Justia U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The Michigan State Real Estate Transfer Tax, MICH.COMP.LAWS 207.521, and the County Real Estate Transfer Tax, section 207.501, impose a tax when a deed or other instrument of conveyance is recorded during the transfer of real property. The tax is imposed upon “the person who is the seller or grantor.” State and county plaintiffs sought to recover transfer taxes for real property transfers recorded by Fannie Mae, a corporation chartered by Congress to “establish secondary market facilities for residential mortgages,” in order to “provide stability in the secondary market for residential mortgages,” and “promote access to mortgage credit throughout the Nation,” 12 U.S.C. 1716; Freddie Mac, also a corporation chartered by Congress for substantially the same purposes; and the Federal Housing Finance Agency, an independent federal agency, created under the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, 12 U.S.C. 4617, which placed Fannie and Freddie into conservatorships, 12 U.S.C. 4617(a)(2). When Congress created defendants, it expressly exempted them from “all” state and local taxes except for taxes on real property. The district court entered summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, reasoning that “transfer taxes are excise taxes, not taxes on real property. The Sixth Circuit reversed. View "Genesee Cty, v. Fed. Hous. Fin. Agency" on Justia Law

Kerman founded Kenmark. By 2000 its annual sales of eyeglass frames approached $35 million. Kerman’s personal net worth topped $12.5 million. Kerman was Kenmark’s sole owner until 2000, when Kerman sold 27 percent of his stock for $6.1 million to Kenmark’s employee stock ownership plan, realizing a taxable gain of $5.4 million. Kerman consulted his financial advisor and pursued a “Custom Adjustable Rate Debt Structure,” tax-saving strategy. A British company (not subject to U.S. tax law) borrowed foreign currency from a foreign bank; the U.S. taxpayer would receive some of the borrowed currency, would agree to be jointly liable for the entire loan, and would exchange his portion of the foreign currency for dollars. A currency exchange is taxable. The taxpayer would claim that the currency’s basis was the full loan amount, not the small amount of currency actually purchased. Because of the inflated basis, the taxpayer would claim a loss. The dollars would be deposited in the same foreign bank with the balance of the foreign currency and be used to pay off the loan. The IRS disallowed the deduction and imposed a penalty, 26 U.S.C. 6662(e), 6662(h). The tax court and Sixth Circuit affirmed, finding that the transaction lacked economic substance and Kerman lacked good faith to believe that it did. View "Kerman v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue" on Justia Law

Abraitis brought a challenge to the reasonableness of an IRS jeopardy determination, 26 U.S.C. 7429 (b). The district court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, based on the statutory requirement that the taxpayer seek administrative review within 30 days of receiving the notice of jeopardy levy. The court rejected his argument that various bad-faith actions by the IRS excuse his neglect and permitted judicial review. The exhaustion requirement is not jurisdictional, but is mandatory. View "Abraitis v. United States" on Justia Law

Having secured extensions, the Stockers filed their 2003 tax return in October 2004. In March 2007, the IRS settled an audit of an entity in which the Stockers had lost money. Flintoff, their tax preparer, determined that the Stockers had overpaid 2003 taxes by $64,058 and prepared an amended return, required to be filed within three years of October 15, 2004, 26 U.S.C. 6511(a). Stocker claims that he mailed it at the post office on October 15, but was unable to get date-stamped receipts, because of Flintoff’s failure to give him customer copies of certified mail receipts. Although simultaneous mailings were timely received, the IRS claims that it received the return on October 25; its records reflect that the envelope was postmarked October 19, but it did not retain the envelope. The return-receipt card, to be completed by the certified mail recipient, was left blank and returned to Flintoff, who unsuccessfully requested reconsideration of the refund claim. The district court dismissed. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding that the Stockers could not establish the jurisdictional prerequisite of a timely-filed return under any method recognized in the Internal Revenue Code or precedent for determining the date of delivery of a federal tax return. View "Stocker v. United States" on Justia Law

