Noteworthy Cases

Subscribe to Noteworthy Cases via RSS

The Louisiana Court of Appeal recently ruled that a corporation’s passive ownership interest in a limited partnership doing business in Louisiana is not sufficient to create Louisiana corporate franchise tax nexus. Utelcom, Inc. v. Bridges, Dkt. No. 535,407 (Division “D”, Ct. App., First Dist., Sept. 12, 2011). The court held that because capital contributed to…

The New York State Department of Taxation and Finance (Department) provided another example of its longstanding eagerness to force taxpayer combination—at least in cases where it results in increased tax revenue. In the Matter of Kellwood Co., No. 820915 (N.Y. Tax App. Trib. Sept. 22, 2011).

The Department (or taxpayer) must prove three elements to require a combined report: 

  1. Sufficient ownership 
  2. Existence of a unitary business 
  3. Distortion

Continue Reading New York Attempts to Take Taxpayer Out Behind the (Kell)Woodshed

In shocking similarity to the once-popular Amy Winehouse song “Rehab,” the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari in two nexus cases: KFC Corp. v. Iowa, 792 N.W.2d 308 (Iowa Dec. 30, 2010) and Lamtec Corp. v. Wash. Dep’t of Revenue, Docket No. 83579-9, en banc (Wash. Jan. 20, 2011) but left open the possibility to hear DIRECTV, Inc. v. Levin, 128 Ohio St.3d 68 (Ohio Dec. 27, 2010).

KFC is an economic nexus case involving the license of intangibles. KFC did not have any employees or property within Iowa; KFC licensed the use of trademarks and other intangibles to independent franchisees in the state in exchange for royalties. The Iowa Supreme Court held that KFC’s license of the intangibles was the “functional equivalent” of physical presence under Quill and that, in the alternative, physical presence was not required to find substantial nexus for corporate income tax purposes.

The Court also denied certiorari in Lamtec, where the taxpayer’s sole presence in the state was irregular employee visits to customers. The Washington Supreme Court determined that Lamtec had nexus with Washington for Business and Occupation (B&O) tax purposes and raised additional questions regarding how Washington views the physical presence test relating to the B&O tax, stating: “We conclude that to the extent there is a physical presence requirement, it can be satisfied by the presence of activities within the state.” (emphasis added).Continue Reading These Cases Tried to Go to the U.S. Supreme Court, But the Court said “No…No…Oh?”

Taxpayers frequently challenge tax laws based on equal protection grounds, but states generally prevail on the rather easily met rational basis test. In a noteworthy Iowa decision, Qwest, an incumbent local exchange telecommunications company (ILEC), successfully argued that the application of two property tax exemptions resulted in unconstitutional discrimination against it in favor of competitive long distance companies (CLDCs) and wireless companies. Qwest Corp. v. Iowa State Bd. of Taxation and Revenue, Docket No. CV008413 (Iowa Dist. Ct. Aug. 17, 2011).

The first subject of Qwest’s challenge was an exemption for personal property acquired by CLDCs after 1995 that was available to “long distance telephone companies,” the definition of which specifically excluded ILECs like Qwest. The second aspect of Qwest’s challenge involved the state’s central assessment property tax scheme. Iowa law exempts all personal property from tax, but for centrally assessed telephone companies like Qwest, the state treats all property as “real property.” All “telephone companies” operating a telecommunications line in the state are subject to central assessment. The state did not classify wireless companies as telephone companies, because the wireless companies use radio wave technology and not a network of cable and wires. Therefore, Qwest paid tax on the value of all of its property, while wireless companies did not pay tax on personal property.Continue Reading Iowa Court Upholds Equal Protection Challenge

Alabama ALJ Bill Thompson voided a local sales tax assessment asserted against an electronics retailer because the retailer did not have a physical presence in the taxing jurisdictions. Although the retailer sent repairmen into the local taxing jurisdictions, the retailer did not have a physical store or sales representatives in the localities, and therefore lacked…

While the power to issue a jeopardy assessment has been referred to as part of a state’s “power of the purse, not its power of the sword,” state and local taxing authorities have shown a propensity to impose jeopardy assessments. Indiana Dep’t of State Revenue v. Adams, 762 N.E.2d 728, 732-33 (Ind. 2002). Luckily, state courts increasingly are willing to look behind jeopardy assessments to determine whether the statutory requirements for their issuance have been met. In Garwood v. Indiana Dep’t of State Revenue, No. 82T10-0906-TA-29 (Ind. Tax Ct. Aug.19, 2011), the Indiana Tax Court invalidated 16 jeopardy assessments issued by the Indiana Department of Revenue as a result of the Department’s abuse of its jeopardy assessment authority.

