Fidelity Bank v. North Carolina Department of Revenue Even though the N.C. Revenue Act uses the Internal Revenue Code to determine state net income, and even though the Code treats “market discount income” on U.S. Treasury bonds as interest for purposes of the Code, under the N.C. Revenue Act market discount income on U.S. Treasury bonds is treated as income rather than interest.
Bodford v. North Carolina Department of Revenue Once their C corporations converted to S corporations, the petitioner-shareholders could not take “add-back” deductions on their personal state income taxes that were based on accelerated federal deductions the C corporations had taken on their corporate income taxes before the conversion
In re Appeal of Blue Ridge Housing of Bakersville LLC Even though non-profit Northwestern Housing Enterprises, Inc. (NHE) owns only a 0.1 percent interest in the Mitchell County low-income housing development of Cane Creek Village, since NHE controls Cane Creek Village and in all likelihood will buy the other 99.9 percent in a few years, Cane Creek Village is exempt from county real estate taxes.
IMT, Inc. v. City of LumbertonA tax increase of at least 59,900 percent on one type of business – internet sweepstakes cafes – violates the Just and Equitable Tax Clause of N.C. Const. art. V, § 2(1). We reverse summary judgment for the city and remand for further proceedings.
In re Appeal of Parkdale Mills Once the Property Tax Commission decided that the taxpayer had met its burden of showing the county used an arbitrary method of valuing the taxpayer’s property, the Commission could not then rely on that same arbitrary valuation method to decide that the county had met its burden of showing its valuation was correct.
Fowler v. North Carolina Department of Revenue Petitioners’ sale of their N.C. business, purchase of a Florida home, and numerous official acts (registering to vote in Florida, removing their names from N.C. voter rolls, registering cars in Florida, listing Florida as their residence on tax forms, obtaining Florida drivers’ licenses and turning in their N.C. drivers’ licenses, etc.) evidenced plaintiffs’ intent to make Florida their home.
Kimberly Rice Kaestner 1992 Trust v. North Carolina Department of Revenue The court can find no binding case law upholding the constitutionality of G.S. § 105-160.2, so there is at least a colorable argument that North Carolina’s imposition of a tax on a foreign trust based solely on the presence of a beneficiary in the state does not conform to the Due Process Clause, the Commerce Clause, or N.C. Const. art. 1, § 19.
In re Appeal of Ocean Isle Palms LLC During a non-revaluation year, the respondent-county could not “correct” a valuation when it was actually applying a newly adopted valuation method.
Wake County v. Hotels.com, L.P. The defendant-online booking companies are not hotel “operators” within the meaning of the enabling statutes or the ordinances that establish the plaintiff-counties’ hotel occupancy taxes. Therefore, defendants are not required to pay the occupancy taxes to the counties.
Wake County v. Hotels.com, L.P. The defendant-online booking companies are not hotel “operators” within the meaning of the enabling statutes or the ordinances that establish the plaintiff-counties’ hotel occupancy taxes.
