Justia Tax Law Opinion Summaries

Appellee, an LLC, sought a refund from Kearney County of a portion of its 2006 personal property taxes, alleging the taxes were paid as the result of an honest mistake or misunderstanding. The County Board of Supervisors denied the refund. The district court sustained Appellee's petition in error and ordered the County to refund $480,411 to Appellee pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. 77-1734.01, concluding that Appellee had paid the taxes as the result of an honest mistake or misunderstanding. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that because Appellee paid the 2006 personal property taxes based upon a mistake of law, section 77-1734.01 afforded it no relief, and therefore, the district court erred in determining that Appellee was entitled to a refund. View "Kaapa Ethanol, LLC v. Kearney County Bd. of Supervisors" on Justia Law

Appellant owned a convention center. In the 2009 and 2010 tax years, the conference center was valued by the Sarpy County assessor at $23,400,000. Appellant protested that valuation to the Sarpy County Board of Equalization, which denied the request. The Tax Equalization and Review Commission (TERC) denied Appellant's appeal and valued the conference center at the amount previously valued by the county assessor. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that TERC did not err in affirming the valuation of the property because Appellant failed to meet its burden of showing that the county's valuation was unreasonable and arbitrary, and therefore, TERC's decision was lawful, was supported by competent evidence, and was not arbitrary or capricious. View "JQH La Vista Conference Ctr. Dev. LLC v. Sarpy County Bd. of Equalization" on Justia Law

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints requested that it be exempt from paying property tax on an apartment complex it owned in Maryland to house missionaries. The county supervisor of assessments concluded that the apartment complex did not qualify for a property tax exemption under Md. Code Ann. Tax-Prop. 7-204 because the complex was not exclusively used as a "parsonage" or a "convent." The Maryland tax court upheld the decision. The circuit court reversed, determining that the complex qualified as both a parsonage and a convent. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the tax court applied the wrong standard in assessing whether the apartment complex constituted a convent. Remanded for the tax court to issue an order granting the exemption. View "Green v. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" on Justia Law

Appellant Glatfelter Pulpwood Company challenged the Commonwealth Court's affirmance of the Board of Finance and Revenue's determination that Appellant's gains from the sale of a tract of Delaware timberland be characterized as "business income," subject to taxation in Pennsylvania. Concluding that none of Appellant's issues raised on appeal entitled it to any relief, the Supreme Court affirmed the Commonwealth Court. View "Glatfelter Pulpwood Co. v. Pennsylvania" on Justia Law

The taxpayer, Bocceli, LLC, is the taxpaying sublessee of a commercial property owned by Penns Grove Associates in the Township of Carney's Point. The Township's tax assessment list incorrectly listed Prime Accounting Department as the owner. In 2007, the Township wrote to Prime Accounting requesting updated income and expense information for purposes of assessing the value of the property. Prime Management's interest in the property transferred to a new lessee, WIH Hotels, Inc. That inquiry eventually reached WIH, which submitted a late response and paid taxes for 2007. WIH entered into a sublease with Bocceli, which became responsible for property tax payments. In 2008, the managing member of Bocceli visited the tax collector's office, made a tax payment, and requested that the tax assessment list be changed to designate "Bocceli, LLC" as the owner and that notices be sent to the property. According to the Township, the clerk advised the managing member that a deed needed to be presented to the assessor's office to change the list. No deed was presented, and Prime Accounting remained on the list. The tax assessor sent the annual request to Prime Accounting. When it was returned undelivered, the Township reviewed its records and discovered that WIH had responded to the prior year's request. It sent another request to WIH, which did not forward it to Bocceli. Later that year, the tax collector advised the tax assessor of the address that the managing member had provided, but it continued to list Prime Accounting as the owner. In early 2009, the assessor notified Bocceli of the annual tax assessment. Thus, at that time, the assessor was aware of Bocceli's responsibility to pay property taxes and used Bocceli's mailing address to serve the notice of assessment that prompted this tax appeal. The tax assessment list continued to designate Prime Accounting as the entity responsible to pay the taxes. The issue before the Supreme Court centered on whether a tax appeal complaint timely filed, but one which did not name the aggrieved taxpayer as the plaintiff, should have been dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Supreme Court concluded that Bocceli's misdesignation of the plaintiff did not deprive the tax court of subject matter jurisdiction. "The defect in the complaint did not prejudice the Township and [could] be corrected by an amended complaint that relate[d] back to the filing of the original complaint." View "PrimeAccounting Department v. Township of Carney's Point" on Justia Law

