State Tax Return (214) (214)
|
|
- Mark Watts
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 January 2006 Volume 13 Number 2 State Tax Return Sales Of Products Transported Into Indiana By Common Carrier Arranged By Buyer Are Not Indiana Sales For Indiana Corporate Income Tax Apportionment Purposes: Miller Brewing Company V. Indiana Department Of State Revenue (Ind. Tax Ct.) David Horan Kirk Lyda Dallas Dallas (214) (214) The Indiana Tax Court recently ruled in favor of a taxpayer, Miller Brewing Company ( Miller ), in a case that is notable both for its holding on the proper calculation of the sales factor for the Indiana adjusted gross income tax and supplemental net income tax ( income tax ) as well as its treatment of an unusual request for rehearing by the State s Attorney General s Office. Miller Brewing Co. v. Indiana Dep t of State Revenue, 831 N.E.2d 859 (Ind. Tax. Ct. July 27, 2005), motion denied, 836 N.E.2d 498 (Ind. Tax. Ct. 2005). As to the substantive issue, the Court held that sales of products from outside of Indiana and transported into Indiana by common carrier arranged by the buyer were not Indiana-sourced sales. From a procedural standpoint, the Court refused to entertain the untimely arguments to the contrary made by the Indiana Department of State Revenue ( Department ) following the original issuance of the decision. Miller Seeks Refund of Income Tax on Sales to Indiana Customers of Products Transported into Indiana by a Common Carrier Arranged by the Customer Miller filed an appeal in the Indiana Tax Court after the Department denied its claims for refund of income tax paid during the tax years. The refund claims involved taxes attributable to sales of products to Miller s Indiana customers who themselves arranged for a common carrier to transport the products into Indiana from outside the state ( sales at issue ). Miller filed a motion for summary judgment based on the following undisputed facts, arguing that the sales at issue were not Indiana sales. Miller, a Wisconsin corporation headquartered in Milwaukee, sold its products to customers in various states, including Indiana. Customers submitted purchase orders to Miller in Milwaukee, where Miller produced the products and prepared them for pick-up at one of its breweries outside of Indiana. Miller s customers transferred the products from the breweries to their destination by one of three means: (1) picking up the products themselves using their own trucks; (2) arranging for a third-party common carrier to pick up the products and transport them; or (3) having Miller arrange for a common carrier to transport the products at the customer s expense. Since possession 1
2 and title transferred to the customers at the breweries, the decision on how to transport the products rested with the customer. Miller filed corporate income tax returns for in which it sourced all sales to its Indiana customers as Indiana sales, no matter the means of transporting the products. Miller then filed amended returns requesting refund of taxes paid attributable to sales in which its customers either picked up the products with their own trucks or arranged for a common carrier. The Department granted the refund for sales in which customers used their own trucks but denied the refund for the sales in which the customers arranged for the common carrier. Sales of Tangible Personal Property Shipped or Delivered to a Purchaser in Indiana are Indiana-Sourced Sales The legal issue in the case turned on the proper application of Indiana s corporate income tax apportionment formula. During the years , Indiana taxed a corporation s adjusted gross income derived from sources within Indiana as determined by an apportionment formula, which multiplied a corporation s business income by a fraction, the numerator of which was a property factor plus a payroll factor plus a sales factor and the denominator of which was three. Ind. Code Ann (a), (b) (West 1995). In this case, Miller s tax liability for income from the sales at issue turned on the sales factor of the apportionment formula, which sourced sales to Indiana if the property is delivered or shipped to a purchaser, other than the United States government, within this state, regardless of the f.o.b. point or other conditions of the sale[.... ] Id (e) (emphasis added). The Department s regulations provide further guidance as to what constitutes an instate sale of tangible personal property. In particular, the regulations outline two examples of scenarios in which a transaction is considered either an in-state or out-ofstate sale. Ind. Admin. Code tit. 45, r (1), (7) (1996). Under the first example, [p]roperty shall be deemed to be delivered or shipped to a purchaser within this state if the recipient is located in this state, even though the property is ordered from outside this state. Id (1). The second example indicates that sales are not in this state if the purchaser picks up the goods at an out-of-state location and brings them back into Indiana in his own conveyance. Id (7). The Tax Court Holds that the Products were not Shipped into Indiana and were Delivered to the Customers Outside of Indiana, and were thus not Indiana Sales Focusing on the first example, the Department argued that the products transported to Indiana by common carriers arranged by the customers were shipped and delivered to a customer in Indiana and therefore Indiana sales. The Tax Court disagreed and granted Miller s summary judgment motion on its refund claims, holding that the sales at issue were not made in Indiana because the products were neither shipped nor delivered to a purchaser in Indiana. 2
