Justia Tax Law Opinion Summaries

Kenin Edwards was sentenced to 21 months’ imprisonment for tax fraud after a series of procedural complications. Edwards, who was represented by four different attorneys throughout the process, delayed his trial multiple times before pleading guilty. After his guilty plea, he fired his final attorney, decided to represent himself, recanted his admission of guilt, sought to vacate his plea, and filed numerous frivolous motions. The government, which had initially agreed to recommend a five-month split sentence, sought a 21-month sentence due to Edwards's conduct.The United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois handled the case. Edwards's initial attorneys withdrew due to a breakdown in strategy, and his subsequent attorney was disqualified due to a conflict of interest. Edwards then retained a fourth attorney, with whom he eventually reached a plea agreement. However, Edwards later discharged this attorney as well and chose to represent himself. The district court conducted a Faretta hearing to ensure Edwards's waiver of counsel was knowing and intelligent. Despite Edwards's numerous pro se filings and attempts to withdraw his guilty plea, the district court denied his motions and sentenced him to 21 months.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. Edwards argued that his Sixth Amendment rights were violated when the district court disqualified his attorney and allegedly forced him to proceed pro se at sentencing. He also claimed the government breached the plea agreement by recommending a higher sentence. The Seventh Circuit dismissed Edwards's appeal, finding that he had waived his right to appeal in his plea agreement. The court held that Edwards's claims did not fall within the exceptions to the appeal waiver and that the government did not breach the plea agreement. View "United States v. Edwards" on Justia Law

In this case, the defendant, a radio talk show host and church founder, began selling bitcoin in 2014. The government investigated his bitcoin sales and charged him with conspiracy to operate an unlicensed money transmitting business, operation of an unlicensed money transmitting business, conspiracy to commit money laundering, money laundering, and tax evasion. After a jury convicted him on all counts, the district court acquitted him of the substantive money laundering count due to insufficient evidence but upheld the other convictions.The defendant appealed, arguing that the district court should not have allowed the money-transmitting-business charges to proceed to trial, citing the "major questions doctrine" which he claimed should exempt virtual currencies like bitcoin from regulatory statutes. He also contended that the evidence was insufficient to support his tax evasion conviction and that he should be granted a new trial on the money laundering conspiracy count due to prejudicial evidentiary spillover. Additionally, he argued that his 96-month sentence was substantively unreasonable.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court rejected the defendant's major questions doctrine argument, holding that the statutory definition of "money transmitting business" under 31 U.S.C. § 5330 includes businesses dealing in virtual currencies like bitcoin. The court found that the plain meaning of "funds" encompasses virtual currencies and that the legislative history and subsequent congressional actions supported this interpretation.The court also found sufficient evidence to support the tax evasion conviction, noting that the defendant had substantial unreported income and engaged in conduct suggesting willful evasion of taxes. The court rejected the claim of prejudicial spillover, concluding that the evidence related to the money laundering conspiracy was admissible and relevant.Finally, the court upheld the 96-month sentence, finding it substantively reasonable given the defendant's conduct and the factors considered by the district court. The court affirmed the district court's rulings and the defendant's convictions and sentence. View "United States v. Freeman" on Justia Law

Bank of America Corporation, after merging with Merrill Lynch in 2013, sought to recover interest on its pre-merger tax underpayments by netting them against pre-merger overpayments made by Merrill Lynch. The bank argued that the post-merger integration rendered it the "same taxpayer" as Merrill Lynch for purposes of the interest netting provision under 26 U.S.C. § 6621(d) of the Internal Revenue Code.The United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina initially held jurisdiction over all of the Bank's claims. However, the Federal Circuit determined that the Court of Federal Claims had exclusive jurisdiction over claims for overpayment interest exceeding $10,000, leading to the severance and transfer of those claims. The district court then addressed the remaining claims, granting partial summary judgment in favor of the government. The court concluded that the "same taxpayer" requirement applies at the time the payments were made, and since Bank of America and Merrill Lynch were distinct entities when the payments were made, the interest netting provision did not apply.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The Fourth Circuit held that the interest netting provision under § 6621(d) requires that the same taxpayer must have made the underpayments and overpayments at the time they were made. Since Bank of America and Merrill Lynch were separate entities when the relevant payments were made, they could not be considered the "same taxpayer" for the purposes of interest netting. The court also rejected the Bank's arguments based on state merger law and legislative history, emphasizing that the statutory text was clear and did not support the Bank's interpretation. View "Bank of America Corp. v. United States" on Justia Law

