Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the circuit court granting summary judgment for Lakota Lakes and denying Emily Bialota's cross-motion for summary judgment in this quiet title action, holding that Bialota accomplished valid service on the Minnesota Secretary of State.Bialota brought an action to quiet title in Pennington County, alleging that she had fee simple ownership in real property previously owned by Lakota Lakes but later sold at a tax sale. In its summary judgment motion, Lakota Lakes claimed that it had not been validly served with the notice of intent to take tax deed, rendering the tax deed void. In her cross-motion for summary judgment, Bialota argued that service upon Lakota Lakes was proper and that Pennington County had correctly issued a tax deed based upon her affidavit of completed service. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) South Dakota law controlled this Court's determination whether Bialota personally served the Secretary as Lakota Lakes' registered agent; (2) Bialota accomplished valid service on the Secretary; and (3) Bialota was entitled to the tax deed to the property. View "Bialota v. Lakota Lakes, LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff’s CPA failed to file Plaintiff’s tax returns for three consecutive years: 2014 through 2016. In 2019, the IRS assessed Plaintiff with over seventy thousand dollars in penalties for violating Section 6651(a) of the Internal Revenue Code and barred him from applying his 2014 overpayment to taxes owed for 2015 and 2016. Plaintiff sued, arguing that his failure to file was due to reasonable cause. He also sought a refund of the penalties. The district court granted summary judgment for the government, concluding that United States v. Boyle foreclosed Plaintiff’s claims. Plaintiff appealed.   The Eleventh Circuit affirmed. The court explained that if Plaintiff’s CPA had failed to file paper tax returns, there would be no question that Boyle would have precluded a reasonable cause defense and a refund. However, the court explained that no circuit court has yet applied Boyle to e-filed tax returns. The court decided that Boyle’s bright line rule applies to e-filed returns. Thus, the court concluded that Plaintiff’s reliance on his CPA does not constitute “reasonable cause” under Section 6651(a)(1). View "Wayne Lee v. USA" on Justia Law

Petitioner FlightSafety International, Inc. appeals from the judgment entered after the trial court denied its two consolidated petitions for writs of mandate. The trial court found that FlightSafety was not entitled to mandamus relief because it had an adequate remedy at law, which it had bypassed. FlightSafety contended in the trial court that it was entitled to a decision by the Los Angeles County Assessment Appeals Board (AAB) on its assessment appeal applications within the two-year period specified in Revenue and Taxation Code section 1604, subdivision (c). FlightSafety argued the extensions had expired as a matter of law two years from the date of filing. It argued it therefore had not received timely hearings on its applications. FlightSafety asked the trial court to order the AAB to schedule hearings forthwith and, in the meantime, enter its own opinion of the value of its property on the tax assessment rolls. The trial court found writ relief was not available. Plaintiff contends the trial court erroneously found the extension agreements valid and mandamus relief unavailable.   The Second Appellate District affirmed. The court explained that none of the four cases relied upon by Petitioner considered whether the applicant had an adequate remedy for the AAB’s refusal to place the applicant’s opinion of value on the assessment rolls. Thus, none of the cases stand for the proposition that a tax refund action is an inadequate remedy in all cases seeking relief for an AAB’s action (or inaction) under section 1604. View "FlightSafety International v. L.A. County Assessment Appeals Bd." on Justia Law

At issue in this appeal was whether the Oregon Department of Revenue erred in declining to reduce the assessed value of taxpayer’s property for tax years 2018-2019 and 2019-2020. After persuading the Department that the valuation methodology it used to assess the property in 2020-2021 was flawed, the taxpayer asked the Department to use the corrected methodology to re-assess the two previous tax years. The Department denied the request, finding the statute the taxpayer used as grounds, ORS 306.115, did not authorize the Department to change its value opinion for the earlier tax years because another statute, ORS 308.624(4), expressly precluded the Department from making that change. The Oregon Tax Court agreed with the Department, and the taxpayer appealed, contending the Department and Tax Court misinterpreted the applicable statutes. The Oregon Supreme Court found no misinterpretation and affirmed. View "D. E. Shaw Renewable Investments, LLC v. Dept. of Rev." on Justia Law

Respondent Paramount Pictures Corporation (Paramount) sought a refund of taxes paid on its personal property for the 2011 tax year. Paramount first appealed to the Los Angeles County Assessment Appeals Board (the Board). The property was assessed a final value of $137,397,278. Following a hearing, the Board agreed with the valuation proposed by the Assessor and found that Paramount failed to carry its burden of demonstrating additional obsolescence. Paramount appealed the Board’s decision to the trial court. The trial court found: (1) the Board committed a methodological error in excluding Paramount’s initial income approach valuation and (2) the Board issued inadequate findings regarding the significance of Paramount’s pre-lien and post-lien sales of personal property. In a separate ruling, the trial court awarded Paramount attorney fees under Revenue and Taxation Code Section 1611.6, which allows a taxpayer to recover fees for services necessary to obtain proper findings from a county board. The County timely appealed both orders.   The Second Appellate District reversed the trial court’s decision, concluding the Board committed neither methodological error nor issued findings that were less than adequate within the meaning of section 1611.5. First, Paramount did not challenge the validity of the cost approach relied upon by the Assessor and Board, and it did not otherwise identify any legal error in the Board’s rejection of its income approach valuation. Second, the hearing transcripts adequately disclose its rulings and findings on the pre-lien and post-sales data. The court remanded so the trial court may consider the question of whether substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that Paramount failed to establish additional obsolescence. View "Paramount Pictures Corp. v. County of L.A." on Justia Law