3 The Court held that the first example quoted above is limited to shipments and does not apply to deliveries such as the deliveries in issue in Miller. The Court looked to Black s Law Dictionary definitions of to ship and shipper and determined that the products at issue were, as a matter of law, not shipped. The Court noted that a shipper is only one who ships goods to another or contracts with a carrier to transport goods to another and that a shipper cannot be the owner of the cargo shipped. The Court reasoned that Miller was not the shipper because the customer not Miller contracted with the common carrier to transport the products. Likewise, the customers were not shippers because they owned the products and could not, by definition, ship the products to themselves. Finally, the Court held that common carriers are not shippers, because a shipper, by definition, contracts with the carrier and is not itself the carrier. Since the goods were not shipped, the first example could not apply. The Court agreed with Miller that the products in the sales at issue were delivered to customers at the breweries outside of Indiana. The Court reasoned that the common carriers, arranged by the customers, were acting as the customers agents and accepted delivery from Miller for the customers. Accordingly, looking to the second example from the Department s regulations, the Court noted that the transportation of the products was the same as if the customers brought the products back to Indiana using their own trucks. The Tax Court therefore held that the products were effectively brought by the customers back to Indiana in [their] own conveyance under circumstances analogous to those analyzed by the Indiana Supreme Court s decision interpreting the phrase in his own conveyance in Indiana Department of Revenue v. Bendix Aviation Corporation, 143 N.E.2d 91 (Ind. 1957). The Tax Court rejected the Department s argument that Miller failed to factually establish an agency relationship because the Court held that the Indiana Supreme Court s analysis in Bendix rendered such a factual analysis unnecessary. The Department s Plea for Rehearing Based on Inexperience and Ignorance Falls on Deaf Ears The case took an unusual turn when the Department petitioned the Tax Court for rehearing of the summary judgment order. The Court summarily denied the Department s request. The Court first explained that, in cases protesting the Department s final determinations, the Tax Court acts as a trial court. A petition for rehearing is therefore inappropriate because the proper method to challenge a trial court s judgment is a motion to correct error under Indiana Trial Rule 59. The Court treated the petition as such a motion, noting that a motion to correct error cannot be used to raise errors that existed at trial but to which the party did not object. Rather, the motion may only raise newly discovered material evidence that could not, with reasonable diligence, have been discovered and produced at trial, or raise claims that a jury verdict is excessive or inadequate. The Court then held that none of the Department s three claims of error fit within the two categories of errors subject to correction: (1) that the Court failed to interpret Indiana 3
4 Code (e)(1) as mandating a destination rule instead of a place-of-delivery rule for the designation of in-state, taxable sales; (2) that the Court s decision will cause absurd consequences and violate the United States Constitution s dormant Commerce Clause; and (3) that Indiana Administrative Code title 45, rule (7) requires the inclusion of income from sales in which a purchaser hires a common carrier to pick up products. The Department admitted that it had not raised the first two arguments in its original briefing or at oral argument on the summary judgment motion. However, the Department attempted to justify the omissions by pointing to the alleged ignorance and inexperience of its attorneys handling the original briefing and argument. The Tax Court quickly dismissed these explanations, noting that a motion to correct error is not a vehicle for raising new arguments that the party did not previously raise due to a lack of research or preparation and not due to any hardship in discovering the arguments. The Tax Court further rebuked the Department, stating: The error the Department asserts is not the Court s. The Court committed no error and the Court will not correct the errors of the Department or its counsel. The Court also rejected the Department s third argument because it was clearly disposed of by the Court s decision in this case. The Court concluded that it did not commit any error in deciding Miller s motion based on the Department s own regulation and an Indiana Supreme Court decision and stated that it will not give the Department a second bite at the apple to convince it otherwise. Implications & Lessons Lesson #1: Not All States Think Alike! The first lesson to be drawn is that taxpayers should closely examine the laws of all of the states in which they are doing business since there can be fairly subtle differences in the law from state to state. The Indiana Tax Court s decision in Miller illustrates this point. The Court s holding -- that goods delivered to a common carrier arranged by the buyer for shipment to Indiana does not result in Indiana sales -- is an interesting interpretation of an apportionment statute that has been widely adopted in other states under the Uniform Division of Income for Tax Purposes Act ( UDITPA ). While Indiana may not have adopted UDITPA in its entirety, the Indiana apportionment statute in issue in Miller is identical to the sales factor under UDITPA. See UDITPA Art. IV, 16(a). Moreover, the first example from the Indiana regulation quoted above is identical to the corresponding example in the UDITPA regulations. See Multistate Tax Commission Apportionment and Allocation Regulation IV.16(a)(2). Other States and courts have concluded that under a UDITPA-like sales factor, sales of tangible personal property delivered to a common carrier hired by the buyer for shipment out of the state in question are sourced to the state in which the buyer ultimately receives the goods, not to the state in which the seller provides the goods to the common carrier. See, e.g., Hellerstein and Hellerstein, State Taxation, 9.18[1][a], FNs 702 & 703 and the cases cited therein. This so-called ultimate-destination rule rather than the place-of-delivery rule appears to be the majority view. Id. Nevertheless, as indicated by the Tax Court in 4