David Swartz was charged with wire fraud and aiding and assisting the filing of a false tax return. He pleaded guilty to both counts. The probation department prepared a presentence investigation report (PSR) that incorrectly calculated Swartz's net worth. Despite Swartz's correction of his assets, the PSR did not update his net worth. At sentencing, the district court imposed a $10,000 fine, relying on the PSR's recommendations.Swartz objected to the PSR's net worth calculation and filed a memorandum noting the correct figure. The district court adopted the PSR's recommendations, including the fine, and ordered restitution and a special assessment. Swartz argued that the district court violated his due process rights by relying on inaccurate financial information and failed to comply with statutory requirements in imposing the fine.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the district court did not rely on the incorrect net worth figure when imposing the fine. The district court considered Swartz's significant assets, limited liabilities, and positive monthly cash flow, which were accurately stated in the PSR. The court also found that the district court properly considered the relevant factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3572(a) and did not err in determining Swartz's ability to pay the fine.The Seventh Circuit held that the district court did not commit procedural error or violate Swartz's due process rights. The court affirmed the district court's judgment, including the imposition of the $10,000 fine. View "United States v. Swartz" on Justia Law

Mayo Clinic, a Minnesota nonprofit corporation and tax-exempt organization under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, sought a refund of unrelated business income tax (UBIT) imposed by the IRS for tax years 2003, 2005-2007, and 2010-2012. The IRS assessed Mayo $11,501,621 in unpaid UBIT, concluding that Mayo was not a qualified educational organization under IRC § 170(b)(1)(A)(ii) because its primary function was not the presentation of formal instruction, and its noneducational activities were not merely incidental to its educational activities. Mayo paid the assessed amount and filed a refund action.The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota granted Mayo summary judgment, holding that Mayo is an educational organization as defined in § 170(b)(1)(A)(ii) and invalidating Treasury Regulation § 1.170A-9(c)(1) for adding requirements not present in the statute. The United States appealed, and the Eighth Circuit reversed the invalidation of the regulation and remanded for further proceedings. On remand, the district court concluded that Mayo had a substantial educational purpose and no substantial noneducational purpose, granting Mayo judgment for the full refund amount plus interest.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that "primary" in this context means "substantial" and that Mayo's substantial patient care activities are not noneducational due to the integration of education and clinical practice. The court concluded that Mayo qualifies as an educational organization under § 170(b)(1)(A)(ii) and that its patient care function does not disqualify it from this status. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Mayo Clinic v. United States" on Justia Law

Terry Tischmak was married to a resident student attending Salt Lake Community College in Utah during the 2013 and 2014 tax years. Although he lived and worked in Wyoming, he and his wife filed their federal taxes jointly. Utah's Domicile Statute deems individuals domiciled in Utah for tax purposes if they or their spouse are resident students at a state institution. Consequently, the Utah State Tax Commission determined that Tischmak owed state income taxes for those years.The Utah State Tax Commission audited Tischmak and issued a Notice of Deficiency for the 2013 and 2014 tax years. Tischmak appealed, arguing that he should not be subject to Utah's income tax because he resided in Wyoming. After a formal hearing, the Commission upheld its decision, citing the Domicile Statute, which considers a person domiciled in Utah if their spouse is a resident student. The Commission did not address Tischmak's constitutional arguments, noting it lacked the authority to do so.The Utah Supreme Court reviewed the case and upheld the Tax Commission's decision. The court found that the Domicile Statute did not violate the federal right to travel, the Utah Constitution’s Due Process Clause, or the Uniform Operation of Laws Provision. The court also determined that the statute did not violate the U.S. Constitution’s Due Process Clause or the dormant Commerce Clause. The court concluded that the statute was constitutional and that Tischmak was subject to Utah's income tax for the years in question. View "Tischmak v. Tax Commission" on Justia Law

The case involves Delta Air Lines, Inc. and PacifiCorp, both of which are centrally assessed businesses in Oregon. Under Oregon law, centrally assessed businesses are taxed on their intangible property, unlike locally assessed businesses. Delta and PacifiCorp challenged this tax, arguing it violated the state and federal constitutions by not being uniform and by violating equal protection and privileges clauses.The Oregon Tax Court addressed both cases in a single opinion, ruling in favor of Delta by finding the tax on intangible property unconstitutional for air transportation businesses. However, it ruled against PacifiCorp, upholding the tax for utilities. The Tax Court concluded that there were no genuine differences between the intangible property of centrally assessed air transportation businesses and locally assessed businesses, but found differences for utilities.The Oregon Supreme Court reviewed the case, focusing on whether the tax classifications were rationally related to a legitimate governmental purpose. The court reversed the Tax Court's decision regarding Delta, holding that the tax on intangible property for centrally assessed businesses is constitutional. The court found that the legislature's decision to tax intangible property of centrally assessed businesses, but not locally assessed ones, was rationally related to legitimate purposes such as administrative efficiency, expertise in valuation, and balancing revenue against resources. The court also affirmed the Tax Court's decision regarding PacifiCorp in a separate opinion, maintaining the tax's constitutionality for utilities. The case was remanded to the Tax Court for further proceedings. View "Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. Dept. of Revenue" on Justia Law

