INTERACTIVE LEGAL UPDATE
|
|
- Kelly Tate
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 INTERACTIVE LEGAL UPDATE Peter J. Crossett Barclay Damon LLP David Crapo Crapo Deeds Jonathan A. Block Pierce Atwood LLP Sarah M. Bradshaw Tax Division, Arkansas Public Service Commission Interactive Legal Update You be the Judge! 1
2 Solarcity Corp v. Arizona Dept. Of Revenue Arizona Dept. of Revenue v. Mesquite Power LLC Minnesota Energy Resources Corp. v. Commissioner of Revenue Level 3 Communications, LLC v. Dept. of Revenue Level 3 Communications, LLC v. Dept. of Revenue Solarcity Corp. v. Arizona Dept. of Revenue, 243 Ariz. 477, 413 P.3d 678 (2018) Taxpayer leases solar panels to residential and commercial property owners Excess energy generated by solar panels transferred to utility company and lessee property owner receives credit for the retail value of the excess energy In 2015, ADOR notified Taxpayer that taxes would be assessed on the full cash value of the leased solar panels Taxpayer sought declaratory judgment that the leased solar panels are not renewable energy equipment used in operation of electric generation facility and therefore, not subject to assessment by the ADOR 2
3 Solarcity Corp. v. Arizona Dept. of Revenue, 243 Ariz. 477, 413 P.3d 678 (2018) Tax Court found that the solar panels should be assessed locally as real property Court of Appeals found that ADOR should assess but give the panels zero value Supreme Court granted review because whether ADOR should value leased solar panels is a recurring issue of statewide importance Solarcity Corp. v. Arizona Dept. of Revenue, 243 Ariz. 477, 413 P.3d 678 (2018) Are leased solar panels: A. Personal Property B. Real Property Question 1 3
4 Solarcity Corp. v. Arizona Dept. of Revenue, 243 Ariz. 477, 413 P.3d 678 (2018) Question 1 Are leased solar panels: A. Personal Property B. Real Property Answer: A. Arizona Supreme Court found that leased solar panels are personal property Solarcity Corp. v. Arizona Dept. of Revenue, 243 Ariz. 477, 413 P.3d 678 (2018) Taxpayers are in the business of leasing solar panels and taxpayers do not operate a facility to convert solar energy into electricity Businesses that lease solar panels are not operators of electric generation facilities subject to assessment by the ADOR Court remanded to the Tax Court to consider how the counties should value and assess businesses that lease solar panels 4
5 Arizona Dept. of Revenue v. Mesquite Power LLC, Ariz. Tax Court, Maricopa County, No. TX (June 28, 2018) Appeal by ADOR from Board of Equalization decision reducing ADOR s 2016 value of Mesquite Power from $230,593,000 to $188,646,735 Cross-appeal by Mesquite of 2016 tax year alleging that value adjusted for obsolescence still exceeds market value of property and appeal of 2017 tax year value for failure to adjust for obsolescence In a sale that closed in April 2015, all of Mesquite Power s real and personal property and it s intangible assets sold for $356,938,000 Intangible asset is a Purchase Power Agreement paying $34 million per year for 24 years Purchase price allocated $118,925,000 to real and personal property, and $238,013,000 to non-taxable intangible PPA Arizona Dept. of Revenue v. Mesquite Power LLC, Ariz. Tax Court, Maricopa County, No. TX (June 28, 2018) Mesquite s experts used an income approach to value the property ADOR s expert used three variations of the cost approach and a direct capitalization of income approach The Court found Mesquite s use of an income approach more reliable for valuation because it is used by actual buyers and sellers of property The Court found that ADOR s statutorily derived value using the cost approach was greater than the market value of the property The Court found the market value of the real and tangible personal property of Mesquite to be $130, 876,000 for the 2016 tax year and $99,714,000 for the 2017 tax year 5
6 Minnesota Energy Resources Corp. v. Commissioner of Revenue, 909 N.W.2d 569 (2018) Case returns to the court after remand to the Tax Court Original case was appeal by MERC and the Commissioner of the Tax Court order on the value of MERC s natural gas distribution system for the years Remanded for further findings on beta-factor and MERC s claim of economic obsolescence Rejected Tax Court s application of the Eurofresh test for obsolescence On remand, the Tax Court determined that MERC failed to demonstrate that external obsolescence affected the value of its property Minnesota Energy Resources Corp. v. Commissioner of Revenue, 909 N.W.2d 569 (2018) Question 2 There is evidence of external obsolescence if the number of customers increased and gas sales increased. A. True B. False 6
7 Minnesota Energy Resources Corp. v. Commissioner of Revenue, 909 N.W.2d 569 (2018) Question 2 There is evidence of external obsolescence if the number of customers increased and gas sales increased. A. True B. False Answer: Court said B. False Minnesota Energy Resources Corp. v. Commissioner of Revenue, 909 N.W.2d 569 (2018) Question on remand to Tax Court was whether MERC offered sufficient evidence to support its claim of obsolescence Court said its decision in MERC I was neither a declaration that MERC s evidence of obsolescence was conclusive nor the creation of a rebuttable presumption MERC retained the burden of persuasion to show obsolescence The Court found that the Tax Court undertook a detailed evaluation of the credibility, reliability, and relevance of MERC s evidence and in rejecting MERC s obsolescence claim, the Tax Court did not revert to the Eurofresh standard 7
