KAO LAW ASSOCIATES ATTORNEYS AT LAW

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "KAO LAW ASSOCIATES ATTORNEYS AT LAW"

Transcription

1 KAO LAW ASSOCIATES ATTORNEYS AT LAW WILLIAM CORNELL ARCHBOLD, JR* JOSEPH PATRICK O'BRIEN** JOHN YANOSHAK CHRISTOPHER H. PEIFER*** OF COUNSEL FRED KREPPEL GLEN MADERE EDWARD KASSAB *ALSO MEMBER DC BAR **LLM TAXATION *** ALSO MEMBER NJ BAR FORMER PA HOUSE SPEAKER MATTHEW J. RYAN APPEAL DATES APPROACHING! ANATOMY OF A REAL ESTATE TAX ASSESSMENT APPEAL IN PENNSYLVANIA GENERAL OBSERVATIONS ON THE PA REAL ESTATE TAX APPEAL PROCESS AS OF SPRING DUE DATES All real estate tax assessment appeals in Pennsylvania are initiated in the County Board of Assessment Appeals in the County where the appealed property is situated. (In some counties the Board may have a slightly different name). All annual appeals (excluding Allegheny County) are appeals of the following tax year. Appeals must be filed on September 1 of the year preceding the tax year appealed except for counties which can elect an appeal date anywhere between August 1 and September 1. 2 For example, Delaware, Chester, Montgomery and Bucks County have elected August 1 while Berks County has elected August 15th as a filing date. 1 For a more comprehensive review of real estate tax assessment Law in Pennsylvania see the FAQ s on our website 2 The Philadelphia filing date is the First Monday of October preceding the tax year e.g. October 4, 2012 for The appeal date for Allegheny County is April 1 and is of the current tax year, e.g. April 1, 2012, for the 2013 year.

2 Montgomery County, in May 2012 elected to use the August 1, 2012 appeal date for An appeal filed on August 1, 2012, August 15, 2012 or September 1, 2012 in these counties is an appeal of the January 1, 2013 county and municipality (city, borough, township) and the July 1, 2013-June 30, 2014 school fiscal year tax. Appeals must be actually received by the Board on or before the due date; the mailing date does not do it. 3 However, if the due date falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or a Holiday, the next legal business day becomes the due date. FORMS Each Board has its own forms to be used for the Appeal. There are no standard state wide forms. Typically, the form asks for more information than may be available but it is best to complete it as thoroughly as possible. (Arguably, a letter identifying the assessment being appealed is the only statutory requirement.) Many counties have different residential and commercial forms and many have a website with its own rules and forms published there. BOARD FILING FEE Some counties impose a filing fee, just to file an assessment appeal to the Board of Assessment Appeals, e.g., Chester County: $25.00 for residential and $50.00 for commercial property; Delaware County: $50.00 residential, $ commercial; and Montgomery County $50 -$100 residential and $200 commercial. (Many attorneys question the legality of such fees and also any distinction between types of property. This is being litigated.) 3 Some counties will accept postmarked dates but this is questionable; and there is no authority to extend the filing date. 2

3 SCHEDULING OF BOARD HEARINGS Most annual appeals are scheduled for Board hearings in August, September or October but no sooner than 10 days following the filing and they are held in the year preceding the tax year appealed. 4 Annual Board of Assessment Appeals Hearings have to be completed and acted upon by the Board by October 31 of the year preceding the tax year. 5 The tax roll of the county as adjusted by any appeal changes closes on the November 15th preceding the tax year, so any changes due to Board appeal must be mailed before then. INTERIM APPEALS An exception to the above is an interim appeal due to any improvement over $2500, new construction, or subdivision (with improvement), typically increasing an assessment immediately during the current year and effective as of the date in the notice date. (as compared to future effect of annual appeals) Stringent notice requirements must be met by the Board. The interim appeal date to the Board is 40 days from the date of that interim notice (not the effective date of the increase). BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS HEARING APPEARANCE: NECESSITY The taxpayer and/or his or her attorney must personally appear at the Board hearing (although some counties do permit an appeal, without personal appearance, by written waiver). The failure of either to appear can result in the appeal being deemed abandoned which means 4 Except Philadelphia and Allegheny Counties 5 Different rules apply for Philadelphia and Allegheny Counties and for counties undertaking a county wide reassessment 3

4 there is no right to appeal the Board s denial to the Court of Common Pleas of the County. There must first be a completed written appeal to the Board, a Board hearing attended by the taxpayer or representative, and a Board result even if there is a denial. ATTENDING THE HEARING Except in rare instances, it is better practice for the attorney to attend the Board hearings without the client attending. However, many circumstances are such that the clients availability may be helpful on an individual case by case basis. Practice varies as to whether the County Board of Assessment Solicitor and/or the School District and/the Municipality Solicitor, or all of them attend the Board hearings. BOARD HEARING FORMALITY AND LENGTH A few counties are very formal with swearing in of witnesses and almost court like procedures. Most are very informal. Most hearings last only a few minutes. EVIDENCE AT HEARING-APPRAISAL In a perfect world, where value is the issue, each real estate owner should have an appraiser with appraisal report available for the Board hearing (each county varies by the number of copies, and number of days in advance, etc.). In some instances a copy of a recent appraisal from a recent sale or refinance is sufficient while in others, the actual appearance of the appraiser to testify is necessary. There are however, many instances where past experience suggests that working earnestly to have an appraisal ready for a Board Hearing (which is usually scheduled days after the appeal has been filed) is often difficult or impossible. Additionally, many Boards, as a matter of common practice, simply deny most appeals forcing the taxpayer to 4

