished by a Chapter 11 plan if: (1) the text of the plan does not preserve the lien; (2) the plan is confirmed; (3) the property subject to the lien is “dealt with” by the terms of the plan; and (4) the lienholder participated in the bankruptcy proceedings. The court concluded that all four requirements are satisfied when applied to the facts of this case. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "City of Concord, N.H. v. Northern New England Telephone Operations" on Justia Law

The City filed timely proofs of claim for property taxes owed by a Chapter 11 debtor with respect to quarters of the 2009 tax year that had been billed pre‐petition, but did not file proofs of claim with respect to property tax bills for later quarters that were billed during the bankruptcy proceedings.  A single lien secured payment of the entire tax burden - both taxes that were the subject of claims and those that were not. The bankruptcy court ruled that the now-confirmed plan extinguished the lien and the district court affirmed. The court held that a lien is extinguished by a Chapter 11 plan if: (1) the text of the plan does not preserve the lien; (2) the plan is confirmed; (3) the property subject to the lien is “dealt with” by the terms of the plan; and (4) the lienholder participated in the bankruptcy proceedings. The court concluded that all four requirements are satisfied when applied to the facts of this case. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "City of Concord, N.H. v. Northern New England Telephone Operations" on Justia Law

Bulk, a gasoline distributor with gas stations in Kentucky, Indiana, and Tennessee, leases stations and equipment to tenant-operators. Bulk receives monthly rent plus payment for gasoline. The Kentucky Department of Revenue (KDOR) revoked Bulk’s license as a gasoline and special fuels dealer after it asked Bulk to post additional security and Bulk failed to do so. The change affected only the way in which Kentucky collected its fuel tax. Bulk kept track of the separate line-item for the tax in the invoices it received from its suppliers (Marathon and BP) and sought refunds from KDOR for those payments. A KDOR employee emailed Bulk that “only a licensed dealer is allowed to purchase product without the Kentucky tax for export. If your license is reinstated and all outstanding tax liabilities are satisfied, consideration will be given to your refund request.” Bulk regained its license, then sought Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. Bulk filed an adversary proceeding, seeking refund of the taxes. Kentucky filed a proof of claim. The bankruptcy court ruled in favor of Bulk, finding that Bulk had paid the taxes, which were not appropriately collected for gasoline that was consigned to destinations outside Kentucky. The district court disagreed, concluding that Bulk just paid a higher price to its suppliers. The Seventh Circuit reinstated the decision in favor of Bulk. View "Bulk Petroleum Corp. v. Ky. Dep't of Revenue" on Justia Law