Justia Tax Law Opinion Summaries

Wegbreit founded Oak Ridge, a financial-services company, and worked with attorney Agresti to reduce his tax liability. At Agresti’s suggestion, Wegbreit transferred his Oak Ridge interest to a trust that would convey that interest to an offshore insurance company as a premium for a life insurance policy benefitting the trust. Agresti, as trustee, acquired a variable life insurance policy from Threshold (later Acadia), which shares a U.S. office with Agresti’s law firm. The Wegbreits leveraged the policies by means of policy loans and purchases by shell companies. Acadia, at Samuel’s direction, sold his Oak Ridge interest for $11.3 million. The proceeds were wired directly to Agresti, who conveyed them to Acadia; the Wegbreits did not report any taxable income from the sale. After an audit, the IRS determined that the trust income and policy gains, including those from the Oak Ridge sale, were taxable to the Wegbreits, who had underreported their 2005-2009 income by $15 million. The Wegbreits disputed that conclusion in the tax court. After discovery revealed suspicious documents related to the trust and policies, the IRS asserted civil fraud penalties.The judge found that the trust was a sham lacking economic substance that should be disregarded for tax purposes, agreed with the IRS assessment of tax liability, and imposed fraud penalties. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, noting that the Wegbreits had previously “stipulated away” their assertions, and ordering the Wegbreits’ attorney to show cause why he should not be sanctioned under Rule 38 for filing a frivolous appeal. View "Wegbreit v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue" on Justia Law

Relator Edward J. O’Donnell filed a federal qui tam suit against his employer, alleging the employer violated the federal False Claims Act. As a financial incentive to take on this role, the FCA provided relators with a portion of any award that the federal government obtains in the qui tam action. The United States government ultimately settled with O’Donnell’s employer. O’Donnell received a 16% share of the settlement, or $34,560,000. The question before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in this case was whether this qui tam award was taxable in Pennsylvania as compensation under Section 303 of the Pennsylvania Tax Reform Code, 72 P.S. section 7303. The Supreme Court held that it was, thus reversing the order of the Commonwealth Court. View "O'Donnell v. Allegheny Co. Tax" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court determining that property used for a residential mental health treatment program was tax exempt under Conn. Gen. Stat. 12-81(7), holding that the court did not err.The trial court granted the exemption on the residential mental health treatment program on the grounds that it did not provide housing subsidized by the government and that any housing provided was temporary. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant failed to establish that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction; (2) the trial court properly found that the program's housing was temporary and therefore qualified for the exemption on that basis; and (3) therefore, the trial court correctly rendered summary judgment in favor of Plaintiffs. View "Rainbow Housing Corp. v. Cromwell" on Justia Law

The issue on appeal in this case was whether taxpayer, Ooma, Inc., a California company, had sufficient contacts or nexus with Oregon to make it subject to local tax. The Oregon Tax Court concluded that Ooma’s contacts and nexus with Oregon were sufficient to satisfy the Due Process and Commerce Clauses, and granted summary judgment to the Department of Revenue. Finding no reversible error in that judgment, the Oregon Supreme Court affirmed the Tax Court. View "Ooma, Inc. v. Dept. of Rev." on Justia Law

General Motors was a Delaware corporation engaged in the sale of motor vehicles in Pennsylvania, and subject to Pennsylvania’s corporate income tax. GM contested the calculation of its 2001 Tax Year corporate income tax, after filing a report of change in its federal taxable income in March 2010. In February 2012, GM timely filed a petition for refund with the Department of Revenue’s (“Department”) Board of Appeals. It claimed that the cap on the net loss carryover (NLC) resulted in a “progressive effective tax rate” which violated the Uniformity Clause of the Pennsylvania Constitution. It explained that “a taxpayer conducting business on a larger scale in Pennsylvania pays a higher effective tax rate than a similarly situated taxpayer conducting business on a smaller scale.” In Nextel Communications of the Mid-Atlantic, Inc. v. Commonwealth, Department of Revenue, 171 A.3d 682 (Pa. 2017), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that the NLC deduction applicable to corporate income tax for the tax year ending December 31, 2007 (“2007 Tax Year”), violated the Uniformity Clause. Here, the Court applied Nextel and considered GM's constitutional challenges to the NLC provisions applicable to corporate income tax in the tax year ending December 31, 2001 (“2001 Tax Year”). The Supreme Court agreed with the Commonwealth Court that Nextel applied retroactively to this case, however, it reversed the Commonwealth Court to the extent it remedied the violation of the Uniformity Clause by severing the $2 million NLC deduction cap, which would have resulted in an unlimited NLC deduction. Instead, the Supreme Court severed the NLC deduction provision in its entirety, resulting in no NLC deduction for the 2001 Tax Year. The Supreme Court affirmed the Commonwealth Court’s order to the extent it directed the Department to recalculate GM’s corporate income tax without capping the NLC deduction and issue a refund for the 2001 Tax Year, which the Court concluded was required to remedy the due process violation of GM’s rights pursuant to McKesson Corp. v. Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, Department of Business Regulation of Florida, 496 U.S. 18 (1990). View "General Motors Corp. v. Pennsylvania" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals reversing the circuit court's order that allowed the City of Waukesha to seek certiorari review of a tax assessment determination of the City of Waukesha Board of Review, holding that Wis. Stat. 70.47 did not allow the City to seek certiorari review of a decision of the Board.At issue on appeal was whether a municipality can seek certiorari review of a determination of the municipality's board of review. The Supreme Court answered the question in the negative, holding that section 70.47 does not allow the City to seek certiorari review of a decision of the Board. View "City of Waukesha v. City of Waukesha Board of Review" on Justia Law

