Justia Tax Law Opinion Summaries

Respondent Oklahoma State Board of Equalization, assessed an ad valorem tax concerning on the property of Complainant Terral Telephone Company. The Company protested the assessment, and the Board moved to dismiss the protest, alleging the protest was non-compliant and untimely. The Court of Tax Review agreed and ruled that the protest did not comply with the statutes and rules necessary to invoke its jurisdiction. The Company appealed the ruling to the Oklahoma Supreme Court, which after review, affirmed the Court of Tax Review. View "Terral Telephone Co. v. Oklahoma St. Bd. of Equalization" on Justia Law

The Internal Revenue Service assessed penalties pursuant to 26 U.S.C. Section 6700 against Appellant in connection with his promotion of a tax shelter scheme. Appellant filed a motion to recuse and disqualify all Tax Court judges on separation of powers grounds. The Tax Court denied the motion and granted summary judgment for the IRS, rejecting Appellant’s statute of limitations defenses. On appeal, Appellant contends that the presidential power to remove Tax Court judges violates the separation of powers and that assessment of Section 6700 penalties was time-barred by 26 U.S.C. Section 6501(a) or by 28 U.S.C. Section 2462.   The DC Circuit affirmed. The court explained that here Congress sought only to “ensure that there is no appearance of institutional bias” when the Tax Court adjudicates disputes between the IRS and taxpayers. Appellant has not demonstrated that congressional action has undermined the separation of powers analysis adopted in Kuretski. The court further held that Section 6501(a) is inapplicable to the assessment of Section 6700 penalties. Section 6700 penalties are assessed against individuals who represent, with reason to know such representation is false, that there will be a tax benefit for participating in or purchasing an interest in an arrangement the individual assisted in organizing. The conduct penalizable “does not pertain to any particular tax return or tax year.” Accordingly, the court held that Appellant’s separation of powers claim is barred under the analysis in Kuretski. View "John Crim v. Cmsnr. IRS" on Justia Law

The IRS investigated the companies to determine whether they are liable for penalties for promoting abusive tax shelters. Summonses led to the production of documents in 2014, including email chains involving the Delaware Department of Insurance, relating to the issuance of certificates of authority to the companies' clients and to a meeting with the Department’s Director of Captive and Financial Insurance Products. The IRS issued an administrative summons to the Department for testimony and records relating to filings by and communications with the companies. “Request 1” seeks all e-mails between the Department and the companies related to the Captive Insurance Program. The Department raised confidentiality objections under Delaware Insurance Code section 6920. The IRS declined to abide by section 6920's confidentiality requirements. The Department refuses to produce any response to Request 1.The government filed a successful petition to enforce the summons. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, rejecting the Department’s argument that, under the McCarran-Ferguson Act (MFA), 15 U.S.C. 1011, Delaware law embodied in section 6920 overrides the IRS’s statutory authority to issue and enforce summonses. While the MFA does protect state insurance laws from intrusive federal action when certain requirements are met, before any such reverse preemption occurs, the conduct at issue (refusal to produce summonsed documents) must constitute the “business of insurance” under the MFA. That threshold requirement was not met here. View "United States v. State of Delaware Department of Insurance" on Justia Law

In 2017, the County initiated an administrative tax foreclosure against BSI. The County Board of Revision (BOR) issued its final adjudication of foreclosure in June 2019. Because the County had opted for the alternative right of redemption, BSI had 28 days to pay the taxes before the County took title to the property. Days later, BSI filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition, which automatically stayed the BOR’s final judgment and 28-day redemption period. The bankruptcy court granted the County relief from the stay on January 17, 2020. The BOR determined that the statutory redemption period expired on January 21, 2020. On January 30, rather than sell the property, the County transferred it to its land bank (Ohio Rev. Code 323.78.1). When a county sells foreclosed property at auction, it may not keep proceeds beyond the taxes the former owner owed; if the county transfers the property to the land bank, “the land becomes ‘free and clear of all impositions and any other liens.’”BSI filed suit, 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that a significant difference between the appraised value of the property and the amount that the County alleged BSI owed meant that the County’s action violated the Takings Clause. The district court dismissed the case under the two-year statute of limitations. The Sixth Circuit reversed. The limitations period began to run when the redemption period ended on January 21, 2020. If BSI paid its delinquent taxes during that period, the County would have been prohibited from taking the property. View "Beaver Street Investments, LLC v. Summit County, Ohio" on Justia Law

