Justia Tax Law Opinion Summaries

The 2021 American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) set aside $195.3 billion in stimulus funds, to be distributed to states and the District of Columbia. Kentucky and Tennessee challenged ARPA’s requirement that states certify that they would comply with an “Offset Provision” that bars the states from enacting tax cuts and then using ARPA funds to “directly or indirectly offset a reduction" in net tax revenue resulting from such tax cuts. 42 U.S.C. 802(c)(2)(A). Because money is fungible, enacting any tax cut and then spending ARPA funds could be construed, the states argued, as impermissibly using those funds to “indirectly offset” a revenue reduction from the tax cut. A subsequent Treasury regulation (the Rule) offered a narrowing construction; the states asserted that this construction in no way follows clearly from the Offset Provision itself. The states argued they were coerced into relinquishing control over their sovereign taxing authority.The district court entered a permanent injunction. The Sixth Circuit vacated in part. Kentucky’s challenge is non-justiciable. After the promulgation of the Rule, the states offered no evidence of a concrete plan to violate the Rule. Kentucky offered no other theory of injury. Tennessee offered another theory of injury: that Treasury’s Rule burdened the state with compliance costs that it would not incur were enforcement of the Offset Provision enjoined. On the merits of Tennessee’s claim, the court affirmed the injunction; the Offset Provision is impermissibly vague under the Spending Clause. Treasury cannot use its Rule to impose compliance requirements that are not authorized by the Offset Provision itself. View "Kentucky v. Yellen" on Justia Law

The 2021 American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA), 42 U.S.C. 802, appropriated $195.3 billion in aid to the states and the District of Columbia. To get the money, states had to certify that they would comply with several conditions, including ARPA’s “Offset Provision,” which forbids a state from using the funds “to either directly or indirectly offset a reduction in the net tax revenue” that “result[s] from” a tax cut. Claiming that this condition amounted to a prohibition on tax cuts during ARPA’s “covered period,” and that such a condition would violate the Constitution in multiple respects, Ohio filed suit. The district court permanently enjoined enforcement of the Offset Provision on the ground that its terms are “unconstitutionally ambiguous” under the Spending Clause.The Sixth Circuit vacated the injunction, finding the case moot. The district court should not have reached the merits of the case, as Ohio failed to establish a justiciable controversy. Treasury later promulgated a regulation disavowing Ohio’s interpretation of the Offset Provision and explaining that it would not enforce the Provision as if it barred tax cuts per se. There is no reason to believe that Treasury will not abide by its disavowal of Ohio’s interpretation of the Offset Provision as it administers the statute. View "Ohio v. Yellen" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the district court holding that three roadside services offered by Big Al's Towing and Recovery were taxable under Wyo. Stat. Ann. 37-15-103(a)(i)(J), holding that the Wyoming Board of Equalization correctly concluded that the roadside services were not taxable under the statute.At issue were Big Al's roadside services for jumping-starting a vehicle, unlocking a vehicle, and replacing a flat tire with a spare tire. The Wyoming Department of Revenue determined that Big Al's owed taxes and interest on the roadside assistance revenue it collected between 2016 to 2019. The Board reversed, concluding that the roadside services did not constitute a taxable event. The district court reversed, ruling that the services were taxable under section 39-15-103(a)(I)(J). The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Board's decision that Big Al's roadside services were not taxable under the statute was in accordance with law. View "Big Al's Towing & Recovery v. State, Department of Revenue" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the circuit court reversing the orders issued by Petitioner while sitting as the Berkeley County Board of Assessment Appeals arising from appeals of ad valorem assessments owned by Taxpayers, as determined by the Berkeley County Assessor for the 2019 tax year, holding that circuit court erred in reversing the Board.Although the two consolidated appeals dealt with different pieces of property owned by two different entities the Supreme Court concluded that resolution dependent on two overarching questions common to both appeals. The Court then held (1) Petitioner waived any objection to the Assessor not being named as a party to this action; and (2) the circuit court erred in determining the assessments as affirmed by the Board were not supported by substantial evidence or were otherwise in contravention of any regulation, statute, or constitutional provision. View "Berkeley County Council v. Government Properties Income Trust LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the orders of the district court granting Zinvest, LLC's motion for summary judgment and dismissing Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.'s complaint alleging that Zinvest failed to give proper notice of pending tax deeds under Mont. Code Ann. 15-18-212 and requesting the tax deeds issued to Invest be declared void, holding that the district court erred.Wells Fargo held a deed of trust against two parcels of land. Because the taxes assessed against each parcel for the tax year 2014 were unpaid the Missoula County treasurer conducted a tax lien sale for both parcels. Missoula County purchased the tax liens, executed a county treasurer's certificate of tax sale for both parcels and assigned the certificates to Zinvest. When Zinvest mailed notices that tax deeds may issue to Wells Fargo, they were returned. The Missoula County treasurer then executed tax deeds conveying the parcels to Zinvest. Wells Fargo subsequently brought its complaint. The district court granted summary judgment for Zinvest. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Zinvest's failure to mail notices that the tax deeds may issue to Wells Fargo violated Mont. Code Ann. 15-18-212. View "Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Zinvest, LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs sell products as third-party merchants through Amazon’s “Fulfilled by Amazon” (“FBA”) program. Prior to October 2019, California required FBA merchants to collect and pay sales tax on sales to California residents. California’s Marketplace Facilitator Act altered that requirement. However, the Marketplace Facilitator Act is not retroactive and the Department continued to seek sales tax remittances from third-party FBA merchants for pre-October 2019 sales.Plaintiffs claimed that the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration’s tax collection efforts against Guild members violated the Due Process, Equal Protection, Privileges and Immunities, and Commerce Clauses of the United States Constitution, as well as the Internet Tax Freedom Act, 47 U.S.C. Sec. 151. The district court granted the Department’s motion to dismiss, holding that the Guild’s claims were barred by the Tax Injunction Act (“TIA”), 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1341.The Ninth Circuit affirmed, finding that the district cour properly dismissed the action pursuant to the TIA, which bars federal jurisdiction over the Guild’s claims because the Guild seeks an injunction that would to some degree stop the assessment or collection of a state tax and an adequate state law remedy exists. View "ONLINE MERCHANTS GUILD V. NICOLAS MADUROS" on Justia Law

