Justia Tax Law Opinion Summaries

The case involves a dispute over the interpretation and application of Idaho Code section 63-602G, which governs the homestead property tax exemption. In 2020, the Idaho Legislature amended the statute to remove the April 15 application deadline and added that the exemption "shall be effective upon the date of the application." The Idaho State Tax Commission issued guidance stating that the exemption should not be prorated based on the application date, which was supported by an Attorney General Opinion. However, Latah and Lincoln Counties disagreed and prorated the exemption based on the application date.The Counties petitioned for judicial review in their respective district courts, which were consolidated. The district court ruled in favor of the Counties, determining that the Tax Commission exceeded its authority and that the statute was ambiguous, allowing for proration based on legislative intent. The Tax Commission appealed the decision.The Supreme Court of Idaho reviewed the case and held that the plain language of Idaho Code section 63-602G requires the retroactive application of the homestead exemption to January 1 of the tax year during which the application was submitted, regardless of the application submission date. The Court found that the statute was unambiguous and that the exemption applies to the entire tax year, not prorated based on the application date.The Court also determined that the Tax Commission did not exceed its statutory authority when it issued the May 2022 Order directing the Counties to apply the full homestead exemption. The Court concluded that the Tax Commission's order was within its constitutional and statutory powers to ensure uniformity and compliance with property tax laws.The Supreme Court of Idaho reversed the district court's order, vacated the judgment, and remanded the case for entry of an order affirming the Tax Commission’s May 2022 Order. View "Latah County v. Idaho State Tax Commission" on Justia Law

Patrick Kennedy and Roy J. Meidinger, Sr. filed whistleblower claims with the IRS, alleging significant tax violations by various entities. Kennedy's claims involved three corporations, while Meidinger's claim was based on a theory that healthcare provider discounts to insurance companies constituted untaxed debt relief. Both claims were initially reviewed by the IRS Whistleblower Office (WBO) and forwarded to IRS operating divisions for further action.The IRS operating divisions did not take substantive action on Meidinger's claim or on two of Kennedy's claims. Meidinger's claim was deemed speculative, and Kennedy's first two claims were either outside the operating division's jurisdiction or involved a defunct entity. Kennedy's third claim led to an audit of the targeted taxpayer, but the IRS found no tax violations and collected no proceeds.The United States Tax Court dismissed Meidinger's case for lack of jurisdiction, as the IRS had not proceeded with any administrative or judicial action based on his information. The Tax Court also dismissed Kennedy's first two claims for the same reason but reviewed his third claim on the merits, ultimately denying it because the IRS collected no proceeds.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the consolidated appeals. The court held that the Tax Court lacked jurisdiction over Meidinger's claim and Kennedy's first two claims, as the IRS had not taken any substantive action against the taxpayers based on their information. However, the court affirmed the Tax Court's decision on Kennedy's third claim, agreeing that no proceeds were collected, and thus, no award was warranted. The court dismissed Meidinger's appeal and Kennedy's first two claims for lack of jurisdiction and affirmed the denial of Kennedy's third claim on the merits. View "Kennedy v. Cmsnr. IRS" on Justia Law

Verizon New England Inc. (Verizon) sought review of a District Court judgment favoring Neena S. Savage, the Tax Administrator for Rhode Island. The case revolved around the interpretation of "accumulated depreciation" under G.L. 1956 § 44-13-13, which governs the taxation of tangible personal property (TPP) for telecommunications companies in Rhode Island. Verizon, a New York corporation providing telecommunications services in Rhode Island, had declared the value of its TPP based on financial accounting depreciation until 2009. After reevaluating its approach, Verizon submitted amended valuations and requested tax refunds, which were denied.Verizon requested an administrative hearing, arguing that "accumulated depreciation" should include all forms of depreciation, including physical deterioration, functional obsolescence, and economic obsolescence. The hearing officer recommended affirming the refund denials, and the tax administrator adopted this recommendation. Verizon then appealed to the District Court, claiming the tax was excessive due to the incorrect calculation of accumulated depreciation.The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant, reasoning that the plain and ordinary meaning of "accumulated depreciation" did not include external factors like obsolescence. The court noted that the tax administrator had consistently applied financial accounting-based depreciation for forty years without legislative intervention.The Rhode Island Supreme Court reviewed the case and agreed with the District Court's interpretation. The court held that "accumulated depreciation" in § 44-13-13 refers to financial accounting depreciation, reflecting the value on Verizon's balance sheet. The court affirmed the judgment of the District Court, concluding that the plain and ordinary meaning of depreciation did not encompass market contingencies such as economic and functional obsolescence. View "Verizon New England Inc. v. Savage" on Justia Law

