Justia Tax Law Opinion Summaries

A property owner (Taxpayer) filed a complaint for tax year 2010, asking for a reduction from the auditor’s value of its property. The Cuyahoga County Board of Revision (BOR) dismissed Taxpayer’s complaint. Taxpayer then filed a complaint challenging the valuation for tax year 2011. Ohio Rev. Code 5715.19(A)(2) generally prohibits the filing of a second complaint within the same interim period, with certain exceptions, and the 2010 and 2011 tax years were part of the same interim period between the 2009 update and the 2012 reappraisal in Cuyahoga County. Taxpayer argued that two exceptions to the general rule applied in this case. The Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) disagreed and held that neither applied. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the filing of Taxpayer’s tax-year-2011 complaint came within the exception in Ohio Rev. Code 5715.19(A)(2)(a), and the filing therefore invoked the jurisdiction of the BOR. Remanded. View "Soyko Kulchystsky, LLC v. Bd. of Revision" on Justia Law

Appellant is the non-debtor spouse of debtor. Appellant claimed a homestead exemption in property held jointly with debtor that is subject to a forced sale in debtor's bankruptcy proceedings, contending that the sale is a Fifth Amendment taking and that she is entitled to just compensation. The court held, however, that the forced sale of the property by operation of section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. 363, is not a taking of appellant's homestead where any potential property interest was acquired after the enactment of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (BAPCPA), Pub. L. 109-8, 119 Stat. 23-217. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court concluding that there was no unconstitutional taking. View "Thaw v. Moser" on Justia Law

Appellants appealed the Commissioner's determination that the USDA's Conservation Program (CRP) payments that appellants received were taxable as income from self-employment. The court entered judgment in favor of appellants, holding that the 2006 and 2007 CRP payments at issue were consideration paid by the government for use and occupancy of appellants' property. Consequently, they constituted rentals from real estate fully within the meaning of 26 U.S.C. 1402(a)(1). The court reversed and remanded. View "Morehouse v. Commissioner of IRS" on Justia Law

In 2013, the legislature amended the Estate and Transfer Tax Act in response to the Washington Supreme Court's decision in "In re Estate of Bracken," 290 P.3d 99 (2012), in which the Court narrowly construed the term "transfer." The amendment allowed the Department of Revenue (DOR) to tax qualified terminable interest property (QTIP) as part of a surviving spouse's estate. A QTIP trust is created by a deceased spouse and gives the surviving spouse a life interest in the income or use of trust property. In consolidated cases, the estates of Hambleton and Macbride challenged the amendment on a variety of grounds. The Supreme Court rejected the Estates' challenges, reversed summary judgment in In re Estate of Hambleton, and affirmed the summary judgment in In re Estate of Macbride. View "In re Estate of Hambleton" on Justia Law

This case was a direct appeal of an Oregon Tax Court Regular Division decision to set aside an Opinion and Order issued by the Director of the Department of Revenue. The primary issue this case presented to the Supreme Court was whether either Comcast's cable television service or internet access service qualified as "communication" under ORS 308.515(1)(h) and was, therefore, subject to central assessment by the department. In this case, whether Comcast's cable television service or internet access service qualified as a "communication" service or business depended on whether either service was a "data transmission service." The Tax Court concluded that Comcast's internet access service, but not its cable television service, was a data transmission service. Furthermore, the Tax Court concluded that Comcast's cable television service was the primary use of the property that Comcast uses for both. Consequently, pursuant to ORS 308.510(5), the Tax Court determined that the property that Comcast used for the two services was not subject to central assessment for the 2009-2010 tax year, contrary to the department's determination. Both parties appealed. The Supreme Court held that both the cable television and internet access services qualified as data transmission services and were, therefore, communication services subject to central assessment under ORS 308.515(1)(h). View "Comcast Corp. v. Dept. of Rev." on Justia Law

The government sued to enforce tax assessments against the Zabkas and tax liens against their property and against property of partnerships to which they had transferred assets. The district court ruled that the assessments (several million dollars) were valid and that, when the IRS made the assessments, the liens had attached to all the Zabkas’ personal property and to all their rights to property, including their ownership interests in the partnerships. The government sought appointment of a receiver. The court denied motions to reconsider calculation of the unpaid assessments, and directed the clerk to enter judgment. The order is captioned “Judgment in a civil case” and states: “Judgment is entered in favor of the Plaintiff.” The docket entry adds: “CASE TERMINATED.” The Zabkas appealed. The Zabkas filed another appeal from a subsequent order, which directed the government to propose a receiver. The judge ordered appointment of the receiver proposed by the government. The defendants appealed that order. They later appealed approval of property sales by the receiver and an order awarding interim compensation to the receiver. The Seventh Circuit concluded that it had jurisdiction only over the appeal from the appointment of the receiver and affirmed that order, which was the last order in the first proceeding and so completed that proceeding. View "United States v. Zabka" on Justia Law

