Respondent is a retailer of Boost Mobile goods and services. During the audit period, respondent failed to collect sales tax on Boost’s “Real Time Replenishments” (RTRs). Even though the RTRs may be redeemed on a variety of goods and services sold by Boost – and not just on wireless plans – under G.S. § 105-164.3(27a), […]
The plaintiff-taxpayer adequately alleged the common-law mailbox rule, which would have allowed him to claim a presumption that his refund request was delivered to the IRS. However, for taxpayers, the mailbox rule has been preempted by 26 U.S.C. § 7502. Pursuant to § 7502, delivery is presumed only if the taxpayer sends his documents by […]
Taxation – Administrative – Constitutional Question – ‘As Applied’ vs. Facial Challenge – Subject Matter Jurisdiction
The respondent-taxpayer asked the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) to declare that petitioner North Carolina Department of Revenue’s application of a tax statute to respondent violated the dormant Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution (the statute treated loans to affiliates inside North Carolina differently than those to affiliates outside the state). Regardless of whether a […[...]
During the tax years in question, the respondent-taxpayer “manufactured” vast quantities of hot mix asphalt. It did so by using the process that our Supreme Court has repeatedly described as manufacturing, i.e., “the producing of a new article . . . by the application of skill and labor to the raw materials of which it […]
Criminal Practice – Marijuana Trafficking – Taxation – Unauthorized Substances – Quashed Subpoena – Revenue Department Employee
State v. Stimson (Lawyers Weekly No. 011-124-16, 9 pp.) (Rick Elmore, J.) Appealed from Henderson County Superior Court (Mark Powell, J.) N.C. App. Holding: Even though revenue stamps were affixed to some of the marijuana plants seized from defendant’s property, the version of G.S. § 105-113.112 that was in effect when defendant was indicated on […]
In re Appeal of Parkdale Mills (Lawyers Weekly No. 15-07-0304, 15 pp.) (Wanda Bryant, J.) (Chris Dillon, J., concurring) Appealed from the Property Tax Commission. N.C. App. Holding: In the last appeal in this case, the court said that, upon remand, the Property Tax Commission was to conduct further hearings as necessary. Therefore, the Commission […]
In re Appeal of King (Lawyers Weekly No. 14-16-0780, 9 pp.) (Douglas McCullough, J.) Appealed from the Property Tax Commission. N.C. App. Unpub. Holding: The Property Tax Commission’s recitation of the parties’ evidence and positions is inadequate to explain how the Commission weighed the evidence to reach its decision using the appropriate burden-shifting framework and […]
Broughton v. County Commission Since plaintiff was challenging the valuation of her Wake County real property for tax purposes, the county was the proper defendant.
In re Appeal of NC Yadkin House, LLC Although legal title to the apartment complex in question resides with the appellant N.C. limited liability company, “ownership” of the complex may be imputed to the parent corporation, an organization recognized by the IRS as nonprofit.
Taxation – Corporate – Constitutional — Procedural Due Process – Notice – Corporate Combination for Income Tax – Penalties
Delhaize America, Inc. v. Lay The state Department of Revenue did not violate plaintiff’s procedural due process rights by forcing a combination of plaintiff and its subsidiary’s earnings, pursuant to G.S. § 105-130.6.
In re Appeal of IBM Credit Corp. Even if we were to remand this case (for a third time), the Property Tax Commission would be well within its authority to find, yet again, that the taxpayer’s evidence is not “reliable” or “credible.” Even if the Commission rejects the taxpayer’s evidence, the taxpayer still wins because the county did not meet its burden of proof.
U.S. v. Jinwright A couple who served as co-pastors of a North Carolina church are convicted of tax evasion for omitting millions of dollars of taxable income from their jointly filed tax returns; the 4th Circuit rejects the taxpayers’ claims that they did not “knowingly” underreport their income.
- O’Connor paved way for women on high court
- New laws toughen penalties for rioting, power station attacks
- Judge dismisses environmental racism lawsuit
- Former US ambassador arrested in counterintelligence probe
- O’Connor, first woman on US Supreme Court, has died at 93
- Judicial activists subpoena vote splits Judiciary Committee
- Judges block GOP’s election board changes
- Federal judge blocks first TikTok app ban
- Wisconsin unions sue to reverse bargaining limits
- Justices seem doubtful of SEC’s authority
- $120M judgment entered against failed dam’s owner
- Minneapolis stores where Floyd was killed sue city
- Name game can end up being blame game
- Stericycle decision forces evaluation of policies, practices
- Are workplace DEI policies still legal after SCOTUS decisions?
- N.C. justices to decide many interesting cases
- Amotion sees resurgence after almost a decade
- The flip side of generative AI in law and how to address it
- The fight for equal educational opportunity continues
- Court’s term was rough on big business
- Ex-president, bar association have made their choice
- Ruling sharpens boundaries in attorney-client privilege
- Lawyers Weekly debuts new and improved web experience
- US Supreme Court bites back at parody’s use of the First Amendment