8 Level 3 Communications, LLC v. Dept. of Revenue, 2018 WL (Or. Tax 2018) Motions by the Dept. of Revenue to consolidate tax year with consolidated case for tax years through and motion to amend DOR s answer to assert a real market value higher than the original assessed value of Level 3 s property The Court denied the first motion on the basis that consolidating the cases would not avoid delay but would cause delay in the resolution of the existing consolidated cases dating back to tax years The Court granted DOR s motion to amend answer to allow DOR to assert a system value higher than ordered by the Director The DOR based its new assertion of system value at least in part on the transaction completed on or about November 1, 2017, in which Level 3 was merged into a subsidiary of CenturyLink Level 3 Communications, LLC v. Dept. of Revenue, 2018 WL (Or. Tax 2018) DOR objects to testimony, reports, and work papers of Level 3 expert witness related to valuation of Level 3 property Level 3 objects to testimony, reports, and work papers of DOR s expert witnesses related to valuation of Level 3 property Each party questions whether the other party s witnesses are experts for the purpose of giving an opinion on the value of property or for the purpose of critiquing the other party s appraisal or valuation Level 3 objects to the introduction of testimony and exhibits related to transaction with CenturyLink that occurred after the valuation date 8
9 Level 3 Communications, LLC v. Dept. of Revenue, 2018 WL (Or. Tax 2018) Question 3 Is a non-appraiser permitted to offer an opinion on the value of property in testimony? A. Yes B. No Level 3 Communications, LLC v. Dept. of Revenue, 2018 WL (Or. Tax 2018) Question 3 Is a non-appraiser permitted to offer an opinion on the value of property in testimony? A. Yes B. No Answer: A. In Oregon, the answer is yes 9
10 Level 3 Communications, LLC v. Dept. of Revenue, 2018 WL (Or. Tax 2018) The Tax Court found that in determining the qualifications of a witness as an expert the Court must look to the nature and the basis for the opinion All the expert witnesses in this case expressed opinions relating to unit valuation of centrally assessed property and all were qualified to give such opinions Admission of post assessment date transaction requires analysis of whether the condition of the property and the market are sufficiently stable that a willing buyer on the assessment date would have reached a conclusion of value similar to the later transaction Whether the post assessment date transaction is relevant is a question of law and fact Cable One, Inc. v. New Mexico Taxation and Revenue Dept. Fayetteville Express Pipeline, LLC v. Arkansas Public Service Commission Bosque Disposal Systems, LLC v. Parker County Appraisal Dist. Union Electric Company v. Estes Public Service Company of New Hampshire v. Town of Bow 10
11 Cable One, Inc. v. New Mexico Taxation and Revenue Dept., 412 P.3d 1121 (N. M. App. 2017) Appeal of lower court decision finding Cable One not centrally assessed Issue is whether a cable television company providing cable television programming, VoIP and internet is within the definition of communications system in New Mexico In 2008, Revenue Dept. began centrally assessing cable systems that provided two-way communications Cable One argues that the Legislature intended communications systems to apply only to traditional regulated telecommunications companies Since Cable One is not a regulated telecommunications company, it contends that it is not subject to central assessment Cable One, Inc. v. New Mexico Taxation and Revenue Dept., 412 P.3d 1121 (N. M. App. 2017) Non-regulated companies are not subject to central assessment. A. True B. False Question 4 11
12 Cable One, Inc. v. New Mexico Taxation and Revenue Dept., 412 P.3d 1121 (N. M. App. 2017) Question 4 Non-regulated companies are not subject to central assessment. A. True B. False Answer B. False in New Mexico Cable One, Inc. v. New Mexico Taxation and Revenue Dept., 412 P.3d 1121 (N. M. App. 2017) The Court found that Cable One met the definition of a communications system subject to central assessment, regardless of its regulatory status In 1985, New Mexico legislature revised the code on central assessment, removing the references to telephone and telegraph companies and replacing with a new classification of communications systems All property used as part of a communications system subjected to central assessment and valued using one or more of three methods of valuation; capitalized income, market value of stock and debt, and cost less depreciation and obsolescence New Mexico Supreme Court granted certiorari January 4,
13 Fayetteville Express Pipeline, LLC v. Arkansas Public Service Commission, 2017 Ark. App. 557, 533 S.W.3d 106 (2017) FEP challenged the Tax Division s 2014 assessment of its pipeline Commission affirmed the Tax Division s assessment Circuit Court affirmed the Commission s decision On appeal, FEP argued that the Commission failed to consider FEP s market evidence of economic obsolescence, refused to make findings based on evidence submitted by FEP, erred in rejecting FEP s methods of calculating obsolescence and that the income approach was excessive Fayetteville Express Pipeline, LLC v. Arkansas Public Service Commission, 2017 Ark. App. 557, 533 S.W.3d 106 (2017) The standard of review is whether the Commission s findings are supported by substantial evidence and the Commission has regularly pursued its authority Under Arkansas law, the consideration of obsolescence by the Tax Division is optional and discretionary FEP argued that if the Commission rejected its methods of calculating obsolescence, the Commission was required to provide an alternative method for calculating obsolescence The Court found that the Tax Division s expert witness had used an alternative method and found no obsolescence Court refused to consider the argument that failure to consider economic obsolescence violated professional appraisal standards because the argument was not raised below and there was no ruling on the issue by the Commission or the Circuit Court 13
