Justia Tax Law Opinion Summaries

The City of Los Angeles implemented the recycLA program in 2017, establishing exclusive franchise agreements with private waste haulers to provide waste collection services for commercial and multi-unit residential properties. Under these agreements, haulers paid the City a percentage of their gross receipts as a franchise fee. Several property owners and tenants who paid for waste hauling services under this system filed a consolidated class action against the City, alleging that the franchise fees were actually an unlawful tax imposed without voter approval, in violation of Proposition 218 and related constitutional provisions. The plaintiffs sought refunds of the alleged illegal taxes and declaratory relief regarding the validity of the fees.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County considered the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. While the court found the proposed class sufficiently numerous and ascertainable, and agreed that the question of whether the franchise fees constituted an illegal tax was subject to common proof, it identified a fundamental problem: not all proposed class members suffered an economic loss, as some landlords and property owners may have passed the cost of the fees on to tenants. The court concluded that entitlement to refunds was not susceptible to common proof and that individual issues predominated over common ones. It also found that a class action was not the superior method for resolving the dispute, due to the risk of unjust enrichment and the complexity of determining who actually bore the cost of the fees. The court denied class certification.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Four, reviewed the trial court’s order under the substantial evidence standard. The appellate court affirmed the denial of class certification, holding that the trial court did not err in finding that individual issues predominated and that class treatment was not superior. The order denying class certification was affirmed. View "Leeds v. City of L.A." on Justia Law

A company acquired a tax title to certain immovable property in St. Martin Parish, Louisiana, after the original owners failed to pay property taxes. Following the expiration of the redemptive period, the company mailed post-tax sale notice to the executrix of the former owner’s succession at the address listed in the succession proceedings. The company then filed a petition to quiet title, and the executrix was personally served. In response, she filed a reconventional demand seeking to annul the tax sale, alleging she had not received adequate pre-tax and post-tax sale notice. The City, which had previously held a small interest in the property, was also named as a third-party defendant.The 16th Judicial District Court sustained exceptions of prescription raised by the company and the City, dismissing the executrix’s claims as untimely. On appeal, the Louisiana Third Circuit Court of Appeal reversed, finding the reconventional demand was timely because it was filed within six months of service of the petition to quiet title, as required by La. R.S. 47:2266. The appellate court also held that the failure to provide pre-tax sale notice could render the tax sale absolutely null, and that the company and the City bore the burden of proving the reconventional demand was prescribed.The Supreme Court of Louisiana reviewed the case and held that, following the 2008 revision to Louisiana’s tax sale statutes, failure to provide pre-tax sale notice for tax sales occurring after January 1, 2009, no longer results in an absolute nullity. Instead, such defects are relative nullities, subject to specific prescriptive periods under La. R.S. 47:2287. The Court further held that a nullity action brought as a reconventional demand in a quiet title action must also comply with the six-month limitation in La. R.S. 47:2266. The Court affirmed the appellate ruling regarding prescription but reversed on the issue of absolute nullity, remanding for further proceedings. View "BELAIRE DEVELOPMENT & CONSTRUCTION, LLC VS. SUCCESSION OF SHELTON" on Justia Law

