By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: May 2,2012
In re Appeal of David H. Murdock Research Institute Even though the respondent-county filed a motion to dismiss while the petitioner-nonprofit filed materials in support of its late application for a tax exemption, the Property Tax Commission was not required to hold separate hearings.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: March 14,2012
Ocean Pines Ass’n Inc. v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue A tax-exempt subdivision association must pay taxes on net income from two parking lots and a beach club that benefit the private interests of association members rather than the general public; the 4th Circuit affirms the Tax Court judgment, as the income is not “substantially related” to the association purpose of promoting social welfare, but is taxable as “unrelated business taxable income.”
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: February 23,2012
Technocom Business Systems Inc. v. North Carolina Department of Revenue A taxpayer in the business of selling and leasing office equipment collected sales taxes on its optional maintenance agreements. An audit by the Department of Revenue determined that the taxpayer should have been paying use taxes instead of sales taxes. G.S. § 105-164.41 entitles the taxpayer to a credit for the sales taxes it paid to the Department against the assessment of use taxes that the taxpayer should have paid.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: February 10,2012
In re McLamb. Where a taxpayer fails to show a county’s schedule of values in reappraisal of agricultural and forestry land is either arbitrary or capricious, the schedule will stand. The county is not obliged to use all “practicable” resources to determine fair valuation. And the county is not statutorily required to consider soil quality in determining fair value.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: February 9,2012
In re Appeal of Family Tree Farm, LLC Even if the federal Clean Water and Food Security Acts “severely restrict” the taxpayer’s property’s use, the restrictions do not appear to affect the land’s current use as forestland. The taxpayer cannot show that its property is differently situated with respect to these restrictions than other property located in the same geographic region. Additionally, the N.C. Sedimentation Pollution Act specifically does not apply to land used for forestry.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: February 2,2012
Johnson v. United States Since a final decision of the bankruptcy court has already determined that plaintiff received a fraudulent transfer from her husband of his million-dollar judgment against a former employer, the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel make it appropriate for this court to reach the same conclusion.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: January 12,2012
United States v. Clayton Where defendant knew he was required to pay his federal income taxes, knew he had not done so, and continued to make extravagant discretionary expenditures, the government has made out a prima facie case that defendant willfully attempted to evade his tax liability. If defendant willfully evaded paying his taxes, his tax debt was not discharged in his bankruptcy.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: November 2,2011
In re Vaughn Even though debtor Corletta Vaughn claimed to be merely the spiritual leader of Go Tell It Evangelistic Ministry (GTI), the evidence showed that she had and exercised financial authority over GTI as well. The debtors’ objection to the IRS’s claim is overruled.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: October 27,2011
Capital One Financial Corp. v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue The 4th Circuit says Capital One credit card company may not retroactively change its accounting method for reporting credit-card late fees on its 1998 and 1999 tax returns in order to reduce its tax liability by about $400 million, nor may it deduct the estimated costs of coupon redemption related to its MilesOne credit card program before customers actually redeem those coupons.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: August 4,2011
In re Appeal of Blue Ridge Mall LLC Where the county did not use the income approach to value a shopping mall, the Property Tax Commission acted within its authority when it adopted the valuation method used by the taxpayer’s expert but lowered his capitalization rate to account for the age of a comparable property and its sale date. We affirm the commission’s valuation of the subject property at $9,461,476.
NC Lawyers Weekly keeps you connected with the latest legal news, Daily Practice and Breaking
News alerts.
Sign up for NC Lawyers Weekly email alerts
Front Street Construction, LLC v. Colonial Bank, N.A. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (FDIC), as receiver for failed bank Colonial Bank, N.A., entered into a purchase and assumption agreement (PAA) with Branch Banking and Trust Co. Some of plaintiffs’ claims against BB&T arose from acts or omissions by Colonial and were not addressed in the PAA. As to those claims, plaintiffs must exhaust their administrative remedies under the Financial Institutional Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act (FIRREA) before they can seek judicial remedies.
State v. Squires When a state trooper saw a pickup truck on the side of the road after midnight and stopped to see if any assistance was needed, he was not required to leave after a person outside the truck told him everything was okay. The trooper did not impermissibly extend the stop when he checked on the driver of the vehicle.
State v. Rouse Even though, in his opening and closing statements, defense counsel referred to the arresting officers as “very good officers,” counsel did so in the context of arguing that everyone makes mistakes. Counsel could have reasonably made a tactical decision to refrain from challenging the officers’ general professionalism and competence, while still encouraging the jury to find that the officers arrested defendant on May 23, 2010 as a result of their inadvertent mistakes.
Robinson v. North Carolina Department of Correction Where plaintiff testified that, all the way around his wrist, there were “teeth marks” from too-tight handcuffs and that his wrist was bruised and swollen, but where a drawing plaintiff made to document his injuries indicated that only his left finger and thumb were swollen with no indication of bruising, discoloration, a cut or “teeth marks” laterally around his wrist, the evidence supports the Industrial Commission’s finding that plaintiff’s drawing was inconsistent with his testimony regarding his injuries.
