Justia Tax Law Opinion Summaries

EB Dorev Holdings, Inc. purchased tax liens on certain properties from Kanawha County. The West Virginia Department of Administration, Real Estate Division (WVDOA) later filed a complaint against EB Dorev and Kanawha county seeking to prevent the issuances of the tax deeds to EB Dorev. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of the WVDOA and voided the sale of the tax liens. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court erred in ruling that the properties were entered exempt from 2009 real estate taxes upon the WVDOA’s purchase of the properties from private entities in August and September of 2008; but (2) the circuit court’s alternative finding that the tax liens at issue were extinguished through the doctrine of merger was not in error.View "EB Dorev Holdings v. W. Va. Dep’t of Admin., Real Estate Div." on Justia Law

Appellant Sheila Brandner appealed the Anchorage Municipal Board of Equalization's valuation of her home for the 2012 tax year. She argued the Municipal assessor's office used an improper appraisal method and that the Board overestimated the value of her property. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the Board made a clerical error in the calculation of the value of Brandner's property. Therefore the case was remanded to the Board to adopt a final assessment consistent with the Board's intent.View "Brandner v. Municipality of Anchorage" on Justia Law

The Board of County Commissioners of Kay County appealed the district court's dismissal of its complaint seeking a declaratory judgment that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, along with the FHFA as their conservator, violated state law by failing to pay Oklahoma's documentary stamp tax (the Transfer Tax). The court held that 12 U.S.C. 1452(e), 1723a(c)(2), 4617(j)(1)-(2) exempt the entities from all state and local taxation, including Oklahoma's Transfer Tax, and that the Transfer Tax did not constitute a tax on real property such that it fell into the real property exceptions from the exemptions. The court also held that Kay County has forfeited its argument that the exemptions represent an invalid exercise of the Commerce power. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.View "Bd. of Cty. Comm'rs v. FHFA, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit to determine her liability for $148,000 in penalties assessed by the IRS for aiding and abetting understatement of tax liability in violation of I.R.C. 6701. The court concluded that the Government must prove its case under I.R.C. 6701 by clear and convincing evidence because I.R.C. 6701 requires the Government to prove fraud. The court also concluded that insufficient evidence supported the jury's verdict on the penalties plaintiff challenged on appeal because the Government did not meet its burden of proving that plaintiff actually knew the returns she prepared understated the correct tax. Therefore, the court reversed as to this issue. In this case, the district court's instruction on a preponderance standard likely harmed plaintiff. Accordingly, the court vacated the district court's judgment on all remaining penalties and remanded for a new trial. View "Carlson v. United States" on Justia Law

The Commissioner disallowed petitioner's claimed deduction on his 1999 tax return for a capital loss purportedly generated by several Cayman Islands entities. Petitioner invested in an Offshore Portfolio Investment Strategy (OPIS) in order to reduce the tax liability associated with petitioner's strategy of either taking his company, DiTech, public or selling it. The Tax Court affirmed. Applying the economic substance doctrine, the court concluded that the record amply supported the Tax Court's factual conclusion that petitioner pursued the OPIS product solely for its tax benefits and that the Tax Court had ample record support for its factual conclusion that the OPIS transaction had no practical economic effects other than the creation of income tax losses. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.View "Reddam v. CIR" on Justia Law

ABC makes and distributes soft drinks and other non-alcoholic beverages for Dr Pepper Snapple Group and leased a Hazelwood, Missouri facility. After concluding that its rent was too high, it exercised an option to buy the property. Appraisals valued the property without the lease at $2.75 million, and ABC determined that the fair market value with the lease would be at least $9 million. ABC bought the property for more than $9 million. On its tax return, ABC reported $2.75 million as its cost of acquiring the property and deducted $6.25 million as a business expense for terminating the lease. The IRS disallowed the deduction and assessed a tax deficiency; ABC paid the deficiency and sued for a refund. On summary judgment, the district court ruled in favor of ABC. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. Because the lease terminated when ABC acquired the property, the property was not acquired subject to a lease, and I.R.C. section 167(c)(2) does not apply to bar ABC’s deduction. The government conceded that ABC could deduct a lease termination payment if it first paid to terminate the lease and then purchased the property. The court declined “to elevate this transaction’s form over its substance.”View "ABC Beverage Corp. v. United States" on Justia Law