Appellants Benedict J. Frederick, III, Matthew W. Wyskiel, III, and Stacie Teal-Locust challenged the Baltimore City Board of Elections' decision to reject a proposed charter amendment petition sponsored by Renew Baltimore. The proposed amendment sought to cap Baltimore City's real property tax rate, decreasing it incrementally over seven years. The current tax rate is $2.248 per $100 of assessed value, and the amendment aimed to reduce it to $1.20 per $100 by fiscal year 2032.The Election Director for the City Board approved the petition format but did not assess its legality. Renew Baltimore submitted the petition with 23,542 signatures, exceeding the required 10,000. However, the Election Director later deemed the amendment deficient, citing a conflict with section 6-302(a) of the Tax-Property Article, which grants the Mayor and City Council the authority to set property tax rates. The Circuit Court for Baltimore City upheld this decision, ruling that the amendment was not proper charter material and violated section 6-302(a).The Supreme Court of Maryland reviewed the case and affirmed the Circuit Court's decision. The Court held that the proposed charter amendment was impermissible because it violated section 6-302(a) of the Tax-Property Article by allowing citizens to establish the tax rate, which is a power vested in the Mayor and City Council. Additionally, the Court noted that section 49 of Article II of the Baltimore City Charter prohibits voters from initiating legislation related to property taxation. Therefore, the proposed amendment could not be presented on the November 2024 general election ballot. View "Frederick v. Balt. City Bd. of Elections" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute over a renewable energy technologies income tax credit (RETITC) claimed by Blake and Blanca Goodman for solar energy systems installed on their home in 2012. The Goodmans claimed $17,250 in RETITC on their Hawai‘i income tax return using Form N-342. Despite having no excess tax credit (their tax credit did not exceed their tax liability), they were required to make an irrevocable election on how to treat the tax credit as either refundable or nonrefundable.The Department of Taxation audited the Goodmans' return and issued a Final Assessment reducing their claimed RETITC by 30%, resulting in an additional tax assessment of $5,416.50. The Goodmans appealed to the Board of Taxation Review, which ruled in their favor, allowing them to amend their elections. The Department then appealed to the Tax Appeal Court, which granted summary judgment for the Department, ruling that the Goodmans' election was irrevocable and that they owed additional taxes.The Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) vacated the Tax Appeal Court's decision, holding that the court exceeded its jurisdiction by increasing the Goodmans' tax liability beyond the Department's assessment. However, the ICA affirmed the Department's Final Assessment, finding that Form N-342 and its instructions were consistent with the statute.The Supreme Court of Hawai‘i reviewed the case and held that Form N-342 and its instructions were inconsistent with HRS § 235-12.5(f)-(h). The court found that the statute's provisions for refundable or nonrefundable elections only apply when a taxpayer's tax credit exceeds their tax liability. Since the Goodmans did not have excess tax credit, they should not have been required to make such elections. The court vacated the ICA's judgment and reversed the Tax Appeal Court's final judgment, ruling that the Goodmans are entitled to the $17,250 RETITC they claimed. View "Suganuma v. Goodman" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Steve Rogers filed a lawsuit against the City of Redlands, alleging that the rates for the City’s solid waste collection included a surcharge for a City program to repair roads, which he claimed violated Vehicle Code section 9400.8. The trial was bifurcated into two phases. In phase one, the trial court determined that section 9400.8 was violated. In phase two, the court ruled that refunds were limited to those who paid under protest pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 5472. Both the City and Rogers appealed these rulings.The Superior Court of San Bernardino County initially reviewed the case. In phase one, the court found that the surcharge for the City’s pavement accelerated repair implementation strategy (PARIS) program constituted a charge for the privilege of using the City’s streets, thus violating section 9400.8. In phase two, the court concluded that Health and Safety Code section 5472 limited refunds to those who paid under protest, denying Rogers the retrospective remedies he sought.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s rulings. It agreed that the surcharge for the PARIS program was indeed a charge for the privilege of using the City’s streets, prohibited by section 9400.8. The court also upheld the trial court’s application of Health and Safety Code section 5472, which limited refunds to those who paid under protest. The appellate court found no error in the trial court’s decisions and affirmed the judgment in its entirety. View "Rogers v. City of Redlands" on Justia Law