5 appeal to court anyway. In some counties, the attendance of an owner making a persuasive argument may be helpful to persuade the Board, without an appraisal, using only relevant comparables or income and expense information from income properties. Also, even if one obtains an appraisal and is granted a Board reduction, either side (owner or any taxing district) still has the right to appeal the Board decision to the Court of Common Pleas, either because the owner thinks there wasn t a sufficient reduction, or because a taxing district (county, municipality or school) concludes that the reduction was unjustified. In some counties, Board s ignore the case law holdings that a taxpayer may only be represented by an attorney licensed in Pennsylvania but then will often make a minor under adjustment to the assessment appealed perhaps making the callous determination that the accountant tax consultant or other non-lawyer attempting to represent the taxpayer before the Board will accept or recommend a minor, less than justified, reduction rather than admit to the client that the non-lawyer will not be able to file a de novo appeal of the Board s decision to the County Court of Common Pleas. EFFECTIVE DATE OF BOARD DECISION A change in assessment resulting from an annual appeal (hopefully a reduction but theoretically the Board could increase the assessment) at the Board level, whether or not appealed to court, is still effective immediately for the following tax year (January 1 for County and Municipality and July 1 for School) and will be reflected on the tax bill of the tax year following the Board Hearing even if appealed to court by a taxing district or the owner. If there is a Board denial, the old assessment remains and appears on subsequent tax bills until a 5

6 reduction is ordered by Court; that later change is then retroactive to the beginning of the original tax year appealed. A pending appeal in the Court of Common Pleas acts as an appeal of subsequent tax years without another, e.g. annual appeal to the Board. WHEN IS THE BOARD S RESULT ANNOUNCED? After the hearing before the Board (which could last from one minute to one hour depending on county), the appellant is told that the Board s decision will be mailed and it is not announced at the hearing (except in a few counties e.g. Dauphin and Cumberland counties). While some counties may mail Board hearing results before all the hearings are completed most counties wait until after October 31, and mail all of their hearing results at once on or before November 15, following the hearing. The Board notice is sent to the person who filed the appeal but if the attorney filed, it is mailed to the attorney. In either event, the owner should notify the attorney if the result is sent to the owner. It is good practice to inquire to be certain the result was correctly sent. CAN THE BOARD S DECISION BE APPEALED? As indicated, either side, taxpayer or taxing district(s), can appeal the result of the Board hearing to Court. A petition to appeal the Board s decision to court must be filed within 30 days from the date printed on the Board s decision. If the taxpayer appeals, the Petition must not only be filed in the Court of Common Pleas of the County but also served by certified mail on the various taxing districts. (see local Court rules) There typically is a several hundred dollar filing fee paid to the Prothonotary or similar County Office for the Petition to the Court in each County. Generally one Petition must be filed for each property parcel (one filing fee per 6

7 Petition). (Class Actions can differ). In some counties where there are multiple properties on the same appealed site owned by one owner, a single Petition may be permitted but generally not. The Petition requires the written Verification (like an affidavit) by the owner, and a copy of the appealed Board decision. WHAT HAPPENS AFTER THE APPEAL TO COURT? Once the appeal Petition is filed to Court of Common Pleas of the County, typically in the beginning of the December preceding the tax year being appealed,(but within 30 days of the Board Result Notice) shortly thereafter, the taxing districts direct their lawyers to file an Answer or Entry of Appearance, meaning they are actively involved in the case. Where the taxing district has filed an appeal to Court of the Boards decision, the owner is given notice, and the owner of the property has his or her attorney file an Answer and or Entry of Appearance depending on county practice. Once a Board decision is appealed to the Court of Common Pleas, County practice varies substantially. Only an attorney licensed in PA may represent an owner. EFFECTIVE DATE/REFUNDS/CREDITS/INTEREST If the Board did not make a reduction, the original assessment remains on the county tax rolls and continues to show up on the county, municipality and school district tax bills until the case is resolved. Once a tax assessment case is resolved, if there is a reduction it dates back to the first January of the original tax year appealed (July 1 for School) and usually results in a refund to the owner (or a refund from one or two districts and a credit from the other). Case law 7

8 and statutory changes require payment of interest on refunds from the date of overpayment, but this is often negotiated away as part of the settlement and rarely agreed unless there is a Court decision. ASSESSMENT INCREASE If there was an assessment reduction at the Board, and/or upon appeal to Court the taxing district obtained an increase in assessment, (or, essentially, rolled back or negotiated some of the reduction granted at the Board level) this likewise dates back to the first day of the tax year(s) pending. There is no interest due on an increased assessment since the increase is a new assessment and interest does not start until it is assessed. DO I HAVE TO PAY MY TAXES WHILE UNDER APPEAL? All taxes must be paid at the current assessment until the appeal is settled or resolved. Non payment results in the 10% late payment penalty plus interest and could result in a delinquency and Upset/Judicial sale of the property by the County Tax Claim Bureau for a delinquency of more than two years. PAYMENT UNDER PROTEST-ESCROW BY TAXING DISTRICT While taxes must be paid pending an appeal to avoid delinquency and possible judicial sale, the Taxpayer should pay each tax with the statement UNDER APPEAL IN COURT CCP # - PAID UNDER PROTEST-PLEASE ESCROW 25% on the check and in a separate letter, identifying the property and the folio/parcel number. The taxing district receiving this notice supposed to escrow 25% and not use it pending resolution. Not all taxing districts follow this directive. 8

9 WHAT HAPPENS IF THE APPEAL CARRIES OVER INTO SEVERAL TAX YEARS? Once an appeal is filed in the Court of Common Pleas, whether an annual appeal or interim appeal, this acts as a continuing appeal of each subsequent tax year until resolved in the County Court so it is unnecessary to file a new Board Appeal each year. This does not prevent a separate strategic subsequent year appeal to the Board, but it is not common. COUNTY PROCEDURES: DELAWARE COUNTY In Delaware County, once the Petition has been filed to Court and appearances entered, there is a Call of the List generally held in the early Spring following this filing of the appeal at which time tax cases involving a dispute of less than $50,000 in real estate taxes for a particular year (based upon the disputed value difference times the assessment ratio times the total millage) are assigned to arbitration before an arbitration panel of three lawyers in the county. 6 Under the Delaware County rule, for arbitrated cases, both taxing district and tax payer are supposed to exchange their appraisals simultaneously before the hearing date. (For income properties, three (3) years operating statements [income and expense] and a current rent roll and sample lease must be supplied to the taxing district). In practice, both sides often agree to get informal numbers or, if one side has an appraisal, it will be shared with the other side, usually the taxing district, to determine if an amicable resolution can be reached without the taxing districts, or the taxpayer, undertaking the cost of a full hearing ready appraisal (or update of an 9

