Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

To dispute a property tax assessment under Detroit ordinances and Michigan state law, taxpayers “make complaint on or before February 15th" before the Board of Assessors. Any person who has complained to the Board of Assessors may appeal to the Board of Review. For the Michigan Tax Tribunal to have jurisdiction over an assessment dispute, “the assessment must be protested before the board of review.” On February 14, 2017, Detroit mailed tax assessment notices to Detroit homeowners, including an “EXTENDED ASSESSORS REVIEW SCHEDULE” that would conclude on February 18, just four days later. At a City Council meeting on February 14, the city announced: “The Assessors Review process will end this year February the 28th.” News outlets reported the extension and that Detroit had waived the requirement of appearance before the Board of Assessors so residents could appeal directly to the Board of Review. Detroit did not distribute individualized mailings to so inform homeowners.Plaintiffs filed a class action, alleging violations of their due process rights; asserting that Michigan’s State Tax Commission assumed control of Detroit’s flawed property tax assessment process from 2014-2017 so that its officials were equally responsible for the violations; and claiming that Wayne County is “complicit” and has been unjustly enriched. The district court dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, citing the Tax Injunction Act and the principle of comity. The Sixth Circuit reversed, finding that a state remedy is uncertain. View "Howard v. City of Detroit" on Justia Law

The Mobile County Board of Equalization ("the Board") petitioned the Alabama Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus directing the Mobile Circuit Court ("the trial court") to dismiss, for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, an appeal filed by Atwood Drilling, Inc. ("Atwood"), challenging the Board's final assessment of ad valorem property taxes. This case concerns a dispute between Atwood and the Board as to the assessed value of personal property owned by Atwood ("the property"). Atwood timely filed a notice of appeal to the trial court, challenging the assessment as too high. the Board moved to dismiss Atwood's appeal, alleging: (1) taxes on the property had become delinquent because they had not been paid by January 1, 2021; and (2) by failing to pay the disputed amount before January 1, 2021, Atwood had not satisfied a jurisdictional requirement in § 40-3-25 -- specifically, the requirement that, when appealing a tax assessment, a taxpayer who has not executed a supersedeas bond must pay the assessed taxes before they become delinquent. In support of the motion to dismiss, the Board attached a receipt from the office of the Mobile County Revenue Commissioner ("the Commissioner") indicating that Atwood had not paid the assessed taxes as of January 19, 2021. Atwood alleged that it had sent the Commissioner via certified mail on December 10, 2020, and suggested that delivery had been likely delayed because of service disruptions related to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Board argued that the "mailbox rule" in § 40-1-45 did not extend to undelivered tax payments. At some point following the Board's filing of the motion to dismiss, Atwood paid the tax bill, including penalties and interest, with a second check. After holding several hearings on the matter, the trial court, without stating the findings on which its decision was based, entered an order denying the Board's motion to dismiss on September 10, 2021. Because the appeal was not perfected, the Alabama Supreme Court determined the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, and should have granted the Board's motion to dismiss. The petition was thus granted and the writ issued. View "Ex parte Mobile County Board of Equalization." on Justia Law

In 2003, the Alabama Legislature and the citizens of Greene County voted to allow nonprofit organizations in that county to operate bingo games for fundraising purposes. Greenetrack, Inc. ("Greenetrack"), which was not a nonprofit organization, almost immediately began offering live and electronic bingo games at its gambling facility. From 2004 to 2008, Greenetrack reaped vast profits under the guise that its whole casino-style bingo operation was constantly being leased and operated by a revolving slate of local nonprofit organizations, whose nominal role earned them a tiny fraction of the bingo proceeds. Eventually, the Alabama Department of Revenue ("the Department") audited Greenetrack, found that its bingo activities were illegal, and concluded that it owed over $76 million in unpaid taxes and interest. Following a decade of litigation, the Alabama Tax Tribunal voided the assessed taxes on the threshold ground that Greenetrack's bingo business (regardless of its legality) was tax-immune under a statute governing Greenetrack's status as a licensed operator of dog races. The Department appealed, and the Alabama Supreme Court reversed, rejecting the statutory analysis offered by the Tax Tribunal and circuit court. Judgment was rendered in favor of the Department. View "Alabama Department of Revenue v. Greenetrack, Inc." on Justia Law