14 Bosque Disposal Systems, LLC v. Parker County Appraisal District, 61 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 1196, 2018 WL (2018) Taxpayers own land containing salt water disposal wells in which wastewater from oil and gas operations can be injected and permanently stored underground In 2012, 2013, and 2014, the Appraisal District assigned a value to the wells and another value to the land Taxpayers contend the District s appraisal is illegal double taxation and the Taxpayers should not be taxed on the value of the wells Appraisal District valued the wells on an income approach for a total value of $7 million and the land was valued at $700,000 total Bosque Disposal Systems, LLC v. Parker County Appraisal District, 61 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 1196, 2018 WL (2018) Question 5 Does appraisal of land account for all aspects of the land s value? A. Yes B. No C. Maybe 14
15 Bosque Disposal Systems, LLC v. Parker County Appraisal District, 61 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 1196, 2018 WL (2018) Question 5 Does appraisal of land account for all aspects of the land s value? A. Yes B. No C. Maybe Answer: In Texas, the answer is C. Bosque Disposal Systems, LLC v. Parker County Appraisal District, 61 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 1196, 2018 WL (2018) Court found no bright-line rule dictating when the law permits separate appraisal of valuable aspects of real property Each property appraised based on the individual characteristics affecting the property s value The saltwater disposal wells are facilities that combine manmade elements with the ground itself for use in the oil and gas industry and the facilities increase the market value of the taxable real property containing the wells Saltwater disposal wells can be classified as an improvement and make the land more valuable than raw acreage The Appraisal District was obligated to take the value of the wells into account in its appraisal given the value the wells added to the land 15
16 Union Electric Company v. Estes, 534 S.W.3d 352 (2017) Union Electric Company, d/b/a Ameren Missouri appealed decision of Circuit Court affirming the 2013 assessed valuation of its natural gas pipeline real property in Cole County Ameren is required to report value of its property to the County on a form created by the Tax Commission Ameren reported the original cost of its property on January 1, 2013 as $53,252,364 and the depreciated market value as $20,498,505. The County rejected Ameren s value and assigned a market value for Ameren s property of $53,252,400 Uncontested evidence during the hearing that the values adopted by Cole County and 16 other counties did not reflect a depreciation deduction Union Electric Company v. Estes, 534 S.W.3d 352 (2017) County assessors argued that Ameren could not establish that the market value adopted by each county was unlawful or unfair Counties offered testimony from an expert witness who used a reproduction costs new approach to value the property and his value approximated the values adopted by the counties Ameren s appeal challenged only the failure to allow depreciation per Commission guidelines and not the counties use of a cost approach to value Ameren s property The counties argued that Ameren did not meet its burden of proof because Ameren did not provide an appraisal of its property and failed to present evidence of the market value of its property 16
17 Union Electric Company v. Estes, 534 S.W.3d 352 (2017) The Court found no authority for the proposition that evidence of market value must be in the form of an appraisal and the Commission s finding on that issue is legally erroneous Failure to deduct depreciation is not harmless error and a tax assessment must take into account all factors relevant to determining market value Court remanded for determination of appropriate depreciation to be taken on Ameren s property FAIR MARKET VALUE 17
18 Public Service Company of New Hampshire v. Town of Bow, 170 N.H. 539, 178 A.3d 690 (2018) Town of Bow appealed lower court decision granting PSNH an abatement of taxes on property in the Town for the tax years 2012 and 2013 PSNH challenged the Town s valuation of special purpose property at PSNH s Merrimack Station PSNH presented the expert testimony of John P. Kelly on the value of the property and the Town used George Sansoucy as its expert witness Lower court found Mr. Kelly s testimony more credible than Mr. Sansoucy s testimony Town argues that court erred in accepting PSNH s highest and best use determination and its net book valuation of PSNH s transmission and distribution system Public Service Company of New Hampshire v. Town of Bow, 170 N.H. 539, 178 A.3d 690 (2018) Determining fair market value of a public utility is a question of A. Fact B. Law Question 6 18
19 Public Service Company of New Hampshire v. Town of Bow, 170 N.H. 539, 178 A.3d 690 (2018) Question 6 Determining fair market value of a public utility is a question of A. Fact B. Law Answer: A. Fact and the court gives deference to the trier of fact Public Service Company of New Hampshire v. Town of Bow, 170 N.H. 539, 178 A.3d 690 (2018) The search for fair market value is not an easy one, and is akin to a snipe hunt carried on at midnight on a moonless landscape. Extraordinarily difficult to value public utilities and the Court gives deference to the trier of fact in determining credibility of valuations Court has never held that a single valuation approach or combination of approaches is correct as a matter of law Matter of judgment whether net book value is an appropriate valuation method for PSNH s transmission and distribution property 19