10 existing one including the hearing attendance fee of the expert appraisers). This usually results in the first scheduled arbitration being continued because it is often difficult for the taxing district to obtain a negotiable number from its appraiser that quickly; and while there are sometimes, simply, scheduling conflicts, this is the most usual reason for continuing tax appeal arbitration hearings in Delaware County. Furthermore, often times, both parties might tentatively agree as to an assessment value but still need the formal approval of the owner and the taxing districts which often happens just before an arbitration is scheduled. If a tax appeal case is appealed from the Board to the Court, it is rare if it is resolved in less than 1-2 years. Furthermore, by the time a case is first assigned an arbitration date, the new Common Level Ratio for the tax year following the year appealed has been published or is generally known. The new CLR may be used to argue for a further reduction for the subsequent tax year(s). Appeals over the %50,000 arbitration threshold, or those involving novel legal issues, are assigned to a Judge and procedure differs. MONTGOMERY COUNTY Montgomery County is problematic because it is very difficult to get a court hearing once an appeal is filed to Court. (There is no arbitration in any county court except Delaware County.) As a general rule, you cannot get a case assigned to a pool to be assigned for a hearing before a judge, until all parties will stipulate that the case is ready. Another problem with Montgomery County is that it permits Discovery which, in general terms, means delay, interrogatories, depositions, etc. There is a Commonwealth Court decision Borough of Churchill, which has held that there is no Discovery in tax appeals unless it is specifically permitted by local rule of court but Montgomery County permits it. In most other counties the discovery is limited to an 6 See discussion Trial v. Arbitration See also Delaware County Local Rule 1301* 10

11 exchange of appraisals. This is not the case in Montgomery County, so that usually extensive interrogatories are issued by the taxing district which must first be answered. There is a tremendous case backlog of several years or more in Montgomery County before one may get a tax appeal case even listed for trial let alone scheduled for a hearing date. This is important because most cases tend to get settled once there is an actual date of trial. A 2-4 year lag is not uncommon. As a means of expediting an individual appeal, good procedure is to file an immediate Request for Production of the Taxing Districts Appraisal. After the taxpayers appraisal is ready and has been turned over to the School District a common technique is to file a request for agreement to file a Trial Praecipe. 7 Additionally, a Rule 212 Conference with the Judge should be requested. CHESTER COUNTY In Chester County there is no arbitration and the local Court rule requires that the taxpayer must provide its appraisal to the taxing authority within sixty (60) days after the filing of the Petition to Court; and there is no requirement as to mutual exchange of appraisals. Income and Expense and rent rolls of investment properties must be supplied by the taxpayer to the taxing districts. (Rule 500(c)(3)) This can work as a disadvantage because this means the taxpayer almost always has to undertake the cost of an appraisal report which eliminates the ability to save cost for the school district and the taxpayer but, depending upon the parties, it is pretty much the rule to be followed. If one fails to provide an appraisal to the county in 60 days, 7 President Judge s note: Local Rule 212.1*(d) Conferences - Members of the Bar are advised that the Board of Judges has agreed to discontinue the practice of ordering cases on the civil trial list where discovery has not been completed, and allowing for discovery to be ongoing. Delays in completing discovery may be addressed through traditional available mechanisms; court orders, with sanctions for failure to comply. - President Judge Joseph A. Smyth,February

12 a Motion is often filed by the Solicitor of the County Board of Assessment seeking to prevent any evidence to be offered from appraisal testimony. Here, the county solicitor is the primary attorney except in the larger cases where the school district attorney becomes involved. A case is usually on the judge s trial list less than six (6) months from the Petition being filed. Most cases are resolved in less than a year. BUCKS COUNTY Bucks County, which has an August 1, Board appeal date, is another county where it is difficult to have a case listed for trial. Discovery is generally allowed which means that it is difficult to get the parties to agree to list the case for trial. The longer the delay the less relevant any appraisal obtained early will be, and so typically parties postpone appraisals. Thus, discovery is drawn out over a long period of time. As a result, a 2-4 year delay is common. OTHER COUNTIES As indicated, practice varies. LAWYER S INVOLVEMENT It should also be mentioned that practice within the counties varies as far as the involvement of counsel is concerned. In some counties like Delaware County, the lead counsel is the school district solicitor (the school districts generally always have about 80% of the tax millage involved) through and including the trial of the case; the involvement of the county and municipality attorney is minimal except in very large cases. In other counties such as Montgomery County, the school district lawyer, the county lawyer, the county Board of Assessment lawyer and the municipality lawyer are all involved and while one would be 12

13 primarily dealing with the school district lawyer there is a greater involvement with all the other attorneys. In the other counties, particularly in the smaller counties, the county solicitor or Board of Assessment solicitor is the only attorney involved except in very large cases. SETTLEMENT If a settlement before trial is reached the parties lawyers sign a Joint Stipulation to a Court Order to the new assessment(s) and it is submitted to the Judge for approval. With 3-4 lawyers involved and a judge to sign after all of the lawyers have obtained client approval, this can take 6-12 weeks. Refunds take about 4-12 weeks from that date. TRIAL vs. ARBITRATION Except in Delaware County, tax appeal cases are generally handled like all other non-jury civil trial cases. In Delaware County, the matter is assigned first to arbitration with a date usually two (2) to four (4) months away and if not settled beforehand it is arbitrated in front of a three lawyer panel just as it would be tried in front of the judge. 8 That arbitration panel renders a decision the day of the arbitration and either side has 30 days to appeal that further for a non-jury trial in front of a judge. If the arbitration result is appealed by either side then it becomes de novo meaning that it is assigned to a judge and the judge hears it without giving any weight to the arbitration panel s decision. There is a filing fee of $300 to appeal the arbitration result for a hearing before a judge. Most cases do get settled before an arbitration unless there is a difficult legal matter. Not many cases are appealed beyond the arbitration level to Court. 8 There are some tax appeal matters in Delaware County, in addition to those involving more than $50,000, which involve new evolving issues of law and regardless of the dollar amount are assigned to a judge. Likewise, any exemption cases are assigned to a judge or if the amount involved is more than $50,000, it is assigned to a judge. 13

