Justia Tax Law Opinion Summaries

After the IRS concluded that Mayo, a tax-exempt organization under IRC 501(c)(3), owed unrelated business income tax (UBIT) on certain investment income it received from the investment pool it manages for its subsidiaries, the IRS issued a Notice of Proposed Adjustment and reaffirmed its position in a 2013 Technical Advice Memorandum. In this refund action, the parties dispute the $11,501,621 in UBIT for tax years 2003, 2005-2007, and 2010-2012. At issue is whether Mayo is a "qualified organization" exempted from paying unrelated business income tax on "unrelated debt-financed income" under section 514(c)(9)(C)(i) and whether it its a qualified organization under section 170(b)(1)(A)(ii) because it is an educational organization. The district court held that the Treasury Regulation is invalid "because it adds requirements -- the primary-function and merely-incidental tests -- Congress intended not to include in the statute."The Eighth Circuit concluded that Treasury Regulation 1.170A-9 is valid, but only in part, and that application of the statute as reasonably construed by the regulation to Mayo's tax years in question cannot be determined as a matter of law on this summary judgment record. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's invalidation of Treasury Regulation 1.170A-9 to the extent it is not inconsistent with IRC 170(b)(1)(A)(ii) and remanded for further proceedings. View "Mayo Clinic v. United States" on Justia Law

When an Ohio county forecloses on a tax-delinquent, occupied property, it ordinarily sells the property at an auction, keeps proceeds to cover the outstanding taxes, and returns leftover funds to the owner. Ohio municipalities may surrender their tax interest in tax-delinquent vacant properties and transfer clear title to land banks, which may revitalize the property, sell it, or demolish the home to prepare for new neighborhoods. When counties choose the land bank route the owner's surplus equity vanishes.Harrison inherited a partial interest in her mother’s Dayton home, which had a $20,000 property tax delinquency. Montgomery County started foreclosure proceedings. The County Board of Revision transferred the home (estimated fair market value, $22,600) to the county’s land bank. Harrison never received the surplus equity; the statute offers no way to pay it.Harrison filed a purported class action under the Takings Clause. The district court dismissed, citing claim preclusion because Harrison could have raised federal takings claims at several points during the foreclosure process. The Sixth Circuit reversed, noting that federal takings law changed during the operative period. A property owner now may bring section 1983 federal takings claims in federal court “as soon as their property has been taken” without first exhausting state remedies. The Tax Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. 1341, does not bar the suit; Harrison does not challenge Ohio’s “collection” of delinquent taxes nor seek to halt foreclosures. The court remanded for consideration of the merits. View "Harrison v. Montgomery County" on Justia Law

In 1989, Bilzerian was convicted on nine counts of securities fraud, making false statements to the Securities and Exchange Commission, and conspiracy to commit certain offenses, and defraud the SEC and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The Southern District of New York sentenced Bilzerian to four years in prison, imposed a $1.5 million fine, and ordered him to disgorge $62,337,599.53.In 2012, Bilzerian’s wife, Steffen, filed a pro se complaint in the Claims Court seeking an $8,243,145 tax refund under 26 U.S.C. 1341. The dispute stems from transactions that Bilzerian made in 1985-1986 related to the purchase and sale of certain common stocks, for which he was convicted of securities fraud. Steffen and Bilzerian later filed a second amended complaint as joined parties.In 2018, the court dismissed that complaint with prejudice. The Federal Circuit affirmed. The plaintiffs cannot establish a reasonable belief of having an unrestricted right to the disputed funds when the money was first reported as income. A reasonable, unrestricted-right belief cannot exist where a taxpayer knowingly acquires the disputed funds via fraud. The “taxpayer’s illicit hope that his intentional wrongdoing will go undetected cannot create the appearance of an unrestricted right.” View "Steffen v. United States" on Justia Law

Jefferson County ("the county") filed a complaint against Wilbert of Birmingham, LLC ("Wilbert"), Lisa D. Turner, and Marvin Lands ("the taxpayers") seeking an order requiring the taxpayers to pay various taxes and license fees they allegedly owed to the county. The circuit court ruled in favor of the county and ordered the taxpayers to pay to the county $112,728.96 plus accrued interest and court costs. The taxpayers appealed. The merits of the circuit court's ruling were not actually before the Alabama Supreme Court in this appeal. Instead, the issue raised in the taxpayers' brief was whether the circuit court obtained jurisdiction over the matter pursuant to the Alabama Taxpayers' Bill of Rights and Uniform Revenue Procedures Act, 40-2A-1 et seq., Ala. Code 1975 ("the TBOR"). The Supreme Court found the taxpayers demonstrated that, by failing to schedule a conference with the taxpayers concerning the preliminary assessments, the county's department of revenue did not strictly comply with the procedural requirements of the TBOR. That failure to strictly comply with the procedural requirements of the TBOR deprived the circuit court of jurisdiction over the county's action against the taxpayers, and, thus, the order entered in favor of the county was void. Therefore, the Supreme Court dismissed the taxpayers' appeal and instructed the circuit court to vacate its judgment in favor of the county and to dismiss the case. View "Wilbert of Birmingham, LLC, et al. v. Jefferson County" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the tax court determining that, between 2003 and 2011, Travelocity.com LP was liable for sums due under the sales and use tax pursuant to Md. Code Tax-Gen. 11-102(a), holding that Travelocity was not liable to pay the sales and use tax during the relevant audit period.The Comptroller of Maryland issued a tax assessment of almost $6.5 million. The tax court upheld the assessment, concluding that Travelocity's business of facilitating vehicle rentals and hotel room reservations was included in the sale of tangible personal property in Maryland, rendering Travelocity liable for the tax during the audit period at issue. The circuit court affirmed. The court of special appeals reversed. The court of appeals reversed, holding that Travelocity was not liable for the tax during the audit period at issue. View "Travelocity.com v. Comptroller" on Justia Law