Nearly 15 years after the Orange County Assessor established the base year value used to assess real property taxes against plaintiff William Jefferson & Co., Inc.'s property, the company appealed to defendant Assessment Appeals Board claiming the Assessor made a clerical error in valuing the property. The Appeals Board conducted an evidentiary hearing and denied the appeal on the ground plaintiff had waited too long to challenge the Assessor's base year value determination. The Appeals Board found plaintiff based its appeal not on a clerical error but on the Assessor's error in judging the property's value, and therefore plaintiff failed to comply with Revenue and Taxation Code sections 51.5, subdivision (b), and 80, subdivision (a)(3), which required plaintiff to appeal within four years of the Assessor's base year value determination. Plaintiff filed suit seeking to compel the Appeals Board to grant its appeal and direct the Assessor to change the property's base year value. However, plaintiff failed to address the Appeals Board's determination that it lacked jurisdiction to grant plaintiff's appeal, instead relying on the Assessor's allegedly erroneous property valuation. The trial court granted the Appeals Board summary judgment because plaintiff challenged the merits of the Assessor's valuation and therefore had to bring this action against the County of Orange and not the Appeals Board. Finding no reversible error, the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's decision. View "Wm. Jefferson & Co. v. Assessment Appeals Bd." on Justia Law

Appellants challenged the IRS's interpretation of 26 U.S.C. 36B, enacted as part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 706(2)(A). The district court held that the ACA's text, structure, purpose, and legislative history make "clear that Congress intended to make premium tax credits available on both state-run and federally-facilitated Exchanges." The district court held that even if the ACA were ambiguous, the IRS's regulation would represent a permissible construction entitled to Chevron deference. The court concluded, however, that the ACA unambiguously restricts the section 36B subsidy to insurance purchased on Exchanges "established by the State." Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment of the district court and vacated the IRS's regulation.View "Halbig v. Burwell" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit challenging the validity of an IRS final rule implementing the premium tax credit provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), 26 U.S.C. 36B. The final rule interprets the Act as authorizing the IRS to grant tax credits to individuals who purchase health insurance on both state-run insurance "Exchanges" and federally-facilitated "Exchanges" created and operated by HHS. The court found that the applicable statutory language is ambiguous and subject to multiple interpretations. Applying deference to the IRS's determination, the court upheld the rule as a permissible exercise of the agency's discretion. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.View "King v. Burwell" on Justia Law

Circuit affirmed. When real estate taxes are not paid, a tax lien attaches to the property, annually, including interest, penalties, and fees accrued until paid, O.R.C. 323.11. Summit and other Ohio counties sell tax lien certificates that entitle the certificate holder to the first lien on the property. Property owners may redeem and remove the lien by paying the holder the purchase price plus interest, penalties, and costs, O.R.C. 5721.32. The certificate holder may initiate foreclosure proceedings after one year. Plymouth Park purchased Certificate 1, showing a purchase price of $4,083.73 with a negotiated interest rate of 0.25%, and Certificate 2, showing a purchase price of $2,045.44 with a negotiated interest rate of 18.00%. Summit County filed a foreclosure complaint following a request by Plymouth Park. The complaint stated that “as provided by Section 5721.38(b) of the Ohio Revised Code” the “redemption price” calculated was $10,585.82. A month later, the Debtors filed their Chapter 13 plan and petition; they did not file any notice to “redeem” their property during the bankruptcy action. The Chapter 13 payment plan (11 U.S.C. 1321) proposed to pay the interest rates listed on the certificates. , Plymouth Park filed a proof of claim based on both certificates for $10,521.46, including $2,120.00 in fees and the principal balance of $7,781.19 plus 18% interest. The Bankruptcy Court agreed that Plymouth Park’s claim was a tax claim under 11 U.S.C. 511 and that state law governed the interest rate, but rejected a claim that the 18% statutory rate, rather than the negotiated rate, should apply. The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel and SixthView "Plymouth Park Tax Servs, LLC v. Bowers" on Justia Law