Regency Transportation, Inc. v. Commissioner of Revenue (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-004-16)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us SJC-11873 REGENCY TRANSPORTATION, INC. vs. COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE. Suffolk. November 5, 2015. – January 6, 2016. Present: Gants, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Duffly, Lenk, & Hines, JJ. Taxation, Sales and use tax, Abatement. Constitutional Law, Taxation, Commerce clause, Interstate commerce. Interstate Commerce. Appeal from a decision of the Appellate Tax Board. The Supreme Judicial Court granted an application for direct appellate review. Matthew A. Morris (Richard L. Jones with him) for the taxpayer. Marikae G. Toye (Joseph J. Tierney with her) for the Commissioner of Revenue. Elizabeth J. Atkinson, of Virginia, & Andrew J. Fay & Patrick E. McDonough, for Massachusetts Motor Transportation Association & others, amici curiae, submitted a brief. CORDY, J. Regency Transportation, Inc. (Regency), appeals from a decision of the Appellate Tax Board affirming in part the denial of an abatement of the motor vehicle use tax assessed against it under G. L. c. 64I, § 2. We granted Regency’s application for direct appellate review to decide whether an unapportioned use tax imposed on Regency’s interstate fleet of vehicles violates the commerce clause of the United States Constitution. For the reasons discussed herein, we conclude it does not.[1] 1. Background. The essential facts are not disputed. Regency is a Massachusetts S corporation that operates a freight business with terminals in Massachusetts and New Jersey. Regency is licensed by the Interstate Commerce Commission as an interstate carrier to operate a fleet of tractors and trailers. The Regency fleet carries and delivers goods throughout the eastern United States. Throughout the tax periods at issue, Regency maintained its corporate headquarters in Massachusetts, as well as four warehouses and a combined maintenance facility and terminal location which it used for repairing and storing vehicles in its fleet. Regency also operated five warehouses in New Jersey and two combined maintenance facility and terminal locations there. Regency performed thirty-five per cent of the maintenance and repair work on its fleet at its Massachusetts locations and thirty-five per cent of the work at its New Jersey locations, with the remainder being performed by third parties. All vehicles in the Regency fleet entered into Massachusetts at some point during the tax periods at issue, and during these same periods Regency employed between sixty-three and eighty-three per cent of its workforce in the Commonwealth. […]
Categories: News Tags: 1000416, Commissioner, Inc., Lawyers, Regency, Revenue, Transportation, Weekly
Schussel, et al. v. Commissioner of Revenue (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-107-15)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us SJC-11807 GEORGE SCHUSSEL & another[1] vs. COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE. Suffolk. March 3, 2015. – July 1, 2015. Present: Gants, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Duffly, Lenk, & Hines, JJ. Taxation, Appellate Tax Board: findings, Income tax, Gross income, Income tax returns. Words, “Tax-related.” Appeal from a decision of the Appellate Tax Board. After review by the Appeals Court, the Supreme Judicial Court granted leave to obtain further appellate review. Francis J. DiMento for the taxpayers. John M. Stephan, Assistant Attorney General, for Commissioner of Revenue. LENK, J. Since the 1970s, George and Sandra Schussel[2] have owned property and business interests in Massachusetts, and have had other close ties to the Commonwealth. The Schussels, who are married, filed no Massachusetts tax returns between 1989 and 2007. In 2007, George was convicted of Federal conspiracy and tax evasion charges in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The Commissioner of Revenue (commissioner) then issued the Schussels a notice of failure to file Massachusetts income tax returns for the years 1993, 1994, and 1995. When the Schussels subsequently filed tax returns for those years, the returns were determined by the commissioner to be “false or fraudulent,” or to have been filed “with a willful attempt . . . to defeat or evade the tax.” See G. L. c. 62C, § 28. Accordingly, the commissioner imposed a “double assessment” against the Schussels. The Schussels submitted a request for abatement of the double assessment, which the commissioner denied. The commissioner’s decisions were upheld by the Appellate Tax Board (board), and the Appeals Court affirmed. See Schussel v. Commissioner of Revenue, 86 Mass. App. Ct. 419, 431 (2014). We allowed the Schussels’ petition for further appellate review. Before us, the Schussels claim two errors. First, they contend that they were not properly subject to a double assessment. They note, in this context, that their tax returns were prepared for them by an attorney, and that they attached a “rider” to those returns, stating that the sums reported were the subject of Federal criminal proceedings against George. The Schussels’ second claim is that they were entitled to relief from the double assessment under an amnesty program established by the commissioner in 2009, pursuant to St. 2008, c. 461 (2009 amnesty program). Although the 2009 amnesty program does not apply to “any taxpayer who . . . […]