14 In Delaware County, cases are assigned to individual judges and they notify the parties of the hearing date or of a trial term when the case may be called for a hearing. Other counties may simply assign the case to a trial pool. Needless to say, at this point both sides have appraisals and those appraisers will have to testify as expert witnesses at the hearing before the judge. If it is an appeal after the arbitration, the expert has already given the testimony before the arbitrators but it must be repeated. Rarely is the owner s attendance necessary for a hearing before the arbitrators (except for unique questions about the property). TRIAL BEFORE A COUNTY JUDGE All tax assessment appeals before any County Court of Common Pleas judge are non-jury trials and follow usual trial procedures. After trial before a judge, depending on the judge, there may be an instant finding from the bench, a later opinion, or there will be a request from all attorneys for written Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law 9 after which the judge will render an opinion based upon what he or she has made Findings upon. This could take 2-6 months. Generally, a transcript of the testimony will first have to be made as a reference which can cause further delay. APPEAL FROM COURT OF COMMON PLEAS DECISION Once the judge had rendered a decision, either side can appeal that decision to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania within 30 days as a matter of right. If a case is appealed to the Commonwealth Court there is generally a fairly expensive printing of the transcript and record that is necessary as well as full final printed briefs from each side and an actual argument of the case before this appellate court. When the Commonwealth Court renders a 14

15 decision,(usually 3-9 months after argument) this may be appealed to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania but the Supreme Court has the discretion of whether or not to accept such an appeal and it rarely does. The Supreme Court s decision to even allow an appeal may take 1-2 years. 9 Required by local rule in Chester County. 15

BLAIR COUNTY ASSESSMENT APPEALS RULES AND REGULATIONS

BLAIR COUNTY ASSESSMENT APPEALS RULES AND REGULATIONS BLAIR COUNTY ASSESSMENT APPEALS RULES AND REGULATIONS I. FILING OF APPEAL 1. STANDING TO APPEAL: The Board of Assessment Revision/Board of Assessment Appeals (or such auxiliary appeal boards or alternates

More information

Procedures for Protest to New York State and City Tribunals

Procedures for Protest to New York State and City Tribunals September 25, 1997 Procedures for Protest to New York State and City Tribunals By: Glenn Newman This new feature of the New York Law Journal will highlight cases involving New York State and City tax controversies

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Lawrence Lee and Victoria : Evstafieva, : Appellants : : v. : No. 1041 C.D. 2016 : ARGUED: March 6, 2017 Luzerne County Tax Claim Bureau : BEFORE: HONORABLE RENÉE

More information

2018 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. 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 information

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CARBON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL DIVISION

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CARBON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL DIVISION IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CARBON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL DIVISION CARBON COUNTY TAX CLAIM BUREAU, : Plaintiff : : vs. : No. 11-0850 : RIDGEWOOD COUNTRY ESTATES : HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.,

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA In Re: Petition of the Venango County : Tax Claim Bureau for Judicial : Sale of Lands Free and Clear : of all Taxes and Municipal Claims, : Mortgages, Liens, Charges

More information

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P Appellant No EDA 2012

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P Appellant No EDA 2012 J-S70010-13 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. RICHARD JARMON Appellant No. 3275 EDA 2012 Appeal

More information

Metro Atlanta Business Court 2016 Annual Report

Metro Atlanta Business Court 2016 Annual Report 2016 Metro Atlanta Business Court 2016 Annual Report 1 Fulton County Superior Court Governing Rules On June 3, 2005, the Supreme Court of Georgia promulgated Atlanta Judicial Circuit Rule 1004 governing

More information

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P

NON-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 information

PREPARING FOR ARBITRATION ARBITRATION BEFORE FINRA

PREPARING FOR ARBITRATION ARBITRATION BEFORE FINRA PREPARING FOR ARBITRATION ARBITRATION BEFORE FINRA Introduction This paper is meant to be used as an informal supplement to the chapter on Preparing for Arbitration: A Plaintiff Lawyer s View, 1 and will

More information

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P J-A19008-13 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 ROY H. LOMAS, SR., D/B/A ROY LOMAS CARPET CONTRACTOR, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. JAMES B. KRAVITZ, ANDORRA

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN 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 information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA In Re: Return and Report of an : Upset Tax Sale held by the : Cumberland County Tax Claim : Bureau on September 20, 2007 : No. 1829 C.D. 2008 : Re: Property of

More information

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 PAUL J. PREISINGER IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. HEATHER FOX AND CONSTANCE J. LOUGHNER APPEAL OF: HEATHER FOX No. 18 WDA 2015 Appeal

More information

County of Adams Rules of the Board of Assessment Appeals Adopted August 22, 2012

County of Adams Rules of the Board of Assessment Appeals Adopted August 22, 2012 County of Adams Rules of the Board of Assessment Appeals Adopted August 22, 2012 A. GENERAL RULES Rule A-1. Time for Filing All annual appeals from the assessment of real estate must be properly filed

More information

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. JOHN BRADLEY PETERS, SR., Appellant No. 645 WDA 2012 Appeal from

More information

APPEAL PROCEDURES, RULES and REGULATIONS

APPEAL PROCEDURES, RULES and REGULATIONS APPEAL PROCEDURES, RULES and REGULATIONS Rule # BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS OF CLEARFIELD COUNTY A. GENERAL RULES 1) TIME for FILING: All annual appeals from the assessment of real estate must be properly