5 Miller, Indiana law appears to differ from the laws of some other states in that the second example in the Indiana regulation quoted above has no express corresponding provision in the UDITPA regulations, and the Indiana Supreme Court in Bendix previously held that a common carrier may be treated as the agent of the buyer. Lesson #2: Don t Save the Best for Last! The case also presents a harsh lesson for taxing authorities and taxpayers alike: when the Tax Court is acting as a trial court, the Court will not entertain arguments presented for the first time after the Court has already finally ruled on a refund claim. The Tax Court requires that each party marshal all of its factual and legal arguments when the case is first presented for decision. Any errors in presenting arguments at the proper time will be treated as the party s, not the Court s, and the Court will not permit a doover after it has issued its judgment regardless of the legal merit of the arguments that the party failed to present in the first instance. Despite the waiver issue, the Department has appealed the Tax Court s decision. The second lesson is not confined solely to the Indiana Tax Court in particular or to trial courts in general. Courts in other states, including appellate courts, have similarly refused to entertain arguments that were not timely raised before the trial judge, as the authors can personally attest (on the good side of the line). See, e.g., Rylander v. Bandag Licensing Corp., 18 S.W.3d 296 (Tex. App.--Austin 2000, pet. denied) (Court of Appeals refused to entertain the Comptroller s Geoffrey nexus argument because, in part, the argument was not raised at trial). Indeed, in the instant case, Indiana appellate courts will likely, consistent with precedent, hold that the Department cannot raise its new arguments on appeal because the Department waived the arguments by presenting them for the first time in a motion to correct error. See Yater v. Hancock County Bd. of Health, 677 N.E.2d 526, 530 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997) (holding that a party s vagueness challenge, which was raised for the first time in a motion to correct error, has come too late in these proceedings and is therefore waived on appeal because [a] party may not raise an issue or argue a different theory of recovery on appeal that was not presented first to the trial court and may not raise an issue for the first time in his motion to correct error ). The lesson to be drawn is don t keep that ace up your sleeve too long. This article is reprinted from the State Tax Return, a Jones Day monthly newsletter reporting on recent developments in state and local tax. Requests for a subscription to the State Tax Return or permission to reproduce this publication, in whole or in part, or comments and suggestions should be sent to Susan Ervien (214/ or shervien@jonesday.com) in Jones Day s Dallas Office, 2727 N. Harwood Street, Dallas, TX Jones Day All Rights Reserved. No portion of the article may be reproduced or used without express permission. Because of its generality, the information contained herein should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts and circumstances. The contents are intended for general information purposes only. 5
State Tax Return. Kristi L. Stathopoulos Atlanta (404)
July 2006 Volume 13 Number 7 State Tax Return California Appellate Court Finds Return of Principal on Short- Term Investments Is Gross Receipts, But Excludes From the Taxpayer s Sales Factor Kristi L.
More informationState Tax Return. Geoffrey Bagged In Oklahoma: Tax Commission Sets Its Scopes on Geoffrey's Income From Intangible Property And Hit The Target
February 2006 Volume 13 Number 2 State Tax Return Geoffrey Bagged In Oklahoma: Tax Commission Sets Its Scopes on Geoffrey's Income From Intangible Property And Hit The Target Matthew J. Cristy Atlanta
More informationState Tax Return. Texas Comptroller Initiates Defensive And Offensive Strategy Against Perceived Abuses Of Administrative Procedure
November 2006 Volume 13 Number 11 State Tax Return Texas Comptroller Initiates Defensive And Offensive Strategy Against Perceived Abuses Of Administrative Procedure Kirk Lyda Dallas KLyda@JonesDay.com
More informationSTATE OF ARIZONA Department of Revenue Office of the Director (602)
CERTIFIED MAIL STATE OF ARIZONA Department of Revenue Office of the Director (602) 542-3572 The Director's Review of the Decision ) O R D E R of the Hearing Officer Regarding: ) ) [TAXPAYER] ) and SUBSIDIARIES
More informationLitigation Update for Texas Taxpayers and Research Association (TTARA) Annual Meeting
Litigation Update for Texas Taxpayers and Research Association (TTARA) Annual Meeting Don Neal Deputy General Counsel for Litigation & Taxation Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts October 22, 2014 Austin,
More informationState Tax Return. Illinois Court Rules Reliance On Outside Accountant Does Not Necessarily Abate Penalty
February 2006 Volume 13 Number 2 State Tax Return Illinois Court Rules Reliance On Outside Accountant Does Not Necessarily Abate Penalty Stephen G. Harris Dallas (214) 969-5277 If you cannot rely on your
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE September 8, 2008 Session
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE September 8, 2008 Session NEWELL WINDOW FURNISHING, INC. v. RUTH E. JOHNSON, COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE, STATE OF TENNESSEE Appeal from the Chancery Court
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEAKER SERVICES, INC., Petitioner-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED November 26, 2013 v No. 313983 Tax Tribunal DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY, LC No. 00-431800 Respondent-Appellee. Before:
More informationState Tax Return. Opportunity Calling? Texas Court Rules Certain Telephone Access and Operator Charges are Sourced to Texas.