DIRECTV, LLC, et al. v. Department of Revenue (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-024-15)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us SJC-11658 DIRECTV, LLC, & another[1] vs. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE. Suffolk. November 4, 2014. – February 18, 2015. Present: Gants, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Duffly, Lenk, & Hines, JJ. Taxation, Excise, Broadcasting company. Interstate Commerce. Constitutional Law, Interstate commerce. Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on January 26, 2010. The case was heard by Thomas P. Billings, J., on motions for summary judgment. The Supreme Judicial Court granted an application for direct appellate review. E. Joshua Rosenkranz, of New York (Jeremy N. Kudon & Nicholas G. Green, of New York, Eric A. Shumsky, of the District of Columbia, & Kelley A. Jordan-Price with him) for the plaintiffs. Pierce O. Cray, Assistant Attorney General (Kirk G. Hanson, Assistant Attorney General, with him) for the defendant. The following submitted briefs for amici curiae: Eric S. Tresh, Amelia Toy Rudolph, & Zachary T. Atkins, of Georgia, & Nicholas M. O’Donnell & David Nagle for New England Cable & Telecommunications Association. John Bergmayer, of the District of Columbia, & Karen A. Pickett for Public Knowledge. Kristen S. Scammon for Satellite Broadcasting & Communications Association. John A. Hinman, of California, & Allison M. O’Neil & Jamie C. Notman for National Association of Wine Retailers. Sheldon H. Laskin & Lila D. Disque, of the District of Columbia, for Multistate Tax Commission. David Parkhurst, of the District of Columbia, & David Hadas for National Governors Association. LENK, J. General Laws c. 64M, § 2, imposes a five per cent excise tax on video programming delivered by direct broadcast satellite (tax). The plaintiffs are two companies that provide services subject to the tax (satellite companies). They brought a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief in the Superior Court, alleging that the tax violates the commerce clause of the United States Constitution.[2] The satellite companies contend that the tax discriminates against interstate commerce, both in its effect and in its purpose, by disfavoring them as compared with those companies that provide video programming via cable (cable companies). The satellite and cable companies that operate in Massachusetts are all incorporated and headquartered in other States; the satellite companies argue, however, that the cable companies represent in-State interests inasmuch as their in-State commercial operations are substantially greater than those of the satellite companies. A Superior Court judge granted summary judgment […]
The First Marblehead Corporation, et al. v. Commissioner of Revenue (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-010-15)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us SJC-11609 THE FIRST MARBLEHEAD CORPORATION & another[1] vs. COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE. Suffolk. October 7, 2014. – January 28, 2015. Present: Gants, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Duffly, Lenk, & Hines, JJ. Financial Institution. Taxation, Excise, Apportionment of tax burden. Constitutional Law, Taxation. Notice, Tax taking. Appeal from a decision of the Appellate Tax Board. The Supreme Judicial Court on its own initiative transferred the case from the Appeals Court. John S. Brown (Donald-Bruce Abrams with him) for the taxpayer. Brett M. Goldberg (Daniel J. Hammond, Assistant Attorney General, with him) for Commissioner of Revenue. Helen Hecht, Bruce Fort, Sheldon Laskin, & Lila Disque, of the District of Columbia, for Multistate Tax Commission, amicus curiae, submitted a brief. BOTSFORD, J. The taxpayers appeal from a decision of the Appellate Tax Board (board) issued pursuant to G. L. c. 58A, § 7, and G. L. c. 62C, § 39 (c); their focus is on the financial institution excise tax (FIET) liability of the taxpayer GATE Holdings, Inc. (Gate), that was at all relevant times a wholly owned subsidiary of the taxpayer The First Marblehead Corporation (FMC).[2] In its decision, the board accepted Gate’s position that it qualified as a “financial institution” under G. L. c. 63, § 1, and was entitled to apportion its income pursuant to G. L. c. 63, § 2A (§ 2A). The board, however, disagreed with Gate that in applying the apportionment rules of § 2A, all of Gate’s taxable property, which consisted of securitized student loans, should be assigned to States outside the Commonwealth. Rather, the board determined that all such property was properly assigned to Massachusetts, resulting in a greater FIET liability than Gate had calculated. We affirm the board’s decision.[3] Facts.[4] At issue here are the tax years ending June 30, 2004; June 30, 2005; and June 30, 2006 (tax years at issue). FMC was a publicly traded Delaware corporation with its principal offices in Boston, and during the tax years at issue was the principal tax-reporting corporation for itself, Gate, and a number of other subsidiaries. FMC was involved in the growing industry facilitating private loans to students seeking to finance the cost of their postsecondary education.FMC did not make any loans directly to student borrowers, but rather brought together various parties involved in lending, including postsecondary schools, banks that issued loans […]