Condominium owners alleged that a sewer service charge collected by Napa Sanitation District consists of a “capacity fee” and a “use fee” and that the latter was an unlawful tax. A challenge to the capacity fee was barred by a 120-day limitations period, Government Code 66022 Although the complaint expressly did not attack the capacity fee, the District argued that the ordinances authorizing the sewer service charge are inseverable, so the court would have to invalidate the entire charge if the plaintiffs prevailed. The trial court dismissed the suit.The court of appeal reversed. It was premature for the trial court to decide the issue of severability. The severability doctrine is intended to determine the scope of the remedy after a legal infirmity in the ordinance has been established; a finding of in-severability would not alter the nature of the claim or the underlying rights. Even if severability principles would require the invalidation of the entire sewer service charge, the District, rather than the plaintiffs, would bear the consequence of its decision to draft the ordinances that way. Severability is a shield by which a legislative body can preserve parts of its law that are not implicated by a valid legal claim, not a sword to preclude that claim, View "Raja Development Co., Inc. v. Napa Sanitary District" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Administrative Hearing Commission that Saddle and Sirloin Club of Kansas City was not entitled to a refund of sales tax on monthly membership dues paid by Club members because the dues were fees paid to a place of amusement, entertainment, or recreation pursuant to Mo. Rev. Stat. 144.021.1, holding that the Club was not owed a refund.On appeal, the Club argued that the monthly membership dues were not subject to sales tax because, in addition to recreation services, Club members received the right to participate in the operation and control of the Club and an increase in the value of their equitable interests in the Club. The Supreme Court disagreed and affirmed, holding (1) the Club failed to meet its burden of proving that members receive more than recreational services in exchange for monthly membership dues; and (2) therefore, the monthly membership dues were subject to sales tax pursuant to Mo. Rev. Stat. 144.020.1(2). View "Saddle & Sirloin Club of Kansas City v. Director of Revenue" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the administrative hearing commission (AHC) denying the complaint brought by Plaintiff, as personal representative of the estate of James Townsend, that the director of the department of revenue was not authorized to assess unpaid sales tax owed by Green Duck Lounge, Inc. against Townsend as a responsible party under Mo. Rev. Stat. 144.157.3, holding that the AHC's decision was authorized by law.On appeal, Plaintiff argued, among other things, that a prior judgment denying the department's attempt to collect the company's unpaid sales tax from Townsend's estate was res judicata, barring the director's assessment of the unpaid sales tax against Townsend personally. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the AHC did not err in finding that res judicata did not bar the director's assessment against Townsend, personally, as a responsible party; and (2) neither Mo. Rev. Stat. 144.220.3 nor section 144.157.3 required the director to mail notice of his intent to make an assessment against Townsend, as a responsible party, within years after the company's returns were filed. View "LaBlanche v. Director of Revenue" on Justia Law

The issue this appeal presented for the Tenth Circuit's review centered on the denial of tax benefits relating to petitioner Preston Olsen's purchase of solar lenses. The benefits were only available if the taxpayer had a profit motive for the purchases. Olsen bought the lenses in 2009, 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014, through a program created by Neldon Johnson. Under the program, Johnson would use the lenses in a new system to generate electricity by heating a liquid to generate steam and drive a turbine. Johnson never finished the system; he had completed the lenses on only one tower and hadn’t decided whether those lenses would heat water, oil, or molten salt. Johnson funded the program through investors like Olsen who bought lenses from Johnson’s companies and leased the lenses to another of Johnson’s companies. Once the system began producing revenue, Johnson's company would pay Olsen’s company $150 per lens per year. But the system never generated any revenue. From 2009 to 2014, Olsen annually claimed depreciation deductions and solar energy credits on the lenses. These claims allowed the Olsens to pay little or no federal income taxes. "So the Olsens came out ahead even though they had never obtained any money from the leases." The tax court disallowed the benefits in part because it found Petitioner lacked a profit motive. Finding no reversible error in the tax court's decision, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "Olsen, et al. v. CIR" on Justia Law