December 2008 State Tax Return Volume 15 Number 5 Opportunity Calling? Texas Court Rules Certain Telephone Access and Operator Charges are Sourced to Texas. Paul Broman David J. Schenck Houston Dallas
More informationState Tax Return. Massachusetts Applies the Operational Approach for Sourcing of Sales Other Than Sales of Tangible Personal Property
December 2008 State Tax Return Volume 15 Number 5 Massachusetts Applies the Operational Approach for Sourcing of Sales Other Than Sales of Tangible Personal Property Kirk Kringelis Atlanta (404) 581-8565
More informationAlternative Apportionment - The Process and the Impact
Alternative Apportionment - The Process and the Impact Current Issues in State & Local Taxation TEI Philadelphia Chapter February 22, 2017 Maria Todorova Open Weaver Banks 2017 (US) LLP All Rights Reserved.
More informationALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS
REL: 02/17/2012 Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate
More informationState Tax Return CAT SITUSING RULES FOR CERTAIN SERVICES FINAL RULE EFFECTIVE DECEMBER 28, 2006
January 2007 Volume 14 Number 1 State Tax Return Update On Ohio Commercial Activity Tax: Final Rules And Revised Information Releases Charles M. Steines Phyllis J. Shambaugh Cleveland Columbus (216) 586-7211
More informationState Tax Return. Finance and Service Charges: Premium for Premium Tax Purposes Or Not? Josie Lowman Atlanta (404)
May 2007 Volume 14 Number 5 State Tax Return Finance and Service Charges: Premium for Premium Tax Purposes Or Not? Josie Lowman Atlanta (404) 581-8703 In the last couple of months there have been three
More informationSlicing the Pie Update on State Tax Apportionment Litigation TEI Denver
Slicing the Pie Update on State Tax Apportionment Litigation TEI Denver May 15, 2017 Maria Todorova Partner Ted Friedman Associate 2018 (US) LLP Agenda Introduction Key Issues Recent Developments Sales
More informationState Tax Return. Maryann B. Gall Laura A. Kulwicki Chen Meng Lam Columbus Columbus Columbus Law Clerk (614) (330) (614)
September 2006 Volume 13 Number 9 State Tax Return NEXUS: Update On Recent Developments Maryann B. Gall Laura A. Kulwicki Chen Meng Lam Columbus Columbus Columbus Law Clerk (614) 469-3924 (330) 656-0416
More informationIn The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No CV. DAVID MILLS, Appellant V. ADVOCARE INTERNATIONAL, LP, Appellee
Dismissed and Opinion Filed September 10, 2015 S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-15-00769-CV DAVID MILLS, Appellant V. ADVOCARE INTERNATIONAL, LP, Appellee On Appeal from
More informationState Tax Return. The Appeals Court Of Massachusetts Clarifies The Exemption For Direct Mail Advertising
August 2005 Volume 12 Number 8 State Tax Return The Appeals Court Of Massachusetts Clarifies The Exemption For Direct Mail Advertising Maryann B. Gall Columbus (614) 281-3924 The Appeals Court of Massachusetts
More informationState Tax Return. Is There A Constitutional Standard for UDITPA 18 Alternative Apportionment?
April 2007 Volume 14 Number 4 State Tax Return Is There A Constitutional Standard for UDITPA 18 Alternative Apportionment? Charolette Noel Kristi L. Stathopoulos Dallas Atlanta (214) 969-4538 (404) 581-8512
More informationState Tax Return. Sooner Rather Than Later: Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals Upholds Distinct Withholding Requirements For Nonresident Royalty Owners
September 2007 Volume 14 Number 9 State Tax Return Sooner Rather Than Later: Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals Upholds Distinct Withholding Requirements For Nonresident Royalty Owners Laura A. Kulwicki Columbus
More informationIN THE OREGON TAX COURT REGULAR DIVISION Corporation Excise Tax ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) TC 4800 I. INTRODUCTION
IN THE OREGON TAX COURT REGULAR DIVISION Corporation Excise Tax POWEREX CORP., v. Plaintiff, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, State of Oregon, Defendant. TC 4800 DECISION ON REMAND I. INTRODUCTION This matter is
More informationState Tax Return. Georgia Supreme Court Denies Refunds of Sales Tax for Repair Parts E. Kendrick Smith Mace Gunter
July 2008 State Tax Return Volume 15 Number 3 Georgia Supreme Court Denies Refunds of Sales Tax for Repair Parts E. Kendrick Smith Mace Gunter Atlanta Atlanta (404) 581-8343 (404) 581-8256 By a slim majority,
More informationCase Survey: May v. Akers-Lang 2012 Ark. 7 UALR Law Review Published Online Only