20 Questions? 20
THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE TOWN OF BOW. Argued: October 12, 2017 Opinion Issued: January 11, 2018
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme
More informationNO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 15 July 2014 IN THE MATTER OF: APPEAL OF: Villas at Peacehaven, LLC from the decisions of the
NO. COA13-1224 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 15 July 2014 IN THE MATTER OF: APPEAL OF: Villas at Peacehaven, LLC from the decisions of the Forsyth County Board of Equalization and Review concerning
More informationARIZONA TAX: CURRENT ISSUES, 2006 AND 2007 LEGISLATION AND CASE LAW
ARIZONA TAX: CURRENT ISSUES, 2006 AND 2007 LEGISLATION AND CASE LAW 2006 LEGISLATION By: Pat Derdenger, Partner Steptoe & Johnson LLP 201 East Washington Street, 16 th Floor Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2382
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 informationSUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. 09-386 DESOTO GATHERING COMPANY, LLC, APPELLANT, VS. JANICE SMALLWOOD, APPELLEE, Opinion Delivered JANUARY 14, 2010 APPEAL FROM THE WHITE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, NO. CV-2008-165,
More informationPetition for Writ of Certiorari Granted COUNSEL
1 AMERICAN DAIRY QUEEN CORP. V. TAXATION & REVENUE DEP'T, 1979-NMCA-160, 93 N.M. 743, 605 P.2d 251 (Ct. App. 1979) AMERICAN DAIRY QUEEN CORPORATION, Appellant, vs. TAXATION AND REVENUE DEPARTMENT OF THE
More informationS17G1256. NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS PCS, LLC et al. v. GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE et al.
In the Supreme Court of Georgia Decided: April 16, 2018 S17G1256. NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS PCS, LLC et al. v. GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE et al. MELTON, Presiding Justice. This case revolves around a decision
More informationState and Local Tax Update. Tuesday, November 28, 2017 Wichita Country Club Tim Hartley - Director
State and Local Tax Update Tuesday, November 28, 2017 Wichita Country Club Tim Hartley - Director Presenters Tim Hartley Director Tax tim.hartley@us.gt.com 316 636 6507 Grant Thornton LLP. All rights reserved.
More information62 P.3d Ariz. 244 Jerry SCRUGGS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant.
62 P.3d 989 204 Ariz. 244 Jerry SCRUGGS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant. No. -0166. Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 1, Department E. February
More informationShifting Apportionment Landscape TEI Nevada Chapter
Shifting Apportionment Landscape TEI Nevada Chapter April 19, 2017 Jeff Friedman Partner Marc Simonetti Partner 2017 (US) LLP All Rights Reserved. This communication is for general informational purposes
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON February 12, 2019 Session
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON February 12, 2019 Session 03/25/2019 AUTO GLASS COMPANY OF MEMPHIS INC. D/B/A JACK MORRIS AUTO GLASS v. DAVID GERREGANO COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
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 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 informationIN THE OREGON TAX COURT MAGISTRATE DIVISION Municipal Tax ) ) I. INTRODUCTION
IN THE OREGON TAX COURT MAGISTRATE DIVISION Municipal Tax JOHN A. BOGDANSKI, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF PORTLAND, State of Oregon, Defendant. TC-MD 130075C DECISION OF DISMISSAL I. INTRODUCTION This matter
More informationNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 117,628 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 117,628 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS In the Matter of the Equalization Appeal of HALLBROOK COUNTRY CLUB for the Tax Years 2014 & 2015 in Johnson County,
More informationADMINISTRATIVE DECISION
STATE OF ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS & APPEALS ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION IN THE MATTER OF ACCT. NO.: REFUND CLAIM DISALLOWANCE (Other Tobacco Products) DOCKET NO.:
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 informationCourt of Appeals No.: 05CA1774 Colorado State Board of Assessment Appeals Nos & 44023
COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS Court of Appeals No.: 05CA1774 Colorado State Board of Assessment Appeals Nos. 44022 & 44023 OPEX Communications, Inc., Petitioner Appellant, v. Property Tax Administrator, 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 GROSS RECEIPTS (SALES) & COMPENSATING USE TAX (ACCT. NO.: ASSESSMENT AUDIT
More informationARIZONA TAX: THE UNIFORMITY CLAUSE OF THE ARIZONA CONSTITUTION - REQUIRES THAT SIMILARLY SITUATED PROPERTY BE TAXED THE SAME
ARIZONA TAX: THE UNIFORMITY CLAUSE OF THE ARIZONA CONSTITUTION - REQUIRES THAT SIMILARLY SITUATED PROPERTY BE TAXED THE SAME By: Pat Derdenger, Partner Steptoe & Johnson LLP 201 East Washington Street,
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 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 informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT. Appellant-Appellant, : No. 06AP-108 v. : (C.P.C. No. 04CVF )
[Cite as IBM Corp. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision, 2006-Ohio-6258.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT IBM Corporation, : Appellant-Appellant, : No. 06AP-108 v. : (C.P.C. No. 04CVF-10-11075)
More informationIn re the Marriage of: CYNTHIA JEAN VAN LEEUWEN, Petitioner/Appellant, RICHARD ALLEN VAN LEEUWEN, Respondent/Appellee. No.
NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED. IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION
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 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 informationTax Treatment of Digital Goods and Services: Overview and Cross-State Comparison
Tax Treatment of Digital Goods and Services: Overview and Cross-State Comparison Arizona State Legislature Ad Hoc Joint Committee on the Tax Treatment of Digital Goods and Services July 31, 2017 Taxation
More informationVan Camp & Bennion v. United States 251 F.3d 862 (9th Cir. Wash. 2001).
Van Camp & Bennion v. United States 251 F.3d 862 (9th Cir. Wash. 2001). CLICK HERE to return to the home page No. 96-36068. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted September
More information- Unreported Opinion - Assessments and Taxation assessed real property purchased by Konstantinos Alexakis,
Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County Case No. C-02-CV-15-003734 UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 2124 September Term, 2016 KONSTANTINOS ALEXAKIS v. SUPERVISOR OF ASSESSMENTS
More informationRailroad Valuation and Equalization The 46 th Annual Wichita Program July 26, 2016
Railroad Valuation and Equalization The 46 th Annual Wichita Program July 26, 2016 Stephen D. Goodwin 165 Madison Avenue Suite 2000 Memphis, TN 38103 901.577.2141 sgoodwin@bakerdonelson.com Valuation Concepts
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 SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE. APPEAL OF WILLIAM STEWART (New Hampshire Department of Employment Security)
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme
More informationADMINISTRATIVE DECISION
STATE OF ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE & ADMINISTRATION OFFICEOFHEARINGS&APPEALS ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION GROSS RECEIPTS TAXASSESMENT DOCKET NO.: 16-105 ACCOUNT NO.: ) JESSICA DUNCAN, ADMINISTRATIVE IA
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS TOLL NORTHVILLE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, and BILTMORE WINEMAN, LLC, FOR PUBLICATION September 25, 2012 9:00 a.m. Petitioners-Appellees, V No. 301043 Tax Tribunal TOWNSHIP
More informationIN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS VS. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
NO. PD-0712-15 PD-0712-15 COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS Transmitted 7/8/2015 1:19:53 PM Accepted 7/9/2015 4:28:04 PM ABEL ACOSTA CLERK IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS DYLAN JEZREEL
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 informationADMINISTRATIVE DECISION
STATE OF ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE & ADMINISTRATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS & APPEALS ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION IN THE MATTER OF (ACCT. NO.: ) GROSS RECEIPTS TAX ASSESSMENT LETTER ID: DOCKET NO.: 17-381
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 ACCT. NO.: GROSS RECEIPTS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE TAX ASSESSMENTS AUDIT NO.: DOCKET
More informationCOMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS APPEALS COURT. NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY & others 1. vs. COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE.
NOTICE: Summary decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to its rule 1:28, as amended by 73 Mass. App. Ct. 1001 (2009), are primarily directed to the parties and, therefore, may not fully address
More information2014 CO 31. No. 12SC911, Western Logistics, Inc. v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office Colorado Employment Security Act Employment Law.
Opinions of the Colorado Supreme Court are available to the public and can be accessed through the Court s homepage at http://www.courts.state.co.us Opinions are also posted on the Colorado Bar Association
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 informationNo MIDLAND CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT, Petitioner, BP AMERICA PRODUCTION Co., ETAL., Respondents.