Having secured extensions, the Stockers filed their 2003 tax return in October 2004. In March 2007, the IRS settled an audit of an entity in which the Stockers had lost money. Flintoff, their tax preparer, determined that the Stockers had overpaid 2003 taxes by $64,058 and prepared an amended return, required to be filed within three years of October 15, 2004, 26 U.S.C. 6511(a). Stocker claims that he mailed it at the post office on October 15, but was unable to get date-stamped receipts, because of Flintoff’s failure to give him customer copies of certified mail receipts. Although simultaneous mailings were timely received, the IRS claims that it received the return on October 25; its records reflect that the envelope was postmarked October 19, but it did not retain the envelope. The return-receipt card, to be completed by the certified mail recipient, was left blank and returned to Flintoff, who unsuccessfully requested reconsideration of the refund claim. The district court dismissed. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding that the Stockers could not establish the jurisdictional prerequisite of a timely-filed return under any method recognized in the Internal Revenue Code or precedent for determining the date of delivery of a federal tax return. View "Stocker v. United States" on Justia Law

Todd County assessed taxes on property owned by John and Carrie Beck based on its conclusion that the property had an estimated market value of $397,400 as of January 2, 2009. John petitioned the tax court for relief. After a trial, the tax court found the fair market value of the property on that date was $395,000. John appealed, arguing that the tax court erred by (1) adopting the appraisal of Todd County's expert despite several challenges John raised to the assumptions and values underlying the appraisal, (2) rejecting the testimonies of John and Carrie challenging the County's assessment of the property, and (3) not determining separate land and improvement values for the property. The Supreme Court reversed because the tax court completely failed to address why it rejected the extensive evidence offered by John in support of his petition for tax relief. Remanded for the tax court to explain adequately the reasoning underlying its valuation determination. View "Beck v. County of Todd" on Justia Law

From 1999-2006, Relator filed his Minnesota individual income tax return as a nonresident. After the Commissioner of Revenue conducted two audits of Relator's individual income tax returns spanning the 2002-2006 tax years, the Commissioner determined that Relator was a resident of Minnesota during the tax years. Relator appealed, arguing that he became a resident of Nevada in 1998, and therefore, the Commissioner erred in requiring him to pay taxes as a Minnesota resident during the relevant tax years. The tax court affirmed, concluding that Relator was a Minnesota domiciliary during the tax years and, therefore, was a resident of Minnesota for income tax purposes. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the tax court did not err in its application of the law, and the record supported the tax court's determination. View "Larson v. Comm'r of Revenue" on Justia Law

Petitioner sought innocent spouse relief, claiming that she did not understand the nature of her husband's business and claiming ignorance of his fraudulent actions regarding his tax liabilities. At issue was how the Tax Court should review appeals for equitable innocent spouse relief from joint and several liability for unpaid taxes under 26 U.S.C. 6015(f). The court joined the Eleventh Circuit and held that the Tax Court properly considered new evidence outside the administrative record. The court also concluded that the Tax Court correctly applied a de novo standard of review in determining the taxpayer's eligibility for equitable relief. Accordingly, the court affirmed the Tax Court's judgment. View "Wilson v. CIR" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of having, among other things, engaged in a scheme to conceal and avoid her company's employment tax liability. The district court determined that Defendant was responsible for approximately $1.2 million in tax losses. Defendant was sentenced to eighty-seven months incarceration. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Defendant's conviction and sentence, holding (1) Defendant waived her argument that the district court erred by submitting a set of summary charts to the jury; (2) the district court did not err by adopting the government's calculation of the tax losses for which Defendant should be held responsible as a result of her fraudulent payroll scheme; and (3) the district court did not plainly err by failing to inquire specifically as to whether Defendant had reviewed the presentence report (PSR) with her attorney because the evidence showed Defendant reviewed the PSR with her sentencing counsel. View "United States v. Deleon" on Justia Law