THE SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS HOLDS THAT AN AD VALOREM TAX ON GAS, OIL, AND MINERALS EXTRACTED FROM PROPERTY IS NOT AN ILLEGAL EXACTION AND DOES NOT VIOLATE EQUAL PROTECTION. In May v. Akers-Lang, 1 Appellants
More informationIN THE INDIANA TAX COURT
ATTORNEYS FOR PETITIONER: BRADLEY KIM THOMAS NATHAN D. HOGGATT THOMAS & HARDY, LLP Auburn, IN ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT: STEVE CARTER ATTORNEY GENERAL OF INDIANA JENNIFER E. GAUGER MATTHEW R. NICHOLSON
More informationCOURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS
COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS RUSSELL TERRY McELVAIN, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee. No. 08-11-00170-CR Appeal from the Criminal District Court Number Two of Tarrant
More informationState & Local Tax Alert Breaking state and local tax developments from Grant Thornton LLP
State & Local Tax Alert Breaking state and local tax developments from Grant Thornton LLP Indiana Tax Court Rules Transfer Pricing Studies Should Be Respected When Determining Indiana Income On December
More informationTEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-08-00561-CV GTE Southwest Inc., Appellant v. Susan Combs, Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas, and Greg Abbott, Attorney General
More informationAMERICAN INTERNATIONAL GROUP, INC. - DECISION - 09/24/04 TAT (E) 00-36(GC) - DECISION
AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL GROUP, INC. - DECISION - 09/24/04 TAT (E) 00-36(GC) - DECISION GENERAL CORPORATION TAX RESPONDENT'S CLAIM THAT LOSSES FROM FOREIGN CURRENCY CONTRACTS, ENTERED INTO IN ORDER TO STABILIZE
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE SEPTEMBER 8, 2010 Session
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE SEPTEMBER 8, 2010 Session VALENTI MID-SOUTH MANAGEMENT, LLC v. REAGAN FARR, COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE, STATE OF TENNESSEE Direct Appeal from the Chancery
More informationState Tax Return. A Federal Treaty and Approximately $2.00 Will Get You A Ride on the New York Subway
April 2008 State Tax Return Volume 15 Number 2 Peter Leonardis New York (212) 326-3770 A Federal Treaty and Approximately $2.00 Will Get You A Ride on the New York Subway Tax directors of corporations
More informationState & Local Tax Alert
State & Local Tax Alert Breaking state and local tax developments from Grant Thornton LLP U.S. Supreme Court Vacates and Remands Massachusetts Case for Further Consideration Based on Wynne On October 13,
More informationSTATE OF WISCONSIN TAX APPEALS COMMISSION 06-S-200, 06-S-201, 06-S-202 AND 07-S-45 DAVID C. SWANSON, COMMISSIONER:
STATE OF WISCONSIN TAX APPEALS COMMISSION BADGER STATE ETHANOL, LLC, DOCKET NOS. 06-S-199, 06-S-200, 06-S-201, 06-S-202 AND 07-S-45 Petitioner, vs. RULING AND ORDER WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Respondent.
More informationREVERSE, RENDER, and, DISMISS; and Opinion Filed June 18, In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No.
REVERSE, RENDER, and, DISMISS; and Opinion Filed June 18, 2014. S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-13-00859-CV NAUTIC MANAGEMENT VI, L.P., Appellant V. CORNERSTONE HEALTHCARE
More informationCOURT OF APPEALS THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT MARION COUNTY PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE CASE NO
COURT OF APPEALS THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT MARION COUNTY STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE CASE NO. 9-99-82 v. STACEY MILLER O P I N I O N DEFENDANT-APPELLANT CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS: Criminal appeal from
More informationCourt of Appeals. First District of Texas
Opinion issued June 9, 2011 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas NO. 01-10-00733-CR TIMOTHY EVAN KENNEDY, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 338th Judicial
More informationState Tax Return I. SUBSTANTIAL NEXUS LITIGATION IN THE STATE COURTS
September 2007 Volume 14 Number 9 State Tax Return NEXUS: UPDATE ON RECENT DEVELOPMENTS Maryann B. Gall Columbus (614) 469-3924 Laura A. Kulwicki Columbus (330) 656-0416 We keep track of nexus developments
More informationThis opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. 480A.08, subd. 3 (2008).
This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. 480A.08, subd. 3 (2008). STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A09-1432 Karl Anthony Edwards, petitioner, Appellant,
More informationOPINION. FILED July 9, 2015 S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N SUPREME COURT. JAMES GARDNER and SUSAN GARDNER, Petitioners-Appellants, v No.