After the owners of a parcel of real property in Manchester, Kentucky, died, no one paid the property taxes, resulting in the issuance of multiple certificates of delinquency for unpaid taxes. Clay County sold the 2011 and 2012 tax liens to third parties: the 2011 lien was eventually assigned to Keith and Jessica Smith, and the 2012 lien was purchased by Apex Fund Services. The Smiths recorded their lien before Apex recorded its own. Both the Smiths and Apex sought to enforce their liens, and Apex initiated a foreclosure action in Clay Circuit Court, naming all lienholders and heirs as defendants. The property was ultimately sold at a master commissioner’s auction, with the Smiths purchasing it for $2,500.The Clay Circuit Court initially ruled that the Smiths’ lien had priority because it was recorded first, applying the “first in time, first in right” doctrine. The court allowed the Smiths to receive a credit against the purchase price for the amount owed to them under their lien, plus costs and attorney fees. Apex appealed, and the Kentucky Court of Appeals reversed, holding that all tax liens were of equal rank and that the proceeds from the sale should be distributed pro rata among all tax lienholders, including the county.The Supreme Court of Kentucky affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision. The Court held that, under Kentucky statutes, tax liens held by the state, county, city, or third-party purchasers are of equal rank and are not subject to the common law “first in time, first in right” rule. Instead, when the proceeds from a foreclosure sale are insufficient to pay all tax liens and associated costs, the proceeds must be distributed pro rata among all tax lienholders. The case was remanded for the circuit court to determine the amounts owed and to distribute the proceeds accordingly. View "SMITH V. APEX FUND SERVICES AS CUSTODIAN FOR CERES TAX RECEIVABLES, LLC" on Justia Law

The petitioners own a home on nearly four acres of land in a gated community in Crown Point, Indiana. For the 2019 tax year, the Lake County Assessor classified one acre of their property as a “homestead” and taxed it at one percent of its assessed value, while the remaining 2.981 acres were taxed as non-residential property at a higher rate. The owners did not dispute the total assessed value but argued that the statutory one-acre limit for the homestead tax cap was unconstitutional as applied to them, claiming that their entire parcel constituted “curtilage” under the Indiana Constitution and should be subject to the lower tax rate.After the Lake County Property Tax Assessment Board of Appeals rejected their claim, the Indiana Board of Tax Review affirmed, stating it lacked authority to declare a statute unconstitutional and was bound by the one-acre limit. The petitioners appealed to the Indiana Tax Court, which reversed the Board’s decision. The Tax Court held that the Constitution does not permit a fixed one-acre limitation for the homestead tax cap and remanded for further proceedings to determine whether the excess acreage was used as part of the principal place of residence.The Indiana Supreme Court reviewed the Tax Court’s decision de novo. It held that, even if the Constitution does not impose a size limit on curtilage, the petitioners failed to present sufficient evidence that their excess land was used as curtilage. Therefore, they did not meet their burden to prove the statute unconstitutional as applied to them. The Supreme Court reversed the Tax Court’s judgment and remanded with instructions to affirm the Board’s determination in favor of the Assessor. View "Sawlani v. Lake County Assessor" on Justia Law

The case concerns a challenge to the validity of Measure C, a citizens’ initiative placed on the ballot by the City of San Diego for the March 2020 election. Measure C proposed an increase in the city’s transient occupancy tax, with revenues earmarked for homelessness programs, street repairs, and convention center improvements. The measure also authorized the City to issue bonds repaid from the new tax revenues. Measure C received 65.24 percent of the vote, and the city council subsequently passed resolutions declaring the measure approved and authorizing the issuance of related bonds.After the election, Alliance San Diego and other plaintiffs filed actions challenging the City’s resolution declaring Measure C had passed, arguing it was invalid. The City responded with a validation complaint seeking judicial confirmation of the validity of Measure C and the related bond resolutions. California Taxpayers Action Network (CTAN) and other opponents answered, contending that Measure C required a two-thirds vote and was not a bona fide citizens’ initiative. The Superior Court of San Diego County initially granted a motion for judgment on the pleadings, finding that a two-thirds vote was required, and entered judgment against the City. On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, reversed and remanded for further proceedings to determine whether Measure C was a bona fide citizens’ initiative.On remand, the trial court conducted a bench trial and rejected CTAN’s arguments, finding that it had subject matter jurisdiction, the case was ripe, the special fund doctrine exempted the bonds from the two-thirds vote requirement, and Measure C was a bona fide citizens’ initiative requiring only a simple majority vote. The California Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s judgment, holding that Measure C and the related bond resolutions were valid, and that the trial court properly excluded certain hearsay evidence. View "Alliance San Diego v. California Taxpayers Action Network" on Justia Law

