Justia Tax Law Opinion Summaries

In this case regarding the proper distribution of liquor-by-the-drink (LBD) tax proceeds between a county and a municipality within the county, the Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals' decision reversing the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the county on its claim that the LBD tax distribution statute, Tenn. Code Ann. 57-4-306, required cities to distribute the tax proceeds as the counties distribute the county property tax schools, holding that that the city was not required to share those proceeds with the county or the county schools.The county in this case had not approved the LBD sales, but the city had. The Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Revenue distributed tax proceeds to the city in accordance with section 57-4-306. The city distributed half its tax proceeds to its own city school system and did not share the proceeds with the county. The trial court concluded that the city was required to distribute the tax proceeds pro rata among all schools in the county. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the distribution statute directed the city to distribute the education portion of its LBD tax proceeds in support of its own municipal school system. View "Washington County School System v. City of Johnson City, Tennessee" on Justia Law

In this case regarding the proper distribution of liquor-by-the-drink (LBD) tax proceeds between a county and a municipality within the county, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the judgment of the trial court granting summary judgment against the county on its claim that the LBD tax distribution statute, Tenn. Code Ann. 57-4-306, required cities to distribute the tax proceeds as the counties distribute the county property tax schools, holding that that the city was not required to share those proceeds with the county or the county schools.The county in this case had not approved the LBD sales, but the city had. The Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Revenue distributed tax proceeds to the city in accordance with section 57-4-306. The city distributed half its tax proceeds to its own city school system and did not share the proceeds with the county. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the city. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the distribution statute directed the city to distribute the education portion of its LBD tax proceeds in support of its own municipal school system and did not require that the city share those proceeds with the county. View "Sullivan County, Tennessee v. City of Bristol, Tennessee" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied Appellee's motion to dismiss Appellant's appeal from the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) that denied Appellant's claim for property-tax exemption for several parcels of land it owned, holding that Appellant timely perfected its appeal.As support for its motion to dismiss, Appellee argued that because Appellant did not initiate service by certified mail within the thirty-day period prescribed by Ohio Rev. Code 5717.04 for filing its notice of appeal, the Supreme Court must dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court rejected Appellee's argument, holding that section 5717.04 does not state a timeline for the certified-mail service of the notice of appeal on the appellees, and it is not disputed that the notice of appeal was properly served on Appellee by certified mail. View "The City of Upper Arlington v. McClain" on Justia Law

In this case regarding the proper distribution of liquor-by-the-drink (LBD) tax proceeds between a county and a municipality within the county, the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals reversing the judgment of the trial court granting summary judgment against the county on its claim that the liquor-by-the-drink (LBD) tax distribution statute, Tenn. Code Ann. 57-4-306, required cities to distribute the tax proceeds as the counties distribute the county property tax schools, holding that that the city was not required to share those proceeds with the county.The county in this case had not approved the LBD sales, but the city had. The Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Revenue distributed the tax proceeds to the city. The city distributed half its tax proceeds to its own city school system. The court of appeals concluded that section 57-4-306 required the city to distribute half of its LBD tax proceeds pro rata among all schools in the county. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the distribution statute directed cities to distribute half of their LBD tax proceeds for the benefit of the city's own school system; and (2) the city in this case was not required to share its LBD tax proceeds with the county or the county schools. View "Coffee County Board of Education v. City of Tullahoma" on Justia Law

In this case regarding the proper distribution of liquor-by-the-drink (LBD) tax proceeds between a county and a municipality within the county, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision affirming the trial court's grant of summary judgment against the county and in favor of the two defendant cities, holding that the LBD statute, Tenn. Code Ann. 57-4-306, did not require the Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Revenue to pay half of the cities' LBD tax proceeds to the county.The recipient cities distributed half of their tax proceeds to its own city school system and did not share the proceeds with the county. The counties sued the cities, arguing that section 57-4-306 required the cities to distribute the tax proceeds pro rata among all schools in the county based on average daily attendance. The trial court granted summary judgment for the cities. The trial court held that the statute required counties to distribute their LBD tax proceeds pro rata among all schools in the county, even though it did not require the same of cities. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding holding that the distribution statute directed the cities to distribute the education portion of their LBD tax proceeds in support of their own municipal school systems. View "Blount County Board of Education v. City of Maryville, Tennessee" on Justia Law