2011 No. 10-890 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES MIDLAND CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT, Petitioner, V. BP AMERICA PRODUCTION Co., ETAL., Respondents. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme
More informationNo COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO 1984-NMCA-055, 101 N.M. 404, 683 P.2d 521 May 15, Petition for Writ of Certiorari Denied June 19, 1984
NATIONAL POTASH CO. V. PROPERTY TAX DIV., 1984-NMCA-055, 101 N.M. 404, 683 P.2d 521 (Ct. App. 1984) NATIONAL POTASH COMPANY, Appellant, vs. PROPERTY TAX DIVISION OF THE TAXATION AND REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA No.12 0338 Filed December 20, 2013 IOWA MORTGAGE CENTER, L.L.C., Appellant, vs. LANA BACCAM and PHOUTHONE SYLAVONG, Appellees. On review from the Iowa Court of Appeals. Appeal
More informationNo. 1D On appeal from the Circuit Court for Alachua County. Monica J. Brasington, Judge. February 8, 2018
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL EDWARD A. CRAPO, as Alachua County Property Appraiser, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA No. 1D17-280 PROVIDENT GROUP - CONTINUUM PROPERTIES, L.L.C., a Florida not-for-profit
More informationConsumer Taxation Issues
Taxing Telecommunication Inputs: Policy and Fiscal Implications Prepared for FTA Revenue Estimating & Tax Research Conference Oklahoma City, OK October 8 12, 2005 Consumer Taxation Issues Federal excise
More informationSTATE OF WISCONSIN TAX APPEALS COMMISSION
STATE OF WISCONSIN TAX APPEALS COMMISSION JAMES ENGEL D/B/A SUNBURST SNOWTUBING AND RECREATION PARK, LLC, DOCKET NO. 07-S-168 and SUMMIT SKI CORP. D/B/A SUNBURST SKI AREA, DOCKET NO. 07-S-169 Petitioners,
More informationPRESENT: Hassell, C.J., Keenan, Koontz, Lemons, Agee, 1 Goodwyn, JJ., and Lacy, S.J.
PRESENT: Hassell, C.J., Keenan, Koontz, Lemons, Agee, 1 Goodwyn, JJ., and Lacy, S.J. and PALACE LAUNDRY, INC., D/B/A LINENS OF THE WEEK v. Record No. 071920 OPINION BY JUSTICE S. BERNARD GOODWYN CHESTERFIELD
More informationFIRST BERKSHIRE BUSINESS TRUST & a. COMMISSIONER, NEW HAMPSHIRE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE ADMINISTRATION & a.
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme
More information: : : : : : : : : : :
B-44 In the Matter of Robert Kemmler, Jersey City CSC Docket No. 2018-2383 STATE OF NEW JERSEY FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION OF THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION Classification Appeal ISSUED SEPTEMBER 7, 2018
More informationTEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-15-00724-CV Lower Colorado River Authority, Appellant v. Burnet Central Appraisal District, Appellee FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BURNET COUNTY, 424TH
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 informationCOURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT GALLATIN, TENNESSEE THE HONORABLE THOMAS GOODALL, JUDGE
WAYNE BRAYFIELD and DON ) CHADWELL, INDIVIDUALLY AND ) d/b/a PLEASANTVILLE STUDIO TWO, ) ) Appeal No. Plaintiffs/Appellants, ) 01-A-01-9701-CV-00007 ) v. ) ) KENTUCKY NATIONAL INSURANCE ) Circuit Court
More informationRUSSELL L. HALL, CASE NO.: CVA LOWER COURT CASE NO.: CEB
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA RUSSELL L. HALL, CASE NO.: CVA1 07-07 LOWER COURT CASE NO.: CEB 2007-614622 v. Appellant, ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA, Appellee.
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 informationCommonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals
RENDERED: MAY 1, 2015; 10:00 A.M. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2013-CA-001745-MR JEAN ACTON APPELLANT APPEAL FROM JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE SUSAN SCHULTZ
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 informationFINAL ORDER REVERSING TRIAL COURT. Franklin Chase ( Appellant ) appeals the denial of his Motion to Suppress 1. This court
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA APPELLATE CASE NO: 2014-AP-000027-A-O LOWER CASE NO.: 2014-CT-001011-A-O FRANKLIN W. CHASE, v. Appellant, STATE OF FLORIDA,
More informationBEFORE THE LOUISIANA TAX COMMISSION LTC DOCKET NO. RR-2017
BEFORE THE LOUISIANA TAX COMMISSION LTC DOCKET NO. RR-2017 IN RE: IN CONSIDERATION OF AMENDING AND/OR ADOPTING PERSONAL PROPERTY RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR CHAPTER 9: OIL AND GAS PROPERTIES LOUISIANA CHEMICAL
More informationIn The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No CV
AFFIRM; and Opinion Filed July 21, 2014. S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-12-01470-CV SAM GRIFFIN FAMILY INVESTMENTS-I, INC., D/B/A BUMPER TO BUMPER CAR WASH, Appellant
More informationDepartment of Finance Post Office Box 3278 and Administration
STATE OF ARKANSAS OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR 1509 West Seventh Street, Suite 401 Department of Finance Post Office Box 3278 and Administration Little Rock, Arkansas 72203-3278 Phone: (501) 682-2242 Fax: (501)
More informationEleventh Court of Appeals
Opinion filed July 19, 2018 In The Eleventh Court of Appeals No. 11-16-00183-CV RANDY DURHAM, Appellant V. HALLMARK COUNTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee On Appeal from the 358th District Court Ector
More informationEllen Cody Sales and Use Tax Senior Manager
Industry Panel of Energy Experts Explore the Gulf Coast and our Northern Border Taxation of Oil & Gas Upstream and Oil Field Service Providers Louisiana, North Dakota, Texas Ellen Cody Sales and Use Tax
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 informationFILED: ERIE COUNTY CLERK 01/30/ :20 PM INDEX NO /2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/30/2017
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF ERIE In the Matter of the Application of LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, -2gainst- Petitioner, ERIE COUNTY, CITY OF BUFFALO, CITY OF LACKAWANNA, EDEN CENTRAL
More informationOrder. October 24, 2018
Order Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan October 24, 2018 157007 NORTHPORT CREEK GOLF COURSE LLC, Petitioner-Appellee, v SC: 157007 COA: 337374 MTT: 15-002908-TT TOWNSHIP OF LEELANAU, Respondent-Appellant.