In 2016, Nucor Steel Louisiana, LLC submitted a tax refund claim to St. James Parish School Board and the St. James Parish Tax Agency (collectively the “Collector”). The claim alleged an overpayment of sales and use tax paid pursuant to a full contract price that was rebated. In 2018, the Collector issued a written denial of Nucor’s refund claim. Following the redetermination hearing, the Collector sent Nucor another letter denying the refund claim. Then, on May 24, 2018, just over two years after the Collector received the refund claim, Nucor appealed the denial to the Board of Tax Appeal (“BTA”). The Collector responded by filing peremptory exceptions of prescription, peremption, and res judicata, asserting that Nucor failed to timely appeal under La. R.S. 47:337.81(A)(2). The BTA granted the Collector’s exceptions, finding Paragraph (A)(2) provides “two alternative prescriptive periods for a taxpayer to appeal refund denial.” Because the Collector failed to render a decision within one year of Nucor’s refund claim being filed, Nucor had 180 days, or until July 26, 2017, to appeal. Thus, the BTA found Nucor’s May 24, 2018 appeal untimely. Nucor appealed. The court of appeal reversed, finding that Nucor’s appeal within 90 days of that decision was timely. The court of appeal also found the Collector’s statement to Nucor that it had “ninety (90) calendar days” to appeal amounted to a representation that Nucor relied upon to its detriment. Using the standard set forth in Suire v. Lafayette City-Parish Consolidated Government, 04-1459 (La. 4/12/05), 907 So.2d 37, which only required a reasonable reliance on a representation, the court found the Collector estopped from arguing prescription. The Louisiana Supreme Court granted the Collector’s writ application to determine the proper interpretation of the appeal periods in La. R.S. 47:337.81 and to determine the proper standard for evaluating the estoppel and detrimental reliance claims. The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeal and reinstated the trial court’s ruling on the exceptions. View "Nucor Steel Lousiana, LLC v. St. James Parish School Board et al." on Justia Law

Sunoco sued the Internal Revenue Service  (“IRS”) in Texas federal court, seeking a partial refund of its income tax payments for 2010 and 2011. Sunoco’s claims rested on a theory of reduced tax liability that the company had argued unsuccessfully for prior tax years in the Court of Federal Claims. Because the issue was fully and actually litigated in the earlier case, the district court dismissed Sunoco’s new suit based on collateral estoppel, and the Fifth Circuit affirmed.   The court held that the only question is the correctness of the issue preclusion ruling. Sunoco did not dispute that the three traditional elements of preclusion are satisfied. It argued, however, that the court should have considered a fourth factor: whether there are “special circumstances that would render preclusion inappropriate or unfair.”  The court found that because Sunoco and the IRS were both parties to Sunoco I, “an inquiry into special circumstances is unnecessary.” Sunoco is barred from relitigating the Federal Circuit’s conclusion that it cannot use the mixture credits to offset both excise-tax and income-tax liability. View "ETC Sunoco Holdings v. USA" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs-appellants The 2009 Metropoulos Family Trust, The Evan D. Metropoulos 2009 Trust, and the trusts’ trustee, the J.P. Morgan Trust Company of Delaware (the trustee), appealed the grant of summary judgment entered in favor of the California Franchise Tax Board (FTB) on plaintiffs’ complaint seeking a refund of 2014 income taxes. Plaintiffs argued their pro-rata share of income received from an S corporation’s November 2014 sale of a wholly-owned subsidiary was not subject to California income tax. The plaintiff trusts, who were shareholders in the S corporation Pabst Corporate Holdings, Inc. (Pabst), argued the income was derived from the sale of intangible property, namely goodwill associated with the subsidiary’s business, whose taxation was governed by Revenue & Taxation Code section 17952 and its corresponding regulation. The trial court denied plaintiffs’ motion and granted the FTB’s, ruling: (1) because the S corporation had characterized the income as business income on its return, the trusts were bound to treat their respective shares of that income the same way on their federal and California tax returns; and (2) even if section 17952 applied, the trusts’ income would still be taxable since the S corporation’s corporate headquarters were in California, the underlying businesses based marketing and sales departments in California, and the S corporation localized the goodwill in connection with its California business, giving the goodwill a “business situs” in California. Finding no reversible error in the trial court's judgment, the Court of Appeal affirmed. View "2009 Metropoulos Family Trust v. California Franchise Tax Board" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed a putative class action against San Jose and the County of Santa Clara, seeking to recover millions of dollars in garbage collection charges paid by plaintiffs and a class of similarly situated property owners. The complaint alleged that the plaintiffs own residential property in San Jose and receive garbage collection services from the city. Plaintiffs were billed for those services but failed to pay some of the bills. To recover the unpaid amounts, the city recorded liens on the property owned by the plaintiffs. The delinquent charges were referred to the County as special assessments to be included on the property tax bill. Plaintiffs paid the special assessments that appeared on their tax bill and the city released the liens against their property. Plaintiffs allege that including delinquent garbage collection charges as a special assessment on the property tax bill, although authorized by the San Jose Municipal Code, violates California laws regarding the recording and priority of real property liens.Citing Health and Safety Code section 5472, the trial court dismissed. The court of appeal affirmed, finding that complying with the payment under protest procedure is a mandatory pre-filing requirement and that the plaintiffs had not complied and could not amend the complaint to cure the deficiency. View "Padilla v. City of San Jose" on Justia Law

