Justia Tax Law Opinion Summaries

Beavers was a Chicago alderman from 1983-2006, when he began serving as a Cook County Commissioner. He was the chairman of each of his three campaign committees and the only authorized signor for each committee’s bank account. Beavers’ federal tax returns underreported his 2005 income, misstated expenditures in semi-annual disclosure reports (D-2s), did not disclose use of campaign funds to increase his pension annuity, misrepresented loans between the committees and Beavers, did not report monthly stipends that Beavers took as a Commissioner, and did not disclose that Beavers wrote himself checks totaling $226,300 from committee accounts to finance gambling trips, without documenting the purpose of the expenditures or any repayment. After federal agents approached Beavers in connection with a grand jury investigation, Beavers filed amended tax returns and attempted to repay the committees. Beavers was convicted of three counts of violating 26 U.S.C. 7206(1), which prohibits willfully making a material false statement on a tax return, and with one count of violating 26 U.S.C. 7212(a), which prohibits corruptly obstructing the IRS in its administration of the tax laws. Beavers was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment and was ordered to pay about $31,000 in restitution and a $10,000 fine. The Seventh Circuit affirmed.View "United States v. Beavers" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs James Hansen and 30 other DeKalb County residents sought to obtain certain information from the DeKalb County Board of Tax Assessors in connection with their 2012 property tax assessments. The trial court denied Plaintiffs’ request for a mandamus nisi, and they appealed. Plaintiffs filed their requests for information each seeking information regarding the appraisal and assessment of his or her property for the 2012 tax year. The trial court found that plaintiffs' claims were not cognizable under the Georgia Open Records Act or in mandamus. The Supreme Court found no error in that decision, and affirmed. View "Hansen v. Dekalb Cty. Bd. of Tax Assessors" on Justia Law

In consolidated cases, homeowners Pinghua Zhao, and Gregg and Janet Fallick appealed the valuation of their residences for property tax purposes as a result of what they alleged was "tax lightning," also known as acquisition-value taxation. Under acquisition-value taxation, a real estate owner's property tax liability is determined by the value of the property when acquired, not by the traditional practice of taxing real property on its current fair market value. Consequently, there could be disparities in the tax liabilities of taxpayers owning similar properties. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that Section 7-36-21.2 (2003) created an authorized class based on the nature of the property and not the taxpayer. The Court also held that the New Mexico tax system did not violate the equal and uniform clause of the New Mexico Constitution because it furthered a legitimate state interest. Furthermore, the Court held that the Court of Appeals erred in its interpretation of "owner-occupant." Therefore, the Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the Court of Appeals. View "Zhao v. Montoya" on Justia Law

Public Service Company of Colorado applied for a tax refund from the state Department of Revenue. The company argued that it was entitled to a refund because it paid taxes when it was actually eligible for an exemption. The district court held in favor of the company, concluding that electricity was tangible personal property and that the production of electricity constituted manufacturing, thus entitling the company to the exemption (the "manufacturing exemption" under 39-26-709(1)(a)(II) C.R.S. (2013)). Upon review of the Department's argument on appeal, the Supreme Court reversed, finding that section 39-26-104(1)(d.1) applied in this case: electricity did not qualify as tangible personal property, and that the Code "contemplate[d] that 'electricity furnished and sold'" was to be taxed as a service. View "Department of Revenue v. Public Service Co." on Justia Law

After Plaintiff agreed to lease a motor vehicle he learned that he had been charged separately for property tax on the leased vehicle and an additional seven percent sales tax paid on that amount. Plaintiff filed a claim for a refund in the amount of sales tax he had paid on the property tax. The Division of Taxation denied Plaintiff’s claim. Plaintiff filed an appeal to the district court. Contemporaneously, Plaintiff filed a complaint in the superior court, seeking various forms of relief and seeking to certify his complaint as a class action. The superior court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the superior court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the district court has exclusive jurisdiction over “tax matters.” View "Barone v. State" on Justia Law

Russell Phillips, an employee of the Chicago Central & Pacific Railroad, filed a negligence action against the railroad. The jury returned a general verdict in favor of Phillips, and the district court awarded Phillips damages. The railroad paid Phillips the amount of the judgment but withheld a portion of the award to pay taxes allegedly due under the Railroad Retirement Act (RRTA). Phillips refused to execute a satisfaction of judgment, arguing that the railroad should have withheld any amount for tax purposes. Subsequently, the railroad moved for an order of satisfaction and discharge of judgment. The district court sustained the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) an award for time lost is subject to tax withholding under the RRTA; and (2) the railroad fully satisfied the judgment.View "Phillips v. Chicago Cent. & Pac. R.R. Co." on Justia Law