A Controlled Foreign Corporation’s income is not taxable to its domestic shareholders unless the income is distributed to them. CFC shareholders began taking loans either from the CFC or from third-party financial institutions using the CFC’s assets as collateral or having the CFC guarantee the loans to obtain a monetary return on their foreign investment. The Revenue Act of 1962 requires the inclusion in the domestic shareholder’s annual income of any increase in investment in U.S. properties made by a CFC it controls, 26 U.S.C. 956(c)(1)(C), and provides that a CFC shall be considered as holding an obligation of a U.S. person if such CFC is a pledgor or guarantor of such obligations. IRS regulations determine when a CFC’s pledge or guarantee results in the CFC being deemed the holder of the loan, and how much of the “obligation” a CFC pledgor or guarantor is deemed to hold, 26 C.F.R. 1.956-2(c)(1) and 1.956-1(e)(2). Through the SIH family, Appellant owns two CFCs. Another SIH affiliate, SIG, borrowed $1.5 billion from Merrill Lynch in 2007 in a loan guaranteed by over 30 SIH affiliates, including the CFCs that Appellant owns. Although the loan dwarfed the CFCs’ assets (roughly $240 million), Merrill Lynch insisted on having the CFCs guarantee. In 2011, when the CFCs distributed earnings to Appellant, their domestic shareholder, the IRS determined that Appellant should have reported the income at the time the CFCs guaranteed the SIG loan, treating each CFC as if it had made the entire loan directly, though the amount included in Appellant’s income was reduced from the $1.5 billion principal of the loan to the CFCs’ combined “applicable earnings.” This resulted in an additional tax of $378,312,576 to Appellant. The IRS applied the then-applicable 35% rate for ordinary income. The Tax Court and Third Circuit ruled in favor of the IRS, rejecting Appellant’s challenges to the validity of the regulations and the use of the ordinary income tax rate. View "SIH Partners LLLP v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue" on Justia Law

In this appeal from the disallowance of a taxpayer's claimed deduction for his share of losses suffered by an S corporation, the Eleventh Circuit held that monetary transfers between various business entities partly owned by the taxpayer and an S corporation that were later reclassified as loans from the taxpayer to the S corporation did not establish a "bona fide indebtedness" that "runs directly" to the taxpayer. Therefore, the court held that taxpayer's back-to-back theory failed because the S corporation's debt ran to the affiliates, not taxpayer. Furthermore, taxpayer's incorporated-pocketbook theory failed because the affiliates were not his incorporated pocketbook. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the tax court in favor of the Commissioner. View "Meruelo v. Commissioner" on Justia Law

26 U.S.C. 6672(a) applies with equal force when a government agency receiver tells a taxpayer not to pay trust fund taxes. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for the Government in an action brought by plaintiff, seeking a refund of tax penalties paid under section 6672(a). The court rejected plaintiff's "my-boss-told-me-not-to-pay" argument, and held that it could not apply different substantive law because the receiver in this case was the Small Business Administration. View "Myers v. United States" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals ruling that the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality does not have the discretion to deny an ad valorem tax exemption for heat recovery steam generators (HRSGs), devices the Legislature considers "pollution control property," holding that the Legislature did not exceed its constitutional authority in exempting pollution control property from taxation.Brazos Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. filed for an exemption seeking a positive use determination for the HRSG used in two of its facilities. The Commission's Executive Director issued negative use determinations for the applications on the grounds that HRSGs are not eligible for a positive use determination. The Commission eventually affirmed the determinations as to both facilities. The trial court affirmed. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) under Texas Tax Code 11.31, property that qualifies as pollution control property, is entitled to a tax exemption, and HRSGs qualify, at least in part, as pollution control property; and (2) thus, assuming the applicant otherwise complies with the statute's requirements, the Executive Director may not issue a negative use determination for HRSGs. View "Brazos Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. v. Texas Commission on Environmental Quality" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals reversing the district court's judgment affirming the negative use determinations issued by the Commission on Environmental Quality as to Respondents' applications for tax exemptions for heat recovery steam generators (HRSGs), holding that Texas Tax Code 11.31 does not give the Commission and its Executive Director discretion to deny an ad valorem tax exemption for HRSGs.In Brazos Electric Power Cooperative v. Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, __ S.W.3d __ (Tex. 2019), also issued today, the Supreme Court held that the Legislature has deemed HRSGs to qualify at least in part as "pollution control property" entitled to an exemption. The Court further held in Brazos Electric that the Commission abused its discretion by issuing negative use determinations for two exemption applications involving HRSGs when the applications complied with relevant statutory requirements. In the instant case, the Commission issued negative use determinations for Petitioners' applications for tax exemptions for HRSGs. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court of appeals correctly held that the Commission may not issue negative use determinations for HRSGs. View "Texas Commission on Environmental Quality v. Brazos Valley Energy, LLC" on Justia Law