Air 7, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, and its owner, the Peter J. Koral Trust, owned a Gulfstream G-550 jet aircraft. Air 7’s headquarters were located at the Camarillo Airport in Ventura County. The owner was a resident of California. The County of Ventura (the “County”) imposed a tax on the aircraft that was permanently removed from California before the tax lien date of January 1 for the tax year 2017. Air 7 sued the County for a refund of the taxes, statutory interest, and penalties the County had imposed. The trial court found the aircraft was not permanently removed from Ventura County on the tax lien date because it had not established situs elsewhere. The trial court entered judgment for the County.   The Second Appellate District reversed. The court explained that the aircraft was removed from California with the intent that removal be permanent, and the aircraft never returned to California during the 2017 tax year. Accordingly, the court concluded the aircraft was not “situated” or “habitually situated” in California. The tax imposed on the aircraft violates California law irrespective of whether the aircraft was situated and taxed in another state. View "Air 7, LLC v. County of Ventura" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the administrative hearing commission (AHC) finding that Charter Communications Entertainment I, LLC (CCE I) was entitled to manufacturing exemptions with respect to its 2011 and 2012 purchases of replacement equipment used to provide telecommunications service, holding that the AHC's decision was authorized by law.Specifically, the Supreme Court held that the AHC did not err in (1) finding CCE I's provision of telecommunications service qualified as "manufacturing" for purposes of the sales and use tax exemptions in Mo. Rev. Stat. 144.030.2(4) and 144.054.2; and (2) finding that CCE I was not required to establish that its replacement equipment was "substantially used" in manufacturing in addition to proving that the equipment satisfied the integrated plant doctrine and was "used directly" in manufacturing. View "Charter Communications Entertainment I, LLC v. Director of Revenue" on Justia Law

Article XIIIC was added to the California Constitution in 1996 after the passage of the Right to Vote on Taxes Act, or Proposition 218. Article XIIIC required that any new tax or increase in tax be approved by the voters. In 2010, article XIIIC was amended when Proposition 26 passed. Since then, “'tax' has been broadly defined to encompass 'any levy, charge, or exaction of any kind imposed by a local government.'” Several charges were expressly excluded from this definition, but at issue in this case are charges “imposed for a specific government service or product provided directly to the payor that is not provided to those not charged, and which does not exceed the reasonable costs to the local government of providing the service or product.” The government service or product at issue was electricity: Appellant was an individual residing in the City of Anaheim (the City) who claimed her local public electric utility approved rates which exceed the cost of providing electricity. She claimed the City has been transferring utility revenues to its general fund and recouping these amounts from ratepayers without obtaining voter approval. But because voters approved the practice through an amendment to the City’s charter, the Court of Appeal concluded the City has not violated article XIIIC, and affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to the City on this basis. View "Palmer v. City of Anaheim" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with thirteen charges related to fraud and tax evasion. Defendant insisted on representing himself, despite the District Court’s thorough colloquy. Ultimately, Defendant was convicted and sentenced to 97 months imprisonment, followed by three years of supervised release.Defendant appealed on several grounds, including insufficiency of the evidence, the district court’s acceptance of his expressed desire to represent himself, evidentiary issues, and sentencing issues. The court rejected Defendant’s appellate issues in turn and affirmed his conviction.However, on the government’s cross-appeal, the court vacated the judgment. The District Court erred in failing to award the government the costs of the prosecution. View "United States v. Jeffrey Kock" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgments of the tax court declining to include a "concession fee" as rental income attributable to the properties in this case under the income-capitalization approach to property valuation, holding that the tax court did not err.At issue was Hennepin County's valuation of the respective properties owned by Enterprise Leasing Company of Minnesota and Avis Budget Car Rental, LLC at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. The tax court disagreed with Hennepin County's approach, decided not to include the concession fee as rental income, and estimated a market value in each case that was lower than the value that the County sought at trial. The Supreme Court affirmed in both cases, holding that the tax court did not clearly err in excluding the concession fee from rental income. View "Enterprise Leasing Co. of Minn. v. County of Hennepin" on Justia Law

Petitioner sent $10,263,750 to the United States Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) as a “deposit” toward his expected gift tax liability. After an IRS audit examination and Petitioner’s tax deficiency proceeding in the Tax Court, Petitioner and the IRS settled the deficiency proceeding, stipulating that Petitioner owed a gift tax deficiency of $6,790,000 for 2011. The IRS applied the $10,263,750 to that 2011 deficiency and issued Petitioner a check for the balance of $3,473,750. The parties disputed the interest rate. The IRS used the interest rate for deposits, which is the federal short-term rate. Petitioner wanted the interest rate for overpayments, which is the federal short-term rate plus three percentage points. In the Tax Court, Petitioner filed a petition to reopen his case to redetermine interest. The Tax Court has jurisdiction to redetermine interest due to a taxpayer if the court previously found a remittance was an overpayment. So its jurisdiction turns on whether the Tax Court found that Petitioner made an overpayment of tax.   The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the Tax Court’s decision denying Petitioner’s motion to redetermine interest for lack of jurisdiction. The court concluded that there is no Tax Court finding that Petitioner made an overpayment of tax, and thus the Tax Court did not have jurisdiction over Petitioner’s post-judgment motion to redetermine interest. The court explained that, at most, the Tax Court was silent on whether Petitioner made an overpayment for the tax year 2011. The Tax Court’s silence cannot be, and is not, a finding of an overpayment for Section 6512(b)(1) jurisdictional purposes. View "Albert G. Hill, III v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue" on Justia Law