Taxpayer Walter Woodland appealed the Oregon Department of Revenue’s assessment of $116 in interest for unpaid estimated taxes in 2019. During the pendency of that appeal, the department invalidated the assessment and agreed that taxpayer did not owe that interest. The Regular Division of the Oregon Tax Court accordingly dismissed taxpayer’s appeal as moot. The Oregon Supreme Court affirmed. View "Woodland v. Dept. of Rev." on Justia Law

Defendants appealed from a judgment of the district court awarding the United States $112,324.18, plus statutory additions and interest, in connection with an unpaid tax assessment from 2007. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the government, notwithstanding the fact that the Internal Revenue Service (the “IRS”) referred the assessment to the Department of Justice (the “DOJ”) before formally rejecting Defendants’ proposed installment agreement. Defendants contended that this referral violated the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code and the implementing Treasury Regulations that curb the IRS’s collection activities while a proposed installment agreement remains on the table.   The Second Circuit affirmed. The court explained that as their plain terms indicate, the suspension provisions of Section 6331(i) and (k) prohibit the commencement of a collection action in court during specified periods, not the IRS’s antecedent request that the DOJ file such an action. The court wrote that the Internal Revenue Code is silent on when the IRS may refer an action to the DOJ, and a Treasury Regulation that limits the IRS’s referral power cannot read into the statute something that is not there. Further, this conclusion is not altered because authorization from the Treasury Secretary is a prerequisite to commencing an in-court proceeding.   Further, the court explained that Defendants have not claimed a violation of their constitutional rights and the regulatory limits on IRS referrals of collection actions are not statutorily derived. As a result, Defendants must demonstrate prejudice for the government’s regulatory violation to invalidate the instant collection action. The court found that Defendants have failed to do so. View "United States v. Schiller" on Justia Law

Jarrett produces Tezos tokens cryptocurrency by “staking.” Jarrett claims staking uses existing Tezos tokens and computing power to produce new tokens, so he owes tax on the tokens only when he sells or transfers them and “realizes” income, 26 U.S.C. 61(a). The IRS's position was that Jarrett realized income when he received each token. Jarrett’s 2019 staking yielded 8,876 Tezos tokens; he “did not sell, exchange, or otherwise dispose of these tokens during 2019.” He reported those tokens as income and paid tax, then asked the IRS for a refund ($3,793). After six months, Jarrett filed a refund lawsuit, 28 U.S.C. 1346(a)(1), seeking a judgment that Jarrett was entitled to a refund; costs and attorney’s fees; and an injunction preventing the IRS “from treating tokens created by the Jarretts as income.”The Attorney General approved Jarrett’s refund request. The IRS issued a $4,001.83 refund check and a “Notice of Adjustment.” Preferring to litigate the case to judgment, Jarrett has “not cashed, and [does] not intend to cash, this check.” The district court dismissed the case as moot. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. Refund lawsuits exist for a single purpose: “the recovery of any internal-revenue tax alleged to have been erroneously or illegally assessed or collected.” The IRS satisfies its repayment obligation when it issues and mails a refund check for the full amount of the overpayment. View "Jarrett v. United States" on Justia Law

Petitioners challenged he post-trial rulings of the United States Tax Court regarding their tax obligations for the 2004 tax year. Petitioners argued that the Tax Court erroneously concluded that (1) they filed a valid joint return, (2) the Internal Revenue Service issued a statutory notice of deficiency before the limitations period for a tax assessment under I.R.C. Sections 6501(a) and (c)(4) expired, (3) they owed a $28,836 penalty pursuant to I.R.C. Section 6651(a)(1) for filing a late tax return, and (4) they owed a $128,526 penalty pursuant to I.R.C. Section 6662 for filing an inaccurate tax return.   The Second Circuit affirmed. The court held that the Tax Court did not clearly err in its finding that Petitioners intended to jointly file the Return. Further, the court wrote that the IRS issued the Deficiency Notice within the limitations period for the tax assessment. Moreover, the court held that Petitioners are subject to a $28,836 late-filing penalty under I.R.C. Section 6651(a)(1). Finally, the court held that Petitioners are subject to a $128,526 accuracy-related penalty under I.R.C. Section 6662. View "Soni v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue" on Justia Law

Petitioners challenged the post-trial rulings of the United States Tax Court regarding their tax obligations for the 2004 tax year. Petitioners argued that the Tax Court erroneously concluded that (1) they filed a valid joint return, (2) the Internal Revenue Service issued a statutory notice of deficiency before the limitations period for a tax assessment under I.R.C. Sections 6501(a) and (c)(4) expired, (3) they owed a $28,836 penalty pursuant to I.R.C. Section 6651(a)(1) for filing a late tax return, and (4) they owed a $128,526 penalty pursuant to I.R.C. Section 6662 for filing an inaccurate tax return.   The Second Circuit affirmed. The court held that the Tax Court did not clearly err in its finding that Petitioners intended to jointly file the Return. Further, the court concluded that the IRS issued the Deficiency Notice within the limitations period for the tax assessment. The court held that Petitioners are subject to a $28,836 late-filing penalty under I.R.C. Section 6651(a)(1). Finally, the court held that Petitioners are subject to a $128,526 accuracy-related penalty under I.R.C. Section 6662. The court explained that Petitioner’s inaccuracy was not the product of reasonable reliance upon the advice of a tax professional. As the Tax Court also found, Petitioners failed to provide their accountants “necessary and accurate information.” Moreover, the record includes evidence that Petitioner disregarded the advice of accountants who warned him that he would need proof to substantiate the claimed loss. View "Soni v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue" on Justia Law