More information

Protest Procedure: A Primer

Protest 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 information

ALAMEDA COUNTY ASSESSMENT APPEALS BOARD AND EQUALIZATION HEARING OFFICER INSTRUCTION BOOKLET

ALAMEDA COUNTY ASSESSMENT APPEALS BOARD AND EQUALIZATION HEARING OFFICER INSTRUCTION BOOKLET ALAMEDA COUNTY ASSESSMENT APPEALS BOARD AND EQUALIZATION HEARING OFFICER INSTRUCTION BOOKLET OFFICE OF THE CLERK-ADMINISTRATOR ASSESSMENT APPEALS BOARD P. O. BOX 1499 OAKLAND, CA 94612-1499 (510) 272-3854

More information

2016 PA Super 262. Appellant No MDA 2015

2016 PA Super 262. Appellant No MDA 2015 2016 PA Super 262 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. HENRY L. WILLIAMS, Appellant No. 2078 MDA 2015 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence October 16, 2015 In

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA John H. Morley, Jr., : Appellant : : v. : No. 3056 C.D. 2002 : Submitted: January 2, 2004 City of Philadelphia : Licenses & Inspections Unit, : Philadelphia Police

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Grand Prix Harrisburg, LLC, : Appellant : : v. : No. 2037 C.D. 2011 : Argued: June 4, 2012 Dauphin County Board of : Assessment Appeals, Dauphin : County, Central

More information

Local Government Commission Summary

Local Government Commission Summary ACT 93 of 2010 (Senate Bill 918, Printer s Number 2205) Local Government Commission Summary CONSOLIDATED COUNTY ASSESSMENT LAW I. What Act 93 Does (1) This act amends Title 53 (Municipalities Generally)

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Montgomery County Tax Claim : Bureau : : No. 209 C.D. 2014 v. : : Argued: October 7, 2014 Barbara Queenan, : Appellant : BEFORE: HONORABLE ROBERT SIMPSON, Judge

More information

ORDINANCE NO. WHEREAS, Act , was approved and adopted May 5, 1998 by the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; and

ORDINANCE NO. WHEREAS, Act , was approved and adopted May 5, 1998 by the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; and ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE TOWNSHIP OF HANOVER, NORTHAMPTON COUNTY, IN THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA AMENDING THE CODE OF THE TOWNSHIP OF HANOVER CODE OF ORDINANCES

More information

The Audit is Over Now What?

The Audit is Over Now What? Where Do We Go From Here: A Comparison of Alternatives When You and the IRS Agree to Disagree JENNY LOUISE JOHNSON, Holland & Knight LLP Co-Chair of Tax Controversy Practice CHARLES E. HODGES, Kilpatrick

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Arthur Alan Wolk, Philip Browndies, : and Catherine Marchand : : v. : No. 1465 C.D. 2016 : ARGUED: December 15, 2016 The School District of Lower Merion, : Appellant

More information

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P : : : : : : : : :

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P : : : : : : : : : NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 IN RE ESTATE OF VERA GAZAK, DECEASED APPEAL OF F. RICHARD GAZAK IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 1215 EDA 2017 Appeal from the Decree

More information

v No Wayne Circuit Court

v 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 information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN 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 information

TESTIMONY BY THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE ASSOCIATION OF TOWNSHIP SUPERVISORS BEFORE THE SENATE STATE GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE SB 444 (PN 983) PRESENTED BY

TESTIMONY BY THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE ASSOCIATION OF TOWNSHIP SUPERVISORS BEFORE THE SENATE STATE GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE SB 444 (PN 983) PRESENTED BY TESTIMONY BY THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE ASSOCIATION OF TOWNSHIP SUPERVISORS BEFORE THE SENATE STATE GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE ON SB 444 (PN 983) PRESENTED BY LESTER HOUCK, PSATS PRESIDENT SALISBURY TOWNSHIP, LANCASTER

More information

2017 Salt Lake County Board of Equalization Administrative Rules

2017 Salt Lake County Board of Equalization Administrative Rules 2017 Salt Lake County Board of Equalization Administrative Rules Adopted 18 July 2017 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. GENERAL PROVISIONS... 1 II. AUTHORITY OF THE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION... 1 III. APPLICATIONS FOR

More information

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P Appellant No. 482 MDA 2013

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P Appellant No. 482 MDA 2013 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. TERRY SIMONTON, JR., Appellant No. 482 MDA 2013 Appeal from the

More information

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 GARY DUNSWORTH AND CYNTHIA DUNSWORTH, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellees v. THE DESIGN STUDIO AT 301, INC., Appellant No. 2071 MDA

More information

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MICHAEL J. DOTSKO v. Appellant No. 2580 EDA 2015 Appeal from the

More information

COURT OF APPEALS FAIRFIELD COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

COURT OF APPEALS FAIRFIELD COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT [Cite as Johnson-Floyd v. REM Ohio, Inc., 2011-Ohio-6542.] COURT OF APPEALS FAIRFIELD COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT RHODA JOHNSON-FLOYD Plaintiff-Appellant -vs- REM OHIO, INC., ET AL. Defendants-Appellees

More information

HOW THE 1998 TAX ACT AFFECTS YOUR DEALINGS WITH THE IRS APPEALS OFFICE. The IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998.

HOW THE 1998 TAX ACT AFFECTS YOUR DEALINGS WITH THE IRS APPEALS OFFICE. The IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998. HOW THE 1998 TAX ACT AFFECTS YOUR DEALINGS WITH THE IRS APPEALS OFFICE The IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 January 22, 1999 Robert M. Kane, Jr. LeSourd & Patten, P.S. 600 University Street, Ste

More information

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 SABR MORTGAGE LOAN 2008-1 SUBSIDIARY-1, LLC, C/O OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC 1661 WORTHINGTON ROAD #100, WEST PALM BEACH, FL 33409 IN THE SUPERIOR

More information

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM v. Case No. 5D

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM v. Case No. 5D IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM 2013 EMMETT B. HAGOOD, III, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

More information

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT January Term 2011

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT January Term 2011 DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT January Term 2011 CENTRAL SQUARE TARRAGON LLC, a Florida limited liability company, for itself and as assignee of AGU Entertainment Corporation,