The Garwoods supplemented their dairy farm income by breeding and selling dogs.  Prompted by a series of consumer complaints, the Indiana Attorney General investigated the Garwoods. Undercover Attorney General agents purchased dogs and found that the Garwoods had failed to pay Indiana income tax and to collect and remit sales tax. In addition, the Garwoods did not register as retail merchants or file sales tax returns. The Department served jeopardy assessments on the Garwoods at their home and demanded immediate payment of the tax, interest, and penalties alleged to be owed. When the Garwoods informed a Department official that they could not pay immediately, the Department served them with jeopardy tax warrants and, on that same morning, state officials, police, and 60 volunteers from various humane societies raided the farm and seized all 240 of the Garwoods’ dogs, including their house pets and farm dogs. Later that day, the seizures were made public in a television press conference and newspaper interview (which the court described as a “media circus”). A day later, state officials sold all of the Garwoods’ dogs for a total of $300.Continue Reading Indiana Jeopardy Assessments (and Taxpayer) Turn Out to be a Dog

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently confirmed that a state or local government’s intent to discriminate against railroad carriers is a relevant consideration in analyzing allegations of discriminatory taxation in violation of the federal Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act (“4-R Act”). 49 U.S.C. § 11501. The court further clarified the relationship between the 4-R Act and the Tax Injunction Act (“TIA”). 28 U.S.C. § 1341; Kansas City S. Ry. Co. and Norfolk S. Ry. Co. v. Koeller, No. 10-2333 (7th Cir. July 27, 2011). The residual clause of the 4-R Act prohibits states and their subdivisions from imposing discriminatory taxes against railroads.

At issue was a shift in 2009 by the Sny Island Levee Drainage District (an Illinois political subdivision), from its longstanding and uniform, per-acre annual maintenance assessment on all property to an assessment based on differentiating between land owned by railroads, pipelines, and utilities (“RPU”), and non-RPU land. Under the new regime, non-RPU land would continue to be assessed on a per-acre basis while RPU land would be assessed according to the value of the benefit conferred on RPU lands by the District’s levee system. The result: 4,800% and 8,300% increases in assessments for Kansas City Southern and Norfolk Southern railroads, respectively, in the span of one year. At the same time, the District chose to exempt land situated within municipalities, which, according to the District’s commissioners, included all non-RPU commercial and industrial properties. To make matters worse, the District never notified RPU landowners of the change in assessment methodologies, as it was required to do under Illinois law.Continue Reading All Aboard! Seventh Circuit Rails Local Government for Discriminating Against Railroads

On June 20, 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled that the federal district court had jurisdiction to adjudicate a case involving the constitutionality and validity of a levy imposed on a single entity. GenOn Mid-Atlantic, LLC v. Montgomery Cty., No. 10-1882 (4th Cir. June 20, 2011). In response to the Fourth Circuit’s decision, Montgomery County enacted legislation repealing the levy and providing a full refund—with interest—to the fee payer.

The GenOn case involved legislation that Montgomery County enacted in 2010, which imposed a $5 per ton levy on “major emitters” of carbon dioxide emissions. Montgomery County set the emissions threshold for a “major emitter” to include only those entities emitting more than one million tons of carbon dioxide during the year. The County also structured the levy such that once major emitters exceeded one million tons of carbon dioxide emissions, they were required to pay the levy retroactively on each ton of emissions, going back to the first ton emitted. As a result, GenOn was the only entity subject to the levy and was subject to the levy on every ton of carbon dioxide emitted.Continue Reading Fourth Circuit Emits Good News! Federal Court Retains Jurisdiction over Levy Imposed on a Single Entity