A U.S.-based multinational corporation filed a consolidated federal tax return for 2006, reporting royalty income received from its Brazilian subsidiary for the use of intellectual property. Brazilian law limited the amount the subsidiary could pay in royalties to its foreign parent, so the subsidiary paid and the parent reported only the amount permitted under Brazilian law. Years later, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued a Notice of Deficiency, reallocating nearly $23.7 million in additional royalty income to the parent company, arguing that this reflected what an unrelated party would have paid for the intellectual property, notwithstanding the Brazilian legal restriction.The corporation challenged the IRS’s determination in the United States Tax Court. The Tax Court, in a closely divided decision, upheld the IRS’s position. A plurality of judges deferred to the IRS regulation that allowed such reallocation, finding the statute ambiguous and the regulation reasonable. Two concurring judges agreed with the result but believed the statute itself required the reallocation, regardless of the regulation. The dissenting judges argued that the statute unambiguously prohibited the IRS from reallocating income that the parent could not legally receive, and some also found the regulation procedurally invalid.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case in light of recent Supreme Court precedent clarifying that courts must independently interpret statutes without deferring to agency interpretations. The Eighth Circuit held that the relevant statute does not permit the IRS to reallocate income that the taxpayer could not legally receive due to foreign law restrictions. The court concluded that the IRS’s authority to allocate income under the statute is limited to amounts over which the taxpayer has dominion or control. The Eighth Circuit reversed the Tax Court’s decision and remanded for redetermination of the taxes owed. View "3M Company v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue" on Justia Law

A group of related companies, including a pharmacy benefit manager (HPS), filed a combined Minnesota corporate franchise tax return for the 2016 tax year. HPS provided pharmacy benefit management services to a health insurance company (HIC), which is headquartered in Wisconsin but has plan members in multiple states, including Minnesota. Initially, the companies attributed receipts from HPS’s services to Minnesota based on the number of HIC plan members who filled prescriptions in the state. Several years later, they amended their return to attribute all such receipts to Wisconsin, arguing that the services were received by HIC at its headquarters, and sought a refund of over $800,000.The Minnesota Department of Revenue denied the refund claim, concluding that the original method—attributing receipts to the state where the plan members received services—was correct. The companies appealed, and the case was transferred to the Minnesota Tax Court. Both parties moved for summary judgment, stipulating that all receipts at issue should be sourced together, either to Minnesota or Wisconsin. The Tax Court granted summary judgment to the Commissioner, holding that the statutory term “received” was not limited to the direct customer (HIC), and that the services were received in Minnesota by HIC plan members.The Minnesota Supreme Court reviewed the case. It held that under Minnesota Statutes section 290.191, subdivision 5(j), the term “received” is not limited to the direct customer, but can include a customer’s customer. The Court found that HPS’s services were received both by HIC in Wisconsin and by HIC plan members in Minnesota. Because the taxpayer failed to prove that all services were received outside Minnesota, and the parties had stipulated to an all-or-nothing sourcing, the Tax Court did not err in granting summary judgment to the Commissioner. The Supreme Court affirmed the Tax Court’s decision. View "Humana MarketPoint, Inc. v. Commissioner of Revenue" on Justia Law