This case began as a dispute between the parties regarding whether plaintiff owed tax under the now-repealed Single Business Tax Act (SBTA) related to plaintiff's contributions to its Voluntary Employees' Beneficiary Association (VEBA) trust fund for 1997 through 2001. In this case, the issue for the Supreme Court to decide was what actions a taxpayer must take under MCL 205.30 of the Revenue Act to trigger the accrual of interest on a tax refund. The Court held that in order to trigger the accrual of interest, the plain language of the statute requires a taxpayer to: (1) pay the disputed tax; (2) make a “claim” or "petition" for a refund; and (3) "file" the claim or petition. "Although a "claim" or "petition" need not take any specific form, it must clearly demand, request, or assert a right to a refund of tax payments made to the Department of Treasury that the taxpayer asserts are not due. Additionally, in order to "file" the claim or petition, a taxpayer must submit the claim to the Treasury in a manner sufficient to provide the Treasury with adequate notice of the taxpayer’s claim." View "Ford Motor Co. v. Dept. of Treasury" on Justia Law

In this case, the issue this case posed to the New Jersey Supreme Court was presented by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit: whether, under New Jersey law, a tax sale certificate purchaser holds a tax lien. In 1998, plaintiff Princeton Office Park, L.P. purchased a 220,000 square foot commercial building on thirty-seven acres of land in the Township of Lawrence. Princeton Office Park did not satisfy its real estate tax obligation to the Township of Lawrence. By 2005, Princeton Office Park owed the Township of Lawrence in back taxes and unpaid penalties. The Township conducted a public auction of municipal tax liens. Defendant Plymouth Park Tax Services, LLC bid on a tax sale certificate for Princeton Office Park’s property. As the owner of the tax sale certificate following the public auction, Plymouth Park paid municipal real estate taxes and charges for Princeton Office Park’s property through the second quarter of 2008. By operation of law, Plymouth Park’s additional payments were added to the sum required for Princeton Office Park to redeem the tax sale certificate owned by Plymouth Park. The redemption amount accrued interest at a rate of eighteen percent following the sale. In 2007, Plymouth Park filed a tax lien foreclosure action against Princeton Office Park seeking to enjoin Princeton Office Park from exercising any right of redemption of the certificate, and requesting a declaration that Plymouth Park was the owner in fee simple of the disputed property. The Chancery Division entered an order establishing a deadline by which Princeton Office Park could redeem the certificate. While Plymouth Park’s foreclosure action was pending in the Chancery Division, Princeton Office Park filed a voluntary Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition. Plymouth Park filed an initial proof of claim in the Bankruptcy Court, citing “taxes” as the basis for its claim. Plymouth Park then objected to Princeton Office Park’s Plan of Reorganization. The United States Bankruptcy Court ruled in favor of Princeton Office Park. The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey affirmed, substantially adopting the reasoning of the United States Bankruptcy Court. The District Court construed the Tax Sale Law to confer on the purchaser of a tax sale certificate a lien, but not a lien that would permit the holder of the certificate to collect unpaid taxes owed to the municipality. Plymouth Park appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The New Jersey Supreme Court answered the Third Circuit's question in the affirmative: the purchaser of a tax sale certificate possesses a tax lien on the encumbered property. View "In re: Princeton Office Park v. Plymouth Park Tax Services, LLC" on Justia Law

The Tulsa County Assessor assessed ad valorem taxes on portions of real property owned by the respondent-appellees (and taxpayers) William Warren Medical Research Center and Montereau, Inc. The taxpayers challenged the assessment and the County Board of Equalization determined that the properties were not taxable. The Assessor appealed to the Tulsa County District Court which found in favor of the taxpayers. The Assessor again appealed but the Court of Civil Appeals dismissed the appeal because the Assessor was not represented by the district attorney, nor the State Attorney General. On certiorari, the Supreme Court held that county assessors may employ counsel to represent them in court proceedings including appeals from the Board of Equalization. Accordingly, the Court remanded the matter to the Court of Civil Appeals to address the merits of the appeal. View "Yazel v. William K. Warren Medical Research Center" on Justia Law

Irwin and Fannin owned Portsmouth Ambulance, and Urgent Care Transports. In 2000, 2002, and 2005, they failed to pay federal employment and corporate income taxes for Urgent Care; the IRS recorded tax liens. Irwin and Fannin entered into a stock-purchase- agreement in 2006 and transferred 86% of the Portsmouth stock to new owners. The agreement gave the new owners an option to purchase the stock of Urgent Care. Portsmouth exercised the option and Urgent Care became its wholly-owned subsidiary. Irwin and Fannin notified the IRS of the change. Because of its outstanding tax liability, the IRS ordered a sale of Urgent Care’s assets. The sale did not raise sufficient funds. The new owners failed to pay federal employment taxes for 2008, and notice of tax liens was recorded. The IRS also filed a notice of federal tax lien against Portsmouth Ambulance as the alter ego of Urgent Care. A creditor bank sold the company’s assets and Portsmouth ceased operations. From sales proceeds, $333,769.24 was applied to Urgent Care’s tax liabilities and $302,818.16 was used to reduce Portsmouth’s tax liability. Portsmouth objected, arguing that it was not the alter ego of Urgent Care and filed refund claims, which the IRS either did not address or denied. The district court dismissed a suit, holding that 26 U.S.C. 6325(b)(4) and 7426(a)(4), established an exclusive procedure to seek refunds for satisfaction of a tax lien by a property owner with respect to another party’s tax liability and that a request for damages for allegedly unauthorized collection action was time-barred. The Sixth Circuit affirmed.View "Portsmouth Ambulance, Inc. v. United States" on Justia Law