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan OPINION Chief Justice: Robert P. Young, Jr. Justices: Stephen J. Markman Mary Beth Kelly Brian K. Zahra Bridget M. McCormack David F. Viviano Richard H. Bernstein
More informationTEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-13-00176-CV Anderson Petro-Equipment, Inc. and Curtis Ray Anderson, Appellants v. The State of Texas, Appellee FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS
More informationState Tax Return. State Tax Treatment of I.R.C. 338(h)(10) Elections And the Business Versus Nonbusiness Income Debate
April 2007 Volume 14 Number 4 State Tax Return State Tax Treatment of I.R.C. 338(h)(10) Elections And the Business Versus Nonbusiness Income Debate Rachel A. Wilson Karen H. Currie Dallas Dallas (214)
More informationSTATE'S RESPONSE BRIEF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT EDGAR CARRASCO, APPELLANT NO. 05-11-00681-CR V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE 5th Court of Appeals FILED: 12/28/11 14:00 Lisa Matz, Clerk
More informationTEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-13-00101-CV Rent-A-Center, Inc., Appellant v. Glenn Hegar, in his capacity as Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas; and Ken Paxton,
More informationThird District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed April 26, 2017. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D16-2650 Lower Tribunal Nos. 08-21731, 08-22479, 08-22491,
More informationThe Impact of Joyce & Finnigan on Multi-State Combined Groups with Intangible Sales
The Impact of Joyce & Finnigan on Multi-State Combined Groups with Intangible Sales By Selena Walker I. INTRODUCTION The California State Board of Equalization decisions of In the Matter of the Appeal
More informationState & Local Tax Alert
State & Local Tax Alert Breaking state and local tax developments from Grant Thornton LLP Wisconsin Court of Appeals Confirms Pollution Remediation Services Taxable The Wisconsin Court of Appeals recently
More information2018 PA Super 45. Appeal from the Order entered March 29, 2017 In the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County Civil Division at No: CT
2018 PA Super 45 WILLIAM SMITH SR. AND EVERGREEN MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC. IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. BRIAN HEMPHILL AND COMMERCIAL SNOW + ICE, LLC APPEAL OF BARRY M. ROTHMAN, ESQUIRE No. 1351
More informationCircuit Court for Frederick County Case No.: 10-C UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No September Term, 2017
Circuit Court for Frederick County Case No.: 10-C-02-000895 UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 1100 September Term, 2017 ALLAN M. PICKETT, et al. v. FREDERICK CITY MARYLAND, et
More informationSTATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
[Cite as Pierson v. Wheeland, 2007-Ohio-2474.] STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) ROBERT G. PIERSON, ADM., et al. C. A. No. 23442 Appellees v. RICHARD
More informationCOURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH
COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 2-08-306-CV MIKE FRIEND APPELLANT V. CB RICHARD ELLIS, INC. AND CBRE REAL ESTATE SERVICES, INC. APPELLEES ------------ FROM THE 211TH DISTRICT COURT
More information2018 Tax Executives Institute, Inc. Houston Texas May 11, 2018 ALL STATES UPDATE. Marilyn M. Wethekam (312)
2018 Tax Executives Institute, Inc. Houston Texas May 11, 2018 ALL STATES UPDATE Marilyn M. Wethekam (312) 606-3240 mwethekam@saltlawyers.com Horwood Marcus & Berk Chartered 500 W. Madison Street, Suite
More informationCOLORADO COURT OF APPEALS 2012 COA 160. Kyle W. Larson Enterprises, Inc., Roofing Experts, d/b/a The Roofing Experts,
COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS 2012 COA 160 Court of Appeals No. 11CA2205 City and County of Denver District Court No. 10CV6064 Honorable Ann B. Frick, Judge Kyle W. Larson Enterprises, Inc., Roofing Experts,
More informationJune 2010 State Tax Return. Georgia (and New York) Reexamine their IRC 338(h)(10) Election for S Corporations
June 2010 State Tax Return Volume 17 Number 2 Georgia (and New York) Reexamine their IRC 338(h)(10) Election for S Corporations E. Kendrick Smith Dan Conner Atlanta Atlanta 1.404.581.8343 1.404.581.8629
More informationFourteenth Court of Appeals
Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed December 16, 2010. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-09-00868-CR NO. 14-09-00869-CR ARRINGTON FLOYD BURLEY, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal
More informationNON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 TAREK ELTANBDAWY v. Appellant IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MMG INSURANCE COMPANY, RESTORECARE, INC., KUAN FANG CHENG Appellees No. 2243
More informationCASE NO. 1D Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and J. Clifton Cox, Special Counsel, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA VERIZON BUSINESS PURCHASING, LLC, v. Appellant, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
More informationState Income Tax Litigation You Need to Know About
Michele Borens, Partner Amy Nogid, Counsel TEI New York State and Local Tax Seminar November 9, 2016 State Income Tax Litigation You Need to Know About All Rights Reserved. This communication is for general
More informationEconomic Development Fundamentals
Economic Development Fundamentals April 8, 2016 BURNET R. MAYBANK, III bmaybank@nexsenpruet.com Economic Development Fundamentals INCOME TAX COMPARISONS 1 Income Tax Rates (C Corps) SC: 5% NC: In 2013
More informationCASE NO. 1D Roy W. Jordan, Jr., of Roy W. Jordan, Jr., P.A., West Palm Beach, for Appellant.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA SUSAN GENA, v. Appellant, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED CASE NO. 1D11-1783
More informationARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION II No. CV-15-293 UNIFIRST CORPORATION APPELLANT V. LUDWIG PROPERTIES, INC. D/B/A 71 EXPRESS TRAVEL PLAZA APPELLEE Opinion Delivered December 2, 2015 APPEAL FROM THE SEBASTIAN
More informationIn The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No CV
Reverse and Remand; Opinion Filed June 12, 2014. S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-13-00984-CV FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION, Appellant V. JAMES EPHRIAM AND ALL
More informationNo. 104,835 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. E. LEON DAGGETT, Appellant, SYLLABUS BY THE COURT
No. 104,835 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS E. LEON DAGGETT, Appellant, v. BOARD OF PUBLIC UTILITIES OF THE UNIFIED GOVERNMENT OF WYANDOTTE COUNTY/KANSAS CITY, KANSAS, Appellee. SYLLABUS
More informationCOURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS
COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS STADIUM AUTO, INC., Appellant, v. LOYA INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee. No. 08-11-00301-CV Appeal from County Court at Law No. 3 of Tarrant County,
More informationSTATE OF WISCONSIN TAX APPEALS COMMISSION. Petitioner, RULING AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
STATE OF WISCONSIN TAX APPEALS COMMISSION RODNEY A. SAWVELL D/B/A PRAIRIE CAMPER SALES (P), DOCKET NO. 06-S-140 (P) Petitioner, vs. WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE RULING AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
More informationState Tax Return. The Case For & Against REITs -- Tax-Advantaged Entities, Tax Shelters, Or Inept Legislative Drafting?