More informationTHE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Supreme Court. Carmax Auto Superstores West Coast, Inc., Respondent/Petitioner,
THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Supreme Court Carmax Auto Superstores West Coast, Inc., Respondent/Petitioner, v. South Carolina Department of Revenue, Petitioner/Respondent. Appellate Case No. 2012-212203
More informationCorporation Could Exclude Sale of U.S. Business from Sales Factor
```` December 2017 California Corporation Could Exclude Sale of U.S. Business from Sales Factor A corporation could exclude the sale of its U.S. business when determining the sales apportionment factor
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO. v. No. 33,864. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF OTERO COUNTY Angie K. Schneider, District Judge
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 1-0 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note
More information{*331} McMANUS, Justice.
1 SOUTHERN UNION GAS CO. V. NEW MEXICO PUB. SERV. COMM'N, 1972-NMSC-072, 84 N.M. 330, 503 P.2d 310 (S. Ct. 1972) SOUTHERN UNION GAS COMPANY, Petitioner-Appellee and Cross-Appellant, vs. NEW MEXICO PUBLIC
More informationCommonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals
RENDERED: AUGUST 3, 2012; 10:00 A.M. TO BE PUBLISHED Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2009-CA-001839-MR MEADOWS HEALTH SYSTEMS EAST, INC. AND MEADOWS HEALTH SYSTEMS SOUTH, INC. APPELLANTS
More informationSTATE OF ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE & ADMINISTRATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS & APPEALS ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION DOCKET NO.: WASTE TIRE FEE ( ) 1
STATE OF ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE & ADMINISTRATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS & APPEALS ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION IN THE MATTER OF WASTE TIRE FEE ASSESSMENT (ACCT. NO.: ) DOCKET NO.: 17-254 WASTE TIRE FEE
More informationIN THE MAGISTRATE DIVISION OF THE OREGON TAX COURT Income Tax ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
IN THE MAGISTRATE DIVISION OF THE OREGON TAX COURT Income Tax PHILIP SHERMAN AND VIVIAN SHERMAN, v. Plaintiffs, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, STATE OF OREGON, Defendant. No. 010072D DECISION ON CROSS MOTIONS
More informationOrder of the Thurston County
Order of the Thurston County Board of Equalization Property Owner: WASHINGTON STATE EMPLOYEES CREDIT UNION Parcel Number( s): 99700403800 Assessment Year: 2016 Petition Number: 16-0164 Having considered
More informationSTATE OF ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE & ADMINISTRATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS & APPEALS ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION TODD EVANS, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
STATE OF ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE & ADMINISTRATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS & APPEALS ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION IN THE MATTER OF ACCT. NO.: COMPENSATING (USE) TAX ASSESSMENT AUDIT NO.: DOCKET NO.: 18-237
More informationIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Salieri Group, Inc., : Appellant : : v. : No. 781 C.D. 2015 : Submitted: November 17, 2015 Beaver County Auxiliary Appeal : Board, County of Beaver, Big : Beaver
More informationState & Local Tax Alert
State & Local Tax Alert Breaking state and local tax developments from Grant Thornton LLP Texas Supreme Court Holds Oil and Gas Exploration and Production Equipment Subject to Sales Tax The Texas Supreme
More informationSTATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A K & R Landholdings, LLC, d/b/a High Banks Resort, Appellant, vs. Auto-Owners Insurance, Respondent.
STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A16-0660 K & R Landholdings, LLC, d/b/a High Banks Resort, Appellant, vs. Auto-Owners Insurance, Respondent. Filed February 12, 2018 Reversed and remanded Schellhas,
More informationCOURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH
COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02-09-00360-CR JOHNNIE THEDDEUS GARDNER APPELLANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE ------------ FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 2 OF TARRANT COUNTY
More informationState 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 informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE
NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c); ARCAP 28(c); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 IN THE COURT
More informationCITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH OPINION BY JUSTICE LEROY R. HASSELL, SR. v. Record No April 19, 2002
Present: All the Justices CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH OPINION BY JUSTICE LEROY R. HASSELL, SR. v. Record No. 011307 April 19, 2002 INTERNATIONAL FAMILY ENTERTAINMENT, INC. FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY
More informationNO. 46,598-CA NO. 46,599-CA NO. 46,600-CA (consolidated cases) COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA * * * * * * NO. 46,598-CA.