Several utility companies operating in California, including in Ventura County, challenged the property tax rates applied to their state-assessed utility property. They argued that the method used to calculate the debt service component of their property tax rate resulted in a higher rate than that applied to locally assessed, nonutility property (referred to as “common property”). The utilities claimed this disparity violated section 19 of article XIII of the California Constitution, which states that utility property “shall be subject to taxation to the same extent and in the same manner as other property.”The utilities filed suit in the Ventura County Superior Court against the County of Ventura and the California State Board of Equalization, seeking partial refunds for property taxes paid between 2018 and 2023. The County demurred, relying on recent appellate decisions that had rejected similar claims. The parties stipulated that the decision in County of Santa Clara v. Superior Court was binding for purposes of this case, and the trial court sustained the demurrer, entering judgment in favor of the County and the Board.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Six, reviewed the case de novo. The court affirmed the trial court’s judgment, holding that article XIII, section 19 does not require that utility property be taxed at the same or a comparable rate as nonutility property. Instead, the provision is an enabling clause that allows utility property to be subject to property taxation, but does not mandate rate equivalence. The court also found that the general uniformity requirement in article XIII, section 1 does not override the Legislature’s authority to implement reasonable distinctions in tax treatment for utility property. The judgment in favor of the County and the Board was affirmed. View "Pacific Bell Telephone Co. v. County of Ventura" on Justia Law

The City of Pittsburgh imposed a three percent tax, known as the Nonresident Sports Facility Usage Fee, on income earned by nonresidents performing at its publicly funded sports stadiums. Resident performers were subject instead to a one percent earned income tax by the City and a two percent school district tax, while nonresidents were exempt from the school district tax. The plaintiffs, consisting of professional athletes and their unions, challenged the facility fee, arguing that it violated the Uniformity Clause of the Pennsylvania Constitution by taxing nonresident performers at a higher rate than resident performers for similar activities.The Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, finding that the facility fee was unconstitutional. The court reasoned that the relevant comparison was between the City’s tax on residents and the facility fee on nonresidents, and that the school district tax paid by residents could not be used to justify the higher tax on nonresidents, since nonresidents were not subject to the school district tax by law. The Commonwealth Court affirmed, agreeing that the City failed to provide a legitimate justification for the disparate treatment and that the school district tax was not relevant to the uniformity analysis.The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reviewed the case and affirmed the lower courts’ decisions. The Court held that the City’s facility fee violated the Uniformity Clause because it imposed a higher tax burden on nonresident athletes and entertainers without a concrete justification for treating them differently from residents. The Court rejected the City’s argument that the overall tax burden was equalized by including the school district tax, emphasizing that taxes imposed by separate entities for distinct purposes cannot be aggregated to manufacture uniformity. The facility fee was therefore found unconstitutional. View "National Hockey League Players Ass'n v. City of Pittsburgh" on Justia Law

Lano/Armada Harbourside, LLC sold five condominium units in Washington, D.C. to Allegiance 2900 K Street LLC in 2013 for $39 million. The sale was documented by a deed that purported to reserve to Lano/Armada a leasehold interest in the property, referencing a separate ground lease agreement between Allegiance (as landlord) and Lano/Armada (as tenant). The ground lease had a term exceeding thirty years, with options to extend up to 117 years, and specified substantial annual rent payments. The ground lease itself was not recorded at the time of the sale, and no taxes were paid on it. Only the deed was recorded, and taxes were paid based on the transfer of the fee simple interest.After a series of assignments and a foreclosure, Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company, as subrogee of COMM 2013-CCRE12 K STREET NW, LLC, sought to record a deed of foreclosure in 2019. The Recorder of Deeds refused, noting that the ground lease had never been recorded or taxed. Commonwealth then recorded a memorandum of lease and paid the required taxes under protest. Commonwealth sought a refund from the Office of Tax Revenue, which was denied, and then petitioned the Superior Court of the District of Columbia for relief. The Superior Court granted summary judgment to the District, finding that the ground lease was a separate taxable transfer and that the statute of limitations had not run because no return for the ground lease had been filed until 2019.On appeal, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals affirmed. The court held that the ground lease was a separate transfer of a leasehold interest, not a mere retention, and was subject to recordation and taxation. The court further held that the statute of limitations for tax collection was not triggered by the earlier deed and tax return, as they did not provide sufficient information about the ground lease. Thus, the District’s collection of taxes on the ground lease was timely. View "Commonwealth Land Title Ins. Co. v. District of Columbia" on Justia Law