More information

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 VINCENT R. BOLTZ, INC., Appellant IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. ESKAY REALTY COMPANY AND S. KANTOR COMPANY, INC., AND ALLEN D. FELDMAN,

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA City of Philadelphia : : v. : No. 2178 C.D. 2013 : Submitted: October 6, 2014 John Hummel, Jr., : Appellant : BEFORE: HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, Judge

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Tax Claim Bureau of Lehigh : County 2013 Upset Tax Sale : : Objectors: Noe Gutierrez and : Susana Gutierrez : : Appeal of: Susana Gutierrez, : individually and

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA JOHN R. LEE and WALLACE J. SZOTT, Appellants v. No. 1466 C.D. 1998 MUNICIPALITY OF BETHEL PARK Argued November 16, 1998 and the BETHEL PARK POLICE RETIREMENT PENSION

More information

Circuit 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 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 information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Theodore R. Robinson, : Petitioner : : v. : : State Employees' Retirement Board, : No. 1136 C.D. 2014 Respondent : Submitted: October 31, 2014 BEFORE: HONORABLE

More information

PROMISSORY NOTE. 2.1 Payments. During the term of this Note, Borrower shall pay to Lender as follows:

PROMISSORY NOTE. 2.1 Payments. During the term of this Note, Borrower shall pay to Lender as follows: PROMISSORY NOTE $41,500.00, 2017 FOR VALUE RECEIVED, without defalcation, and intending to be legally bound hereby, CHARLES A MELTON ARTS & EDUCATION CENTER, a Pennsylvania nonprofit corporation, with

More information

TAX LITIGATION MEMORANDUM

TAX LITIGATION MEMORANDUM LAW OFFICES DAVID L. SILVERMAN, J.D., LL.M. 2001 MARCUS AVENUE LAKE SUCCESS, NEW YORK 11042 (516) 466-5900 SILVERMAN, DAVID L. TELECOPIER (516) 437-7292 NYTAXATTY@AOL.COM AMINOFF, SHIRLEE AMINOFFS@GMAIL.COM

More information

BOARD OF ASSESSMENT REVIEW OF NEW CASTLE COUNTY RULES OF PROCEDURE

BOARD OF ASSESSMENT REVIEW OF NEW CASTLE COUNTY RULES OF PROCEDURE Revised: May 17, 2018 BOARD OF ASSESSMENT REVIEW OF NEW CASTLE COUNTY RULES OF PROCEDURE Article I. Authorization. The Board of Assessment Review of New Castle County (hereinafter referred to as the Board

More information

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P : : : : : : : : :

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P : : : : : : : : : NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. ROBERT WILLIAMS Appellant IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 1631 EDA 2016 Appeal from the Judgment of

More information

Comptroller Tax Process Improvements

Comptroller Tax Process Improvements Comptroller Tax Process Improvements Introduction Comptroller Susan Combs announces improvements to all phases of the Comptroller s tax process. After transferring the Administrative Law Judges (ALJs)

More information

Court judgment that denied a petition for postconviction relief. filed by Kavin Lee Peeples, defendant below and appellant herein.

Court judgment that denied a petition for postconviction relief. filed by Kavin Lee Peeples, defendant below and appellant herein. [Cite as State v. Peeples, 2006-Ohio-218.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT PICKAWAY COUNTY STATE OF OHIO, : Plaintiff-Appellee, : Case No. 05CA25 vs. : KAVIN LEE PEEPLES, : DECISION

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Southwest Regional Tax : Bureau, : Appellant : : v. : No. 2038 C.D. 2011 : Argued: June 4, 2012 William B. Kania and : Eleanor R. Kania, his wife : BEFORE: HONORABLE

More information

Lawyer Views on Mandatory Arbitration

Lawyer Views on Mandatory Arbitration In its July/August issue, Arizona Attorney magazine published the results of a lawyer survey regarding court-connected arbitration. This article the second in the series examines how mandatory arbitration

More information

v. STATE BOARD OPINION

v. STATE BOARD OPINION VALERIE SHRYOCK, Appellant BEFORE THE MARYLAND v. STATE BOARD CARROLL COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, Appellee OF EDUCATION Opinion No. 00-42 OPINION In this appeal, a former teacher for the Carroll County

More information

Part VIII RULES GOVERNING PRACTICE IN THE TAX COURT OF NEW JERSEY TABLE OF CONTENTS

Part VIII RULES GOVERNING PRACTICE IN THE TAX COURT OF NEW JERSEY TABLE OF CONTENTS APPENDIX C - New Jersey Tax Court Rules Part VIII RULES GOVERNING PRACTICE IN THE TAX COURT OF NEW JERSEY Rule 8:1. Rule 8:2. Rule 8:3. Rule 8:4. Rule 8:5. TABLE OF CONTENTS Scope: Applicability Review

More information

Various publications, including FTB Publication 7277, "Personal Personal Income Tax Notice of Action

Various publications, including FTB Publication 7277, Personal Personal Income Tax Notice of Action M0RRISON I FOERS 'ER Legal Updates & News Legal Updates California State Board of Equalization Adopts New Rules for Franchise Tax Board Tax Appeals May 2008 by Eric J. Cofill Coffill Related Practices:

More information

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. IRA NEAL GOLDBERG Appellant No. 732 MDA 2014 Appeal from the PCRA

More information

UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No September Term, 2015 ALAN CORNFIELD ELIZABETH FERIA

UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No September Term, 2015 ALAN CORNFIELD ELIZABETH FERIA UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 1169 September Term, 2015 ALAN CORNFIELD v. ELIZABETH FERIA Eyler, Deborah S., Nazarian, Sharer, J. Frederick (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned),

More information

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. WILLIAM ERIC WEBB Appellant No. 540 EDA 2016 Appeal from the PCRA Order

More information

Chapter 3 Preparing the Record

Chapter 3 Preparing the Record Chapter 3 Preparing the Record After filing the Notice of Appeal, the appellant next needs to specify what items are to be in the record (the official account of what went on at the hearing or the trial

More information

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 THE DESIGN STUDIO AT 301, INC. Appellant IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. GARY AND CYNTHIA DUNSWORTH, Appellees No. 2070 MDA 2015 Appeal