Effective July 1, 2009, the New Hampshire Legislature imposed a ten percent tax on gambling winnings (Gambling Winnings Tax). The Gambling Winnings Tax was repealed effective May 23, 2011. The repeal was not retroactive, meaning that the tax was assessed on gambling winnings between July 1, 2009, and May 22, 2011. Petitioner Leonard Willey was a New Hampshire resident who, for the three years preceding the filing of this action, derived almost all of his earned income from gambling. For the 2009 tax year, he owed no federal income tax because his gambling losses exceeded his winnings. Petitioner David Eby was not an original party to this action, but was added as a substitute party later in the case. He was a New Hampshire resident who, in May 2011, purchased a scratch ticket and won ten dollars on the ticket, and was required to pay one dollar under the Gambling Winnings Tax as a result. This class action was filed in 2010, by putative class representatives Dean Leighton and Leighton Family Enterprises, LLC and Willey. Petitioners sought a declaratory judgment that the Gambling Winnings Tax was illegal and unconstitutional on its face, as applied to pre-enactment lottery winners receiving their winnings through annuities, and as applied to professional gamblers, as well as a refund of all such taxes collected or withheld. The Superior Court granted summary judgment to the State and dismissed petitioners' motion for summary judgment and remaining claims challenging the constitutionality of the state's tax on gambling winnings. The Supreme Court affirmed the superior court: the Court disagreed with petitioners that a tax on gross gambling winnings was inherently “unfair, unreasonable, and disproportional” under the New Hampshire constitution. Because petitioners could not show that they suffered harm under the Commerce Clause, were professional gamblers, or were gambling winnings annuity recipients, they did not suffer the same injury as the members of the subclasses they claimed to represent, and thus they did not demonstrate their entitlement to act as class representatives for the members of those subclasses. The Gambling Winnings Tax neither lacked uniformity nor was disproportional and unreasonable; and petitioners lacked standing to bring their remaining challenges to the tax. View "Eby v. New Hampshire" on Justia Law

Whitehouse appealed a second time from a ruling of the Tax Court disallowing a significant portion of a tax deduction claimed for a historic conservation easement. The easement burdened the Maison Blanche building in New Orleans with a number of restrictions and affirmative obligations, all revolving around maintaining the appearance of the ornate facade. Whitehouse claimed a charitable contribution deduction for the easement. The Commissioner allowed a deduction for less than the amount Whitehouse claimed and further assessed a gross undervaluation penalty. The court affirmed the tax court's second valuation; vacated the tax court's enforcement of the gross undervaluation of the penalty because the tax court clearly erred in applying it; and remanded for entry of judgment.View "Whitehouse Hotel Ltd. Prtnshp., et al. v. CIR" on Justia Law

The county auditor assigned an aggregate value for four properties of $468,470 for the tax year 2008, which represented a significant increase over the aggregate valuation of the parcels’ two ancestor parcels. After a hearing before the county board of revision (BOR), the aggregate valuation of the four parcels changed to $383,180. The Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) reversed, holding that the sale price of $135,000 from a 2006 transaction was the best evidence of value of the four parcels on the tax-lien date for tax year 2008. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the 2006 purchase of the two ancestor parcels was not recent to the 2008 tax lien date because Appellant changed the character of the property when it split the two parcels into four total parcels in 2007.View "Richman Props., LLC v. Medina County Bd. of Revision" on Justia Law

Liftin died in 2003, survived by his wife, then a citizen of Bolivia, and his son, John, who became the executor of the estate. Although John is an attorney, he retained his former law partner, who practiced tax planning. The executor had to file a federal estate-tax return, Form 706, 26 U.S.C. 6018(a), within nine months after the date of death. The statute authorizes an extension for no more than 6 months, 26 U.S.C. 6081(a). The executor obtained an extension so that the new deadline to file and to pay the tax was June 2, 2004. There were uncertainties regarding the marital deduction, 26 U.S.C. 2056(a), which is available if a surviving spouse is a citizen or becomes a citizen before the day on which the return is made. Mrs. Liftin began the process of applying for citizenship in February 2004. The estate was also engaged in litigation with Mrs. Liftin relating to her rights under a prenuptial agreement. Neither uncertainty had been resolved as of June 2, 2004. In January 2004 John made an estimated payment of $877,300, sufficient to cover the taxes due even if the estate could not claim the marital deduction. John relied on his attorney’s advice that “a late Form 706 could be filed after the extended due date” without identifying any basis for delaying filing. In 2005, Mrs. Liftin became a citizen. John, did not file the estate-tax return until 2006, when Mrs. Liftin and the estate settled their litigation. The return stated a tax liability of $678,572.25, entitling the estate to a refund of $198,727.75. The IRS assessed a $135,714.45 late-filing penalty under 26 U.S.C. 6651(a)(1). The Claims Court and Federal Circuit affirmed.View "Liftin v. United States" on Justia Law