In this ad valorem tax dispute, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals and the trial court declining to dismiss a tax appeal under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA), Tex. Civ. Proc. & Rem. Code 27.001-.011, holding that the motion to dismiss was timely filed.Certain taxing units sought judicial review of a tax appraisal review board order declining to reappraise the value of mineral-interest property claimed to be undervalued on the tax rolls. The trial court and court of appeals refused to dismiss the tax appeal under the TCPA. The affected taxpayer appealed, arguing that, contrary to the rulings of the lower courts, the TCPA dismissal motion was timely and the trial court had jurisdiction over the tax appeal. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) there was no jurisdictional impediment to reaching the merits of this appeal; and (2) the TCPA motion to dismiss was timely filed. View "Kinder Morgan SACROC, LP v. Scurry County" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the district court upholding the ruling of the Property Assessment Appeal Board (PAAB) concluding that bins that primarily hold raw material until it is needed in the manufacturing process do not themselves constitute "machinery," holding that some, but not all, of the ingredient bins qualify for a tax exemption.At issue was when bins for holding ingredients qualify for a tax exemption as machinery used in manufacturing establishments under Iowa Code 427A.1(1)(e). The court of appeals disagreed with the PAAB's interpretation of the statute, finding that bins that are integrated into the manufacturing process and used for temporary storage of ingredients fell within the statutory exemption. The Supreme Court vacated the court of appeals' decision and reversed in part the district court's judgment, holding (1) customized overhead bins within a building where feed is manufactured constitute part of a continuous piece of machinery within that building; and (2) two large stand-alone corn silos, while connected by an underground conveyor to the feed manufacturing facility, do not meet the definition of machinery. View "Stateline Cooperative v. Iowa Property Assessment Appeal Board" on Justia Law

28 U.S.C. 1346(a)(1) does not confer jurisdiction, concurrent with the United States Court of Federal Claims, over a taxpayer's civil action against the government solely for overpayment interest owed to the taxpayer.The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's order dismissing plaintiffs' amended complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction over their standalone claim for overpayment interest allegedly owed to them by the government. Plaintiffs are victims of Bernie Madoff's Ponzi scheme and seek to recoup their losses. They filed multiple claims with the IRS, subsequently received tentative refunds of approximately ten million dollars, and now seek interest on the tax overpayments for the tax years at issue. The Court of Federal Claims denied the government's motion to dismiss as moot after finding that it lacked jurisdiction over plaintiffs' claim because it was untimely under the Tucker Act. The Court of Federal Claims, however, transferred the case to the Southern District of Florida because it was not evident how the Southern District of Florida or this Court would address jurisdiction over a standalone claim for overpayment interest.Read in context of the entire statute, the court concluded that the "any sum" category of section 1346(a)(1) does not encompass standalone overpayment interest claims against the government and that under the Tucker Act, the Court of Federal Claims has exclusive jurisdiction over such standalone claims exceeding $10,000. Therefore, the district court correctly determined that it lacked jurisdiction over plaintiffs' overpayment interest claim and properly dismissed their amended complaint. View "Paresky v. United States" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment entered in the business and consumer docket affirming the State Tax Assessor's denial of Appellant's request for an income tax refund for the 2013 taxable year, holding that the superior court did not err.Somerset Telephone Company and affiliated corporations (collectively, Appellant) filed a 2013 Maine tax return showing positive Maine taxable income and state income tax liability. Appellant later filed an amended 2013 return listing an adjusted federal taxable income resulting in a decreased Maine taxable income and decreased tax liability. To account for the difference, Somerset unsuccessfully requested from the Assessor a partial refund. In this ensuing litigation, the business and consumer docket entered a final judgment in the Assessor's favor. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the superior court correctly affirmed the decision of the State Tax Assessor. View "Somerset Telephone Co. v. State Tax Assessor" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the Tax Court's decision upholding the Commissioner's determination that petitioner owes an income tax deficiency for 2011. The court concluded that the Tax Court did not clearly err in finding that petitioner failed to substantiate his claimed net operating loss (NOL) deduction in 2011. The court also concluded that the Tax Court did not abuse its discretion by overruling petitioner's objections to the Commissioner's deficiency computations under Rule 155, which included the income, but not the deductions, from petitioner's late-filed 2011 tax return. Finally, the court could not say that the Tax Court abused its discretion in refusing to reopen the case to litigate an issue that petitioner never attempted to raise. View "Barker v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue" on Justia Law