More information

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 HALFPENNY MANAGEMENT CO. AND RICHARD CARR, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. JAMES D. SCHNELLER, Appellant No. 2095 EDA 2014

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI WILLIAM M. MILEY, JR.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI WILLIAM M. MILEY, JR. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI RITA FAYE MILEY VERSES WILLIAM M. MILEY, JR. APPELLANT CASE NO. 2008-TS-00677 APPELLEE BRIEF OF APPELLEE WILLIAM

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA. Michael Definis, : Appellant : No C.D v. : Argued: March 7, 2016

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA. Michael Definis, : Appellant : No C.D v. : Argued: March 7, 2016 IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA In Re Tax Sale of September 8, 2014 Michael Definis, Appellant No. 1132 C.D. 2015 v. Argued March 7, 2016 Wayne County Tax Claim Bureau, Brian Delrio, and Anchor

More information

CASE NO. 1D Roy W. Jordan, Jr., of Roy W. Jordan, Jr., P.A., West Palm Beach, for Appellant.

CASE 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 information

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. WANDA LEVAN Appellant No. 992 EDA 2014 Appeal from the Order entered

More information

Comparison between SCC arbitration and CIETAC arbitration

Comparison between SCC arbitration and CIETAC arbitration 1 Comparison between SCC arbitration and CIETAC arbitration by Dai Wen 1 and Linn Bergman 2 General Comparison The rules of the SCC and the CIETAC are similar in many ways. Both rules respect party autonomy,

More information

DELL SERVICE CONTRACT TAX REFUND CLAIMS SETTLEMENT ( SBE Settlement )

DELL SERVICE CONTRACT TAX REFUND CLAIMS SETTLEMENT ( SBE Settlement ) LEGAL NOTICE DELL SERVICE CONTRACT TAX REFUND CLAIMS SETTLEMENT ( SBE Settlement ) Mohan, et al. v. Dell Inc., et al. Superior Court (San Francisco) Case Nos. CGC 03-419192; CJC-05-004442 NOTICE OF CLASS

More information

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P Appellant No. 44 MDA 2013

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P Appellant No. 44 MDA 2013 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. WAYNE EUGENE EBERSOLE, JR., Appellant No. 44 MDA 2013 Appeal

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Jeffrey Kovach, Winona Kovach and : Debra Doriguzzi, : : Appellants : : v. : No. 1303 C.D. 2012 : Tri County Joint Municipal Authority : Submitted: April 16, 2013

More information

SEC. 5. SMALL CASE PROCEDURE FOR REQUESTING COMPETENT AUTHORITY ASSISTANCE.01 General.02 Small Case Standards.03 Small Case Filing Procedure

SEC. 5. SMALL CASE PROCEDURE FOR REQUESTING COMPETENT AUTHORITY ASSISTANCE.01 General.02 Small Case Standards.03 Small Case Filing Procedure 26 CFR 601.201: Rulings and determination letters. Rev. Proc. 96 13 OUTLINE SECTION 1. PURPOSE OF MUTUAL AGREEMENT PROCESS SEC. 2. SCOPE Suspension.02 Requests for Assistance.03 U.S. Competent Authority.04

More information

A Sweet Win for Hershey Medical Center s Proposed Merger: District Court Denies FTC s Attempt to Block Pennsylvania Hospital Merger

A Sweet Win for Hershey Medical Center s Proposed Merger: District Court Denies FTC s Attempt to Block Pennsylvania Hospital Merger A Sweet Win for Hershey Medical Center s Proposed Merger: District Court Denies FTC s Attempt to Block Pennsylvania Hospital Merger CLIENT ALERT May 16, 2016 Barbara T. Sicalides sicalidesb@pepperlaw.com

More information

(Civil Service Commission, decided September 24, 2008) DISCUSSION

(Civil Service Commission, decided September 24, 2008) DISCUSSION In the Matter of Christopher Gialanella and Fiore Purcell, Police Lieutenant (PM2622G), Newark DOP Docket No. 2006-3470 (Civil Service Commission, decided September 24, 2008) The appeals of Christopher

More information

: : CRIMINAL DIVISION : : QUION BRATTEN, :

: : CRIMINAL DIVISION : : QUION BRATTEN, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LYCOMING COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA COMMONWEALTH : No. CR-1402-2011 : vs. : CRIMINAL DIVISION : : QUION BRATTEN, : Appellant : 1925(a) Opinion OPINION IN SUPPORT OF ORDER IN COMPLIANCE

More information

DEVELOPMENTAL PROGRAMS BULLETIN COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE

DEVELOPMENTAL PROGRAMS BULLETIN COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE DEVELOPMENTAL PROGRAMS BULLETIN COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE DATE OF ISSUE April 10, 2008 EFFECTIVE DATE April 10, 2008 NUMBER 00-08-05 SUBJECT: Due Process and Fair Hearing

More information

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 ROX-ANN REIFER, Appellant IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. WESTPORT INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee No. 321 MDA 2015 Appeal from the Order

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Peter C. Wood, Jr., : Appellant : : No. 1348 C.D. 2013 v. : : Submitted: January 10, 2014 City of Philadelphia : BEFORE: HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER,

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA In Re: Consolidated Return of : Luzerne County Tax Claim : Bureau of the Upset Tax Sale of : Properties held on April 26, 2013 : No. 2091 C.D. 2013 : Submitted:

More information

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Petitioner Z Financial, LLC, appeals both the trial court s granting of equitable

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Petitioner Z Financial, LLC, appeals both the trial court s granting of equitable FOURTH DIVISION April 30, 2009 No. 1-08-1445 In re THE APPLICATION OF THE COUNTY TREASURER AND Ex Officio COUNTY COLLECTOR OF COOK COUNTY ILLINOIS, FOR JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF SALE AGAINST REAL ESTATE RETURNED