Judgment rendered August 17, 2011. Application for rehearing may be filed within the delay allowed by Art. 2166, La. C.C.P. NO. 46,598-CA NO. 46,599-CA NO. 46,600-CA (consolidated cases) COURT OF APPEAL
More informationSUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI en banc
SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI en banc BARTLETT INTERNATIONAL, INC., and ) BARTLETT GRAIN CO., L.P., ) ) Respondents, ) ) v. ) ) DIRECTOR OF REVENUE, ) ) Appellant. ) PETITION FOR REVIEW OF A DECISION OF THE
More informationAre Interests in Oil and Gas Joint Ventures Securities? Two Cases that Say No and One that Says Yes
HERRICK K. LIDSTONE, JR. 720 493 3195 hklidstone@bfw-law.com Are Interests in Oil and Gas Joint Ventures Securities? Two Cases that Say No and One that Says Yes By Herrick K. Lidstone, Jr. Burns, Figa
More informationOHIO BOARD OF TAX APPEALS
OHIO BOARD OF TAX APPEALS A.M. CASTLE & COMPANY, (et. al.), Appellant(s), vs. JOSEPH W. TESTA, TAX COMMISSIONER OF OHIO, (et. al.), CASE NO(S). 2013-5851 ( USE TAX ) DECISION AND ORDER Appellee(s). APPEARANCES:
More informationIn The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No CR. JEFFREY LYNN ADAY, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
Affirmed and Opinion Filed November 24, 2015 S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-14-01593-CR JEFFREY LYNN ADAY, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the
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 informationDISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT January Term 2014
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT January Term 2014 ROBERTO SOLANO and MARLENE SOLANO, Appellants, v. STATE FARM FLORIDA INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee. No. 4D12-1198 [May 14,
More informationARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION II
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION II No. CV-17-174 OPT, LLC V. APPELLANT CITY OF SPRINGDALE, ARKANSAS, AND DOUG SPROUSE, MAYOR APPELLEES Opinion Delivered: October 25, 2017 APPEAL FROM THE WASHINGTON
More informationTHE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT
THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT In Case No. 2017-0487, In re Simone Garczynski Irrevocable Trust, the court on July 26, 2018, issued the following order: The appellant, Michael Garczynski (Michael),
More informationARIZONA TAX COURT TX /19/2006 HONORABLE MARK W. ARMSTRONG
HONORABLE MARK W. ARMSTRONG CLERK OF THE COURT L. Slaughter Deputy FILED: PRAEDIUM IV CENTURY PLAZA LLC JIM L WRIGHT v. MARICOPA COUNTY KATHLEEN A PATTERSON DERYCK R LAVELLE PAUL J MOONEY JERRY A FRIES
More informationFourteenth Court of Appeals
Affirmed as Modified in Part; Reversed and Remanded in Part; and Opinion and Dissenting Opinion filed June 26, 2014. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-12-00941-CV UNITED NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
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 informationErcole Mirarchi v. Seneca Specialty Insurance Com
2014 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 4-29-2014 Ercole Mirarchi v. Seneca Specialty Insurance Com Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket
More informationAppeal from Jefferson Circuit Court, Action No. 99-CI ; Denise Clayton, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Kentucky. WOODWARD, HOBSON & FULTON, L.L.P., Appellant, v. REVENUE CABINET, Commonwealth of Kentucky, Appellees. No. 2000-CA-002784-MR. Feb. 22, 2002. Appeal from Jefferson Circuit
More informationSTATE OF ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE & ADMINISTRATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS & APPEALS ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION TODD EVANS, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
STATE OF ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE & ADMINISTRATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS & APPEALS ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION IN THE MATTER OF LICENSE NO.: DOCKET NO.: 19-209 GROSS RECEIPTS (SALES) TAX REFUND CLAIM DENIAL
More informationDepartment of Finance Post Office Box 3278 and Administration
STATE OF ARKANSAS OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR 1509 West Seventh Street, Suite 401 Department of Finance Post Office Box 3278 and Administration Little Rock, Arkansas 72203-3278 Phone: (501) 682-2242 Fax: (501)
More informationThis opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. 480A.08, subd. 3 (2014).
This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. 480A.08, subd. 3 (2014). STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A15-0224 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. A. D.
More information2016 Tax Return Due Dates, Expiring Credits, and Other Changes Summarized
January 2017 Illinois 2016 Tax Return Due Dates, Expiring Credits, and Other Changes Summarized The Illinois Department of Revenue (DOR) has issued a bulletin summarizing Illinois income tax return changes
More information