Calcasieu Parish School Board Sales & Use Tax Department and Kimberly Tyree, in her capacity as Administrator thereof (collectively, “CPSB”) appealed the court of appeal's declaration that 2016 Act No. 3 (“Act 3”) was unconstitutional for violating La. Const. Art. VII, section 2 (the “Tax Limitation Clause”). Appellee Nelson Industrial Steam Company (“NISCO”) owned and operated an electrical power generating facility in Lake Charles in which it produced multiple products: electricity, steam, and ash. After not taxing NISCO for its limestone purchases for many years, the Louisiana Department of Revenue (“LDR”) and CPSB sued NISCO to collect unpaid taxes for its limestone purchases between 2005 and 2012. The suit went before the Louisiana Supreme Court in Bridges v. Nelson Indus. Steam Co., 190 So. 3d 276 (“NISCO I”), in which the Court determined the limestone purchases were excluded from sales tax of sales at retail under the “further processing exclusion” as then set forth in La. R.S. 47:301(10)(c)(i)(aa). Before NISCO I was final, Act 3 was passed into law in the 2016 Second Extraordinary Session with less than a two-thirds favorable vote of the members of both houses of the Legislature. Following legislative amendments, CPSB brought the underlying lawsuit against NISCO to collect sales taxes on its limestone purchases retroactively. The court of appeal held that Act 3 was a “new tax” and therefore unconstitutional under the Tax Limitation Clause for failure to garner a two-thirds vote in each house of the Legislature. Finding no reversible error in that judgment, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Calcasieu Parish School Bd. Sales & Use Dept., et al. v. Nelson Industrial Steam Co." on Justia Law

A subsidiary of Whirlpool Corporation with a single part-time employee in Luxembourg sold refrigerators and washing machines to Whirlpool in a series of complicated transactions involving Whirlpool-Mexico. By means of a 2007 corporate restructuring, neither the Luxembourgian subsidiary nor Whirlpool itself paid any taxes on the profits (more than $45 million) earned from those transactions. The IRS later determined that Whirlpool should have paid taxes on those profits.The Tax Court granted summary judgment to the Commissioner. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. An American corporation is taxed directly on foreign base company sales income (FBCSI) held by its “controlled foreign corporations” (CFCs), 26 U.S.C. 954(a)(2). Lux’s income from its sales of appliances to Whirlpool-US and Whirlpool-Mexico in 2009 is FBCSI. Section 954(d)(2) expressly prescribes that the sales income “attributable to” the “carrying on” of activities through Lux’s Mexican branch “shall be treated as income derived by a wholly-owned subsidiary” of Lux and that the income attributable to the branch’s activities “shall constitute foreign base company sales income of” Lux. View "Whirlpool Financial Corp. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue" on Justia Law

Sienega failed to file required California state income tax returns in the 1990-1992, and 1996 tax years. The IRS made upward adjustments in Sienega’s federal tax liability for those years. For each of the four tax years, Sienega’s counsel faxed to California's Franchise Tax Board (FTB) a cover sheet and IRS Form 4549-A, listing the adjustments to Sienega’s income, the corrected taxable income and tax liability, interest, and penalties. The FTB issued a notice of proposed assessment for each tax year; each stated that the FTB had “no record of receiving [Sienega’s] personal income tax return.” The notices proposed to assess state taxes based upon the federal audit report and specified that if Sienega disagreed with any of the calculations, he would need to submit a formal protest. Sienega did not file any belated tax returns or protests. The assessments became final in 2009. In 2014, Sienega filed a bankruptcy petition. The FTB filed am adversary complaint seeking to have Sienega’s outstanding state tax debts declared nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. 523(a)(1)(B), based on the fact that he had not filed a formal state tax return in any of the relevant years. Sienega contended that he had filed state tax returns by faxing information about the adjustments.The bankruptcy court granted the FTB summary judgment. The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel and Ninth Circuit affirmed. The faxes did not constitute a return under the “hanging paragraph” in section 523(a) because the California state law process with which his faxes complied was not “similar” to 26 U.S.C. 6020(a), which authorizes the IRS to prepare a tax return when a taxpayer does not. View "Sienega v. State of California Franchise Tax Board" on Justia Law

A tax-sharing agreement between the County of San Benito and the City of Hollister requires the city to pay the county a fixed fee (Additional Amount) per residential unit constructed on land annexed into the city from the county during the period covered by that agreement. Plaintiff’s predecessor entered into an annexation agreement with the city, agreeing to comply with “all applicable provisions” of that tax sharing agreement. When the plaintiff purchased the annexed land and sought to develop it into subdivisions, the city informed the plaintiff that it was liable for the Additional Amount fees. Plaintiff paid the fees under protest, then sued, seeking a declaration of its rights and duties under various written instruments.The court of appeal affirmed a defense judgment. Plaintiff is contractually liable for the Additional Amount by the terms of the annexation agreement. Any challenge to the calculation of the Additional Amount is beyond the scope of a declaratory relief action and time-barred. The court rejected the plaintiff’s arguments that neither the annexation agreement nor the tax sharing agreement requires the plaintiff to pay the Additional Amount and that the fees violate the Mitigation Fee Act and federal constitutional constraints on development fees as monetary exactions. View "BMC Promise Way, LLC v. County of San Benito" on Justia Law