More information

County Boards of Equalization: Creation, Duties, and Statutory Procedures

County Boards of Equalization: Creation, Duties, and Statutory Procedures County Boards of Equalization: Creation, Duties, and Statutory Procedures Prepared and Presented By F. Barry Wilkes Clerk of the Superior Court of Liberty County General Provisions Laws specifically pertaining

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA In Re: Appeal of Maoying Yu from : the Delaware County Board of : Assessment and Revision of Taxes : Folio #14-00-01186-00 Municipality: : Darby Borough Address:

More information

No. 45,945-CA COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA * * * * * Versus * * * * *

No. 45,945-CA COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA * * * * * Versus * * * * * Judgment rendered January 26, 2011. Application for rehearing may be filed within the delay allowed by Art. 2166, La. C.C.P. No. 45,945-CA COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA * * * * * CITIBANK

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA JAMES W. KNIGHT v. No. 290 C.D. 1999 ELIZABETH FORWARD SCHOOL Argued November 4, 1999 DISTRICT, Appellant BEFORE HONORABLE JOSEPH T. DOYLE, President Judge HONORABLE

More information

New Jersey Division of Taxation

New Jersey Division of Taxation New Jersey Division of Taxation Protest and Conference Guidebook Office of Counsel Services Conference and Appeals Branch October 2017 CAB-300 Protest and Conference Guidebook Page 2 Submitting a Protest

More information

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY BRANDYWINE REALTY ) MANAGEMENT, INC., ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) C.A. No. 00A-12-005-JEB ) JACK HOROWITZ and ) TRUDY LOGE, ) ) Appellees.

More information

THE HANDBOOK OF THE LICENSE APPEAL COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO

THE HANDBOOK OF THE LICENSE APPEAL COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO THE HANDBOOK OF THE LICENSE APPEAL COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO RICHARD J. DALEY CENTER 50 WEST WASHINGTON STREET ROOM - CL 21 CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60602 (312) 744-4095 www.cityofchicago.org/lac The

More information

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P : : : : : : : : :

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P : : : : : : : : : NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. AKEEM JOHNSON Appellant IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 2880 EDA 2016 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence

More information

Property Tax Alert. Don t Miss Your Chance To Appeal Your Company s Real Property Tax Assessment. Introduction

Property Tax Alert. Don t Miss Your Chance To Appeal Your Company s Real Property Tax Assessment. Introduction July 2007 Authors: Jacqueline E. Bedard +1.717.231.5877 jacqueline.bedard@klgates.com Evan A. Bloch +1.412.355.6234 evan.bloch@klgates.com David R. Cohen +1.412.355.8682 david.cohen@klgates.com Raymond

More information

Case 1:06-cv Document 40 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION

Case 1:06-cv Document 40 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION Case 1:06-cv-02176 Document 40 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION JOHN O. FINZER, JR. and ELIZABETH M. FINZER, Plaintiffs,

More information

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P Appellant No WDA 2014

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P Appellant No WDA 2014 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 HELEN LEWANDOWSKI AND ROBERT A. LEWANDOWSKI, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF DECEASED HELEN LEWANDOWSKI, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Rashed Kabir, : Appellant : v. : : Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, : Department of Transportation, : No. 264 C.D. 2010 Bureau of Driver Licensing : Submitted: July

More information

Duties of Department of Revenue. NC General Statutes - Chapter 105 Article 15 1

Duties of Department of Revenue. NC General Statutes - Chapter 105 Article 15 1 Article 15. Duties of Department and Property Tax Commission as to Assessments. 105-288. Property Tax Commission. (a) Creation and Membership. The Property Tax Commission is created. It consists of five

More information

2016 PA Super 82 OPINION BY MUNDY, J.: FILED APRIL 11, Appellant, Bung Thi Nguyen, appeals from the order dated April 6,

2016 PA Super 82 OPINION BY MUNDY, J.: FILED APRIL 11, Appellant, Bung Thi Nguyen, appeals from the order dated April 6, 2016 PA Super 82 GENERATION MORTGAGE COMPANY Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. BUNG THI NGUYEN Appellant No. 1069 EDA 2015 Appeal from the Order Dated April 6, 2015 In the Court of Common

More information

2014 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 1

2014 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 1 2010 WL 1600562 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available. NOTICE: THIS OPINION IS NOT DESIGNATED FOR PERMANENT PUBLICATION AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY NEB. CT. R. APP. P. s 2-102(E).

More information

State Tax Return (214) (214)

State Tax Return (214) (214) 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:

More information

Child Care Center Licensing Manual (August 2016)

Child Care Center Licensing Manual (August 2016) Child Care Center Licensing Manual (August 2016) for use with COMAR 13A.16 Child Care Centers (as amended effective 7/20/15) Table of Contents COMAR 13A.16.18 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS.01 Scope...1.02 Definitions...1.03

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MICHAEL LEMANSKY, : Petitioner : : v. : No. 140 C.D. 1999 : ARGUED: June 14, 1999 WORKERS COMPENSATION : APPEAL BOARD (HAGAN ICE : CREAM COMPANY), : Respondent

More information

SECTION 5. SMALL CASE PROCEDURE FOR REQUESTING COMPETENT AUTHORITY ASSISTANCE.01 General.02 Small Case Standards.03 Small Case Filing Procedure

SECTION 5. SMALL CASE PROCEDURE FOR REQUESTING COMPETENT AUTHORITY ASSISTANCE.01 General.02 Small Case Standards.03 Small Case Filing Procedure Rev. Proc. 2002 52 SECTION 1. PURPOSE OF THE REVENUE PROCEDURE SECTION 2. SCOPE.01 In General.02 Requests for Assistance.03 Authority of the U.S. Competent Authority.04 General Process.05 Failure to Request

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION. v. Case No Honorable Patrick J. Duggan FIRST BANK OF DELAWARE,

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION. v. Case No Honorable Patrick J. Duggan FIRST BANK OF DELAWARE, Case 2:10-cv-11345-PJD-MJH Document 12 Filed 07/07/10 Page 1 of 7 ANTHONY O. WILSON, Plaintiff, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION v. Case No. 10-11345 Honorable

More information