Categories: News Tags: 1001015, Commissioner, Corporation, First, Lawyers, Marblehead, Revenue, Weekly
Schussel, et al. v. Commissioner of Revenue (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-123-14)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us 13-P-876 Appeals Court GEORGE SCHUSSEL & another[1] vs. COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE. No. 13-P-876 Suffolk. June 4, 2014. – September 30, 2014. Present: Graham, Meade, & Fecteau, JJ. Taxation, Appellate Tax Board: findings, Income tax, Gross income. Words, “Tax-related.” Appeal from a decision of the Appellate Tax Board. Francis J. DiMento for the taxpayers. John M. Stephan, Assistant Attorney General, for Commissioner of Revenue. GRAHAM, J. This is an appeal from an Appellate Tax Board (board) decision upholding the denial by the Commissioner of Revenue (commissioner) of a request for an abatement of double taxes assessed to George and Sandra Schussel (Schussels) for filing false or fraudulent income tax returns for the calendar years 1993, 1994, and 1995 (tax years at issue). The case presents three issues: first, whether the board erred as a matter of law in upholding the commissioner’s double tax assessment based on the Schussels’ false or fraudulent filings; second, whether the Schussels were entitled to amnesty from the double tax assessment; and third, whether the board erred as a matter of law in ruling that the seven-year look-back period for nonfiling taxpayers does not apply to the Schussels. We affirm. Background. The facts are taken from the board’s findings of fact and report. George[2] received his bachelor’s degree from the University of California in 1961. He attended graduate school at Harvard University, where he earned a master’s degree and Ph.D. in 1966. Sandra, who was born and raised in Lynn, attended the Peter Brent Brigham Hospital nursing school in Boston and graduated in 1962. She practiced as a registered nurse at The Children’s Hospital in Boston for six months before leaving to begin work as a flight attendant for American Airlines. The Schussels met in 1964 and were married the following year. They lived in Cambridge while George completed his education at Harvard. After George became employed, the couple relocated several times. The couple lived in New Jersey when their first daughter was born in 1970. Later that year, the Schussels moved back to Massachusetts, and George secured a job at American Mutual Insurance Company. In 1971, the family moved to Lynnfield. In 1979, George founded his own company, Digital Consulting, Inc. (DCI), which he incorporated in Massachusetts. DCI organized, promoted, and conducted trade shows and conferences that were designed to […]
MBTA Revenue Up Despite Ridership Fall
The transit service made more than half-a-billion dollars in 2013 for the first time ever in its history. South End Patch News
Sears, Roebuck & Co., et al. v. Commissioner of Revenue (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-078-13)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us 12‑P‑547 Appeals Court SEARS, ROEBUCK & CO. & another[1] vs. COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE. No. 12‑P‑547. Suffolk. January 17, 2013. ‑ June 19, 2013. Present: Cypher, Katzmann, & Rubin, JJ. Taxation, Sales tax. Debt. Appeal from a decision of the Appellate Tax Board. Michael J. Bowen for Sears, Roebuck & Co. Amy Spector, Assistant Attorney General, for Commissioner of Revenue. CYPHER, J. The plaintiff, Sears Roebuck & Co. (Sears), appeals from a decision of the Appellate Tax Board (board) denying its claims for reimbursement of sales taxes it remitted to the Commonwealth from purchases of its products by customers using a private label credit card issued by Citibank, N.A. (Citibank), and who later defaulted on their accounts with the bank. Facts. We summarize the background from the board’s findings based on the parties’ joint stipulation and their agreed statement of facts. Sears provided its customers the option of purchasing its products on credit with a private label credit card issued by Citibank. As a vendor registered with the Commissioner of Revenue (commissioner), Sears was required to collect and remit sales tax on tangible personal property to the Department of Revenue (department). G. L. c. 64H, § 2, as in effect prior to St. 2009, c. 27, § 53. Under its agreement with Sears, Citibank extended credit to the purchasers, and paid Sears the full retail price of the purchases, including the applicable sales tax. Obligated to remit the sales tax after the sale is completed, G. L. c. 64H, § 1, Sears subsequently remitted the sales tax for each sale to the department with its sales tax returns. When some of the purchasers defaulted on their accounts, Citibank wrote off those accounts after determining they were worthless. While Sears was unaffected by those losses, it nevertheless decided to seek reimbursement of the sales tax it had remitted to the department, pursuant to G. L. c. 64H, § 33, as in effect prior to St. 2008, c. 182, § 42, the so-called “bad debt statute.” Household Retail Servs., Inc. v. Commissioner of Rev., 448 Mass. 226, 227 (2007) (Household). Sears’s claims, filed with the commissioner in December, 2007, were denied. Sears then appealed the commissioner’s refusal to abate or refund the sales tax to the board pursuant to G. L. c. 62C, § 39. After a hearing, the board granted the commissioner’s motion […]