Owners of timeshare estates in a resort sued the County of Riverside, challenging the legality of an annual fee charged for separate property tax assessments. The owners argued that the fee exceeded the reasonable cost of providing the assessment, constituting a tax that required voter approval, which had not been obtained. The trial court rejected the owners' argument and ruled in favor of the County.The Superior Court of Riverside County entered judgment for the County, finding that the fee did not exceed the reasonable cost of providing the separate assessment. The court considered various costs, including those related to a new computer system and assessment appeals, even though these costs were not included in the original budget used to set the fee.The Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, State of California, reversed the trial court's decision. The appellate court held that the County did not meet its burden to prove that the $23 fee was not a tax requiring voter approval under Article XIII C of the California Constitution. The court found that the County's methodology for setting the fee was flawed, as it included costs unrelated to the specific service of providing separate timeshare assessments and did not accurately reflect the actual cost of the service. The court also ruled that the trial court erred in considering costs incurred after the fiscal year used to set the fee.The appellate court remanded the case for further proceedings to determine the appropriate refund amount and to decide on the declaratory, injunctive, and/or writ relief sought by the owners. The County must prove the reasonable and necessary costs of providing the separate assessment service, excluding costs for valuing the timeshare project as a whole. View "Scott v. County of Riverside" on Justia Law

T-Mobile sought a refund for statutory service fees paid to the Kentucky Commercial Mobile Radio Service Emergency Telecommunications Board, arguing that the fees did not apply to prepaid cellular customers based on a prior court decision. The Board denied the refund request, leading T-Mobile to file a lawsuit in Franklin Circuit Court. The trial court ruled against T-Mobile, stating that it did not meet the common law refund requirements as outlined in Inland Container Corporation v. Mason County, which necessitates that payments be involuntary or made under misrepresentation.The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, agreeing that T-Mobile's payments were voluntary and not subject to refund. T-Mobile then sought discretionary review from the Supreme Court of Kentucky. The Supreme Court granted review, heard oral arguments, and examined the record.The Supreme Court of Kentucky affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision. The court held that T-Mobile was not entitled to a common law refund because the payments were voluntary and not made under misrepresentation. The court emphasized that the payments were not collectible by summary process or fine and imprisonment, and T-Mobile had the opportunity to challenge the fees in court before paying them. Additionally, the court found no evidence of actual misrepresentation by the Board. Therefore, T-Mobile's claim for a common law refund was denied. View "Powertel Memphis, Inc. v. Commercial Mobile Radio Service Emergency Telecommunications Board" on Justia Law

Aramark Corporation provides food services to clients in various industries, purchasing food, labor, and materials from third-party vendors. Under management-fee contracts, clients reimburse Aramark for these purchases and pay a management fee. Aramark sought a refund for the commercial-activity tax (CAT) it paid on these reimbursements, arguing that it acted as an agent for its clients and thus the reimbursements should be excluded from gross receipts under the CAT statute.The Tax Commissioner denied Aramark's refund claim, determining that Aramark did not meet the requirements for the gross-receipts exclusion. The Board of Tax Appeals affirmed this decision, concluding that Aramark failed to establish an agency relationship with its clients as required by the statute. The board found that Aramark did not have the authority to bind its clients to its activities with third-party vendors and that the reimbursements constituted gross receipts.The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the case and affirmed the Board of Tax Appeals' decision. The court held that Aramark did not qualify for the gross-receipts exclusion under the CAT statute because it did not act as an agent for its clients. The court found that Aramark kept the reimbursements for itself and did not hold them on behalf of its clients. Additionally, the court disapproved of the approach used in a previous case, Willoughby Hills, which required a showing of actual authority to establish an agency relationship for CAT purposes. The court concluded that the reimbursements Aramark received from its clients were taxable gross receipts and rejected Aramark's alternative argument that the reimbursements did not contribute to the production of gross income. View "Aramark Corp. v. Harris" on Justia Law

A limited partnership, owning an apartment complex in Norman, Oklahoma, transferred its general and limited partnership interests to new owners in 2022. The Cleveland County Assessor subsequently increased the fair cash value of the property from $18,437,401 in 2022 to $42,500,000 in 2023, exceeding the constitutionally allowed 5% annual increase for ad valorem taxation. The partnership, Icon, protested this increase, arguing that the transfer of partnership interests did not constitute a transfer of property title.The Cleveland County Board of Equalization denied Icon's protest, and the Oklahoma Court of Tax Review granted summary judgment in favor of the Assessor, concluding that the transfer of partnership interests was equivalent to a transfer of property title, thus lifting the 5% cap on valuation increases. Icon appealed this decision.The Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma reviewed the case de novo, focusing on whether the transfer of partnership interests should be treated as a transfer of property title under Okla. Const. art. 10, §8B. The court held that the transfer of partnership interests was a transfer of personal property, not real property, and did not constitute a transfer, change, or conveyance of the property title. Therefore, the 5% cap on annual increases in property valuation for ad valorem taxation should not have been lifted. The court vacated the Oklahoma Court of Tax Review's order and remanded the case. View "THE ICON AT NORMAN APTS, LP v. DOUGLAS WARR, CLEVELAND COUNTY ASSESSOR" on Justia Law