Hudye Group LP (“Hudye”) appealed a district court judgment affirming the Ward County Board of Commissioners’ decision to deny Hudye’s applications for abatement or refund of taxes as untimely. Hudye filed applications for abatement or refund of taxes relating to 85 acres of property that had been divided into 92 parcels which were located in Ward County, North Dakota. Hudye argued the failure to consider abatement requests received by the City Assessor’s Office on the first business day following the November first deadline resulted in an unjust outcome. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "Hudye Group v. Ward Cty. Bd. of Commissioners" on Justia Law

The IRS notified Boechler, a North Dakota law firm, of a discrepancy in its tax filings. When Boechler did not respond, the IRS assessed an “intentional disregard” penalty and notified Boechler of its intent to levy Boechler’s property to satisfy the penalty, 26 U.S.C. 6330(a), 6721(a)(2), (e)(2)(A). The IRS’s Independent Office of Appeals sustained the proposed levy. Under section 6330(d)(1), Boechler had 30 days to petition the Tax Court for review. Boechler filed its petition one day late. The Tax Court dismissed the petition. The Eighth Circuit affirmed, finding the 30-day filing deadline jurisdictional.The Supreme Court reversed. Section 6330(d)(1)’s 30-day time limit to file a petition for review of a collection due process determination is a non-jurisdictional deadline subject to equitable tolling. Whether Boechler is entitled to equitable tolling should be determined on remand. Jurisdictional requirements cannot be waived or forfeited, must be raised by courts “sua sponte,” and do not allow for equitable exceptions. A procedural requirement is jurisdictional only if Congress “clearly states” that it is. Section 6330(d)(1) provides that a “person may, within 30 days of a determination under this section, petition the Tax Court for review of such determination (and the Tax Court shall have jurisdiction with respect to such matter).” The text does not clearly mandate the jurisdictional reading; multiple plausible, non-jurisdictional interpretations exist. Non-jurisdictional limitations periods are presumptively subject to equitable tolling and nothing rebuts the presumption here. View "Boechler v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue" on Justia Law

Christopher and Debra James appealed a district court order granting summary judgment in favor of the Idaho State Tax Commission (“Tax Commission”), reversing the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals (“BTA”). The district court affirmed the Tax Commission’s notice of deficiency decision, which disallowed a net operating loss carryback because the Jameses missed the deadline to claim the loss. Finding no reversible error, the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s decision: Idaho Code sections 63-3072(e) and 63-3022(c)(2) required the Jameses to file their amended 2012 Idaho tax return by December 31, 2015, to carryback their 2014 NOL to the 2012 tax year. The Jameses failed to do so. View "Idaho State Tax Commission v. James" on Justia Law