Owners of timeshare estates in a resort sued the County of Riverside, challenging the legality of the annual fee charged for separate property tax assessments. The owners argued that the fee exceeded the reasonable cost of providing the assessment, constituting a tax requiring voter approval, which had not been obtained.The Superior Court of Riverside County rejected the owners' argument and entered judgment for the County. The court ruled that the fee did not exceed the reasonable cost of the assessment and was not a tax requiring voter approval. The court also considered additional costs not included in the original fee calculation, such as costs related to assessment appeals and a new computer system.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, reviewed the case. The court found that the County's methodology for setting the fee was flawed. The County had used the assessor's entire budget for a previous fiscal year to calculate the fee, which included costs unrelated to the separate timeshare assessments. The court also noted that the County had not provided evidence of the actual cost of the separate assessments and had improperly included costs for services provided to all property owners.The Court of Appeal concluded that the County did not meet its burden to prove that the fee was not a tax. The court reversed the judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings to determine the appropriate refund amount and to address the owners' requests for declaratory, injunctive, and writ relief. The court emphasized that the fee must be limited to the reasonable cost of the separate assessments and must bear a fair relationship to the benefits received by the timeshare estate owners. View "Scott v. County of Riverside" on Justia Law

Adam Steele and Krystal Comer, tax return preparers, challenged the IRS's requirement to obtain or renew a Preparer Tax Identification Number (PTIN) by completing Form W-12, which involves paying a fee and disclosing personal information. They initially joined a class action in 2014 contesting the IRS's authority to impose these fees and the amount of information required by Form W-12. However, class counsel later withdrew these claims. Steele and Comer then attempted to revive these claims in a separate lawsuit.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed their complaint, citing the rule against claim-splitting, which prevents duplicative litigation between the same parties asserting the same claims, even without a final judgment in the first case. The district court found that Steele and Comer had already raised and then withdrawn these claims in the ongoing class action and were denied leave to amend the complaint to reassert them.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal. The appellate court held that the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) does not bar judicial review of the IRS's authority to demand information through Form W-12, but the rule against claim-splitting still precludes the plaintiffs' suit. The court emphasized that claim-splitting bars duplicative litigation filed before final judgment and that Steele and Comer had a fair opportunity to litigate their claims in the earlier class action. The court concluded that the district court's dismissal was proper to prevent strategic end runs around procedural rulings and to preserve the integrity of the adjudicative process. View "Steele v. United States" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, who owned real property in Southfield, Michigan, became delinquent on their property taxes between 2012 and 2014. Oakland County foreclosed on their properties under the General Property Tax Act (GPTA). The plaintiffs had the opportunity to redeem their properties by paying the delinquent taxes, but they failed to do so. Consequently, the properties were foreclosed, and the city of Southfield exercised its right of first refusal to purchase the properties for the minimum bid, which included the unpaid taxes and associated fees. The properties were then conveyed to the Southfield Neighborhood Revitalization Initiative (SNRI).The plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit in the Oakland Circuit Court, alleging violations of their constitutional rights, including the Takings Clauses of the Michigan and United States Constitutions. The trial court granted summary disposition in favor of the defendants, citing lack of jurisdiction, lack of standing, and res judicata. The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision. However, the Michigan Supreme Court vacated the Court of Appeals' decision and remanded the case for reconsideration in light of its decision in Rafaeli, LLC v Oakland Co, which held that retaining surplus proceeds from tax-foreclosure sales violated the Takings Clause of the Michigan Constitution.On remand, the trial court again granted summary disposition to the defendants, but the Court of Appeals reversed in part, holding that Rafaeli applied retroactively and that the plaintiffs had valid takings claims. The Michigan Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that a taking occurs when a governmental unit retains property without offering it for public sale and the value of the property exceeds the amount owed in taxes and fees. The Court also held that MCL 211.78m, as amended, applies prospectively, while MCL 211.78t applies retroactively but does not govern this case. The case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. View "Jackson v. Southfield Neighborhood Revitalization Initiative" on Justia Law