November 2005 Volume 12 Number 11 State Tax Return The Case For & Against REITs -- Tax-Advantaged Entities, Tax Shelters, Or Inept Legislative Drafting? Kirk Lyda Dallas (214) 969-5013 The use of real
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT HOCKING COUNTY
[Cite as Sturgill v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, 2013-Ohio-688.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT HOCKING COUNTY DENVER G. STURGILL, : : Plaintiff-Appellant, : Case No. 12CA8 : vs. :
More informationProtest Procedure: A Primer
Protest Procedure: A Primer Marjorie Welch Interim General Counsel Oklahoma Tax Commission Agency s Mission Statement: To serve the people of Oklahoma by promoting tax compliance through quality service
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
FOR PUBLICATION ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: RICHARD WAYNE GREESON Connersville, Indiana ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: SEAN M. CLAPP Fishers, Indiana IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA KENNETH EDWARDS, Appellant-Respondent,
More informationSTATE OF ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE & ADMINISTRATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS & APPEALS ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION
STATE OF ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE & ADMINISTRATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS & APPEALS ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION IN THE MATTER OF (LICENSE NO.: ) DOCKET NO.: 17-449 GROSS RECEIPTS TAX REFUND CLAIM DENIAL
More informationState Tax Return. Columbus
April 2007 Volume 14 Number 4 State Tax Return NEXUS: UPDATE ON RECENT DEVELOPMENTS Maryann B. Gall Columbus (614) 281-3924 Phyllis J. Shambaugh Columbus (614) 281-3824 Laura A. Kulwicki Columbus (330)
More informationNON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P : : : : : : Appellees : No WDA 2012
J-S27041-13 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 MARTIN YURCHISON, PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF DIANE LOUISE YURCHISON, a/k/a DIANE YURCHISON, Appellant v. UNITED GENERAL
More informationUDITPA Section 18: The Changing Faces of Alternative Apportionment
UDITPA Section 18: The Changing Faces of Alternative Apportionment July 12, 2009 Presented by: Kelly W. Smith, LLP Jay Koren, LLP PwC This document was not written to be used, and it cannot be used, for
More informationTHE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT
THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT In Case No. 2017-0277, Michael D. Roche & a. v. City of Manchester, the court on August 2, 2018, issued the following order: Having considered the briefs and oral
More informationIn the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District
In the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District DIVISION FIVE CLIFFORD HINDMAN REAL ESTATE, ) INC., ) No. ED91472 ) Appellant, ) Appeal from the Circuit Court of ) St. Louis County v. ) Cause No. 06CC-002248
More informationNo. 95-TX Appeal from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. (Hon. Wendell Gardner, Trial Judge)
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections
More informationState & Local Tax Alert
State & Local Tax Alert Breaking state and local tax developments from Grant Thornton LLP New Jersey Tax Court Finds Payments Made by Subsidiary Qualify for Exception to Addback Rule On May 24, 2017, the
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS 444444444444 NO. 11-0261 444444444444 SUSAN COMBS, COMPTROLLER OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS OF THE STATE OF TEXAS, AND GREG ABBOTT, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF TEXAS, PETITIONERS,
More informationSTATE OF WISCONSIN TAX APPEALS COMMISSION. Petitioner, RULING AND ORDER DIANE E. NORMAN, COMMISSIONER:
STATE OF WISCONSIN TAX APPEALS COMMISSION AMERITECH PUBLISHING, INC. (P-I), DOCKET NO. 01-I-227(P-I) Petitioner, vs. RULING AND ORDER WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Respondent. DIANE E. NORMAN, COMMISSIONER:
More informationNON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 ESTATE OF THOMAS W. BUCHER, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF DECEASED : PENNSYLVANIA : : APPEAL OF: WILSON BUCHER, : CLAIMANT : No. 96 MDA 2013 Appeal
More informationv No Wayne Circuit Court
S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N C O U R T O F A P P E A L S CITY OF DETROIT, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED March 15, 2018 v No. 337705 Wayne Circuit Court BAYLOR LTD, LC No. 16-010881-CZ Defendant-Appellee.
More informationCase 2:17-cv CB Document 28 Filed 02/28/18 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Case 2:17-cv-01502-CB Document 28 Filed 02/28/18 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION ) BUREAU, ) ) Petitioner, ) Civil
More informationIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Atlantic City Electric Company, : Keystone-Conemaugh Projects, : Baltimore Gas and Electric Company, : Delaware Power and Light Company, : Metropolitan Edison
More informationFourteenth Court of Appeals
Affirmed and Opinion filed August 1, 2017. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-16-00263-CV RON POUNDS, Appellant V. LIBERTY LLOYDS OF TEXAS INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee On Appeal from the 215th District
More informationThe Commuter: Residents v. Non-Residents
June 16, 1999 The Commuter: Residents v. Non-Residents By: Glenn Newman The hottest New York tax issue in the last few years has nothing to do with the New York State and City Tax Tribunals or does it?
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: SC SERVICE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, vs. OFFICE OF INSURANCE REGULATION AND
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: SC11-299 SERVICE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, vs. OFFICE OF INSURANCE REGULATION AND THE FINANCIAL SERVICES COMMISSION, Appellees. BRIEF ON JURISDICTION OF APPELLEES
More informationState Tax Return. Alabama s Addback Of Intangible Expense Held Unreasonable
February 2007 Volume 14 Number 2 State Tax Return Alabama s Addback Of Intangible Expense Held Unreasonable Kristi L. Stathopoulos Atlanta (404) 581-8512 E. Kendrick Smith Atlanta (404) 581-8343 On January
More informationIN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE December 15, 2004 Session
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE December 15, 2004 Session STATE OF TENNESSEE v. JESSE JAMES JOHNSON Appeal from the Circuit Court for Franklin County No. 14731 Thomas W. Graham,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO
Filed 11/14/18 City of Brisbane v. Cal. Dept. of Tax & Fee Admin. CA1/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying
More informationIn The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No CV
AFFIRM; and Opinion Filed August 28, 2014. S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-12-00848-CV LUCKY MERK, LLC D/B/A GREENVILLE BAR & GRILL, DUMB LUCK, LLC D/B/A HURRICANE GRILL,
More informationNo CR STATE S BRIEF
Appellant Has Not Requested Oral Argument; State Waives Argument No. 05-09-00321-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT DALLAS JASON WESLEY WILLINGHAM, APPELLANT vs. THE STATE OF
More informationCOUNSEL JUDGES. Walters, Judge, wrote the opinion. WE CONCUR: Andrews, J., Lewis R. Sutin, J. (Specially Concurring) AUTHOR: WALTERS OPINION
AAMCO TRANSMISSIONS V. TAXATION & REVENUE DEP'T, 1979-NMCA-092, 93 N.M. 389, 600 P.2d 841 (Ct. App. 1979) AAMCO TRANSMISSIONS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. TAXATION AND REVENUE DEPARTMENT of the State
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs January 14, 2009
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs January 14, 2009 SHELBY COUNTY HEALTH CARE CORPORATION, ET AL. v. NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No Non-Argument Calendar. D.C. Docket No. 8:09-cv JDW-TGW
[PUBLISH] BARRY OPPENHEIM, IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS lllllllllllllllllllllplaintiff - Appellee, versus I.C. SYSTEM, INC., llllllllllllllllllllldefendant - Appellant. FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
More informationGOVERNMENT TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INC., Appellee Opinion No OPINION
GOVERNMENT TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INC., v. Appellant ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, BEFORE THE MARYLAND STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION Appellee Opinion No. 00-47 OPINION In this appeal, Government Technology
More informationAbstract. Standard formulary apportionment, as currently adopted by states which impose a corporate level
Abstract Standard formulary apportionment, as currently adopted by states which impose a corporate level income tax on multistate corporations, may have a distortive effect in instances where the corporation
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON September 19, 2001 Session
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON September 19, 2001 Session KRISTINA BROWN, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Individuals and Entities Similarly Situated in the State of Tennessee,
More informationALTERNATIVE APPORTIONMENT JULY 2, 2014 IPT ANNUAL CONFERENCE. Peter L. Faber Telephone: (212)
ALTERNATIVE IPT ANNUAL CONFERENCE Peter L. Faber Telephone: (212) 547-5585 pfaber@mwe.com APPORTIONMENT JULY 2, 2014 Most states have some sort of discretionary authority to require a taxpayer to use an
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS, TEXAS
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS, TEXAS NORMAN LEHR, Appellant, NO. 05-09-00381-CR THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee ON APPEAL FROM THE 282ND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF DALLAS
More informationARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS. Appeal of -- ) ) The Swanson Group, Inc. ) ASBCA No ) Under Contract No. N C-9509 )
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeal of -- ) ) The Swanson Group, Inc. ) ASBCA No. 54863 ) Under Contract No. N68711-91-C-9509 ) APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT:
More informationQUESTION: WHETHER TAXPAYER S GROSS RECEIPTS EARNED FROM THE ABOVE MENTIONED REVENUE CATEGORIES SHOULD BE SOURCED TO FLORIDA.
Executive Director Marshall Stranburg QUESTION: WHETHER TAXPAYER S GROSS RECEIPTS EARNED FROM THE ABOVE MENTIONED REVENUE CATEGORIES SHOULD BE SOURCED TO FLORIDA. ANSWER: REVENUE CATEGORY 1: THIS CONSISTS
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS WAUSAU UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, FOR PUBLICATION May 27, 2003 9:10 a.m. v No. 236823 Oakland Circuit Court AJAX PAVING INDUSTRIES, INC., LC
More information