SEW operated 113 franchise Waffle House restaurants when it filed its Chapter 11 petition in 2008. From January, 2005, to the Petition Date, SEW did not pay federal income tax withholding, social security (FICA), or unemployment (FUTA) taxes or timely file returns. During four years before the Petition Date, the IRS assessed penalties of more than $1,500,000. SEW subsequently made payments that were applied to its tax obligations and also made undesignated prepetition payments that were applied in partial satisfaction of the assessed penalties. SEW later sought recovery of prepetition tax penalty payments of $637,652.07 or an offset against the tax amounts still owed. SEW alleged that payment of these penalties provided no value to SEW; that SEW did not receive reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the Penalty Payments; that at the time that of the payments, SEW was insolvent; and cited 11 U.S.C. 548 and 544. The government argued that dollar-for-dollar reduction in SEW’s antecedent tax-penalty liabilities constituted reasonably equivalent value. SEW did not allege that the penalty obligations were themselves avoidable. The Bankruptcy court dismissed SEW’s adversary petition for failure to state a clam. The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel and Sixth Circuit affirmed. View "SE Waffles, LLC v. U.S. Dep't of Treasury" on Justia Law

In 2000-2001Alioto spent several hundred thousand dollars of his own money on expenses relating to a new business (BRT) involving use of “celebrity talent” to create internet advertising. Alioto became involved in BRT after being approached by the actor, John Ratzenberger, and claims that he believed he would be reimbursed by Ratzenberger for funds expended on behalf of the business, but was never fully repaid. Alioto filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition, listing $341,363 outstanding loans owed to him from BRT as part of his assets. Alioto sought to deduct the unreimbursed funds as losses for tax year 2005 and to carry forward some of these losses as deductions for tax years 2006 and 2007. The IRS denied the deductions and issued notices of deficiency. The Tax Court agreed. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, upholding determinations that any business losses occurred prior to 2005, 26 U.S.C. 165(a) and that the losses did not amount to theft under section 165 (e). View "Alioto v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue" on Justia Law

The Companies manufacture and distribute high-speed cigarette rolling machines that retailers offer to customers who want to roll their own roll cigarettes. Treasury and the Bureau are charged with enforcing the excise tax on tobacco products, 26 U.S.C. 5701. Before the Bureau issued Ruling 2010-4, retailers offering the Companies’ machines to customers were not liable for the excise tax because they were not considered manufacturers. The Ruling deems the retailers manufacturers, and requires them to acquire manufacturer permits and pay the excise tax. The Companies sought, and the district court granted, a preliminary injunction prohibiting enforcement of the Ruling. During the pendency of appeal, Congress passed and the President signed into law the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act, which authorized funding for highways and other transit programs, with partial funding to come from amendment of the definition of “manufacturer of tobacco products” to include retailers who make roll-your-own machines available to customers, thereby achieving the same result as the Ruling. The Sixth Circuit vacated and directed that the case be dismissed. The statutory amendment mooted the controversy and the Anti-Injunction Act precluded the court’s exercise of jurisdiction View "Ryo Mach. Rental, LLC, v. U.S. Dep't of Treasury" on Justia Law

Lesley and Fogg presented the Benistar 419 Plan to the Ouwingas, their accountant, and their attorney, providing a legal opinion that contributions were tax-deductible and that the Ouwingas could take money out tax-free. The Ouwingas made substantial contributions, which were used to purchase John Hancock life insurance policies. In 2003, Lesley and Fogg told the Ouwingas that the IRS had changed the rules; that the Ouwingas would need to contribute additional money; and that, while this might signal closing of the “loophole,” there was no concern about tax benefits already claimed. In 2006, the Ouwingas decided to transfer out of the Plans. John Hancock again advised that there would be no taxable consequences and that the Plan met IRS requirements for tax deductible treatment. The Ouwingas signed a purported liability release. In 2008, the IRS notified the Ouwingas that it was disallowing deductions, deeming the Plan an “abusive tax shelter.” The Ouwingas filed a class action against Benistar Defendants, John Hancock entities, lawyers, Lesley, and Fogg, alleging conspiracy to defraud (RICO, 18 U.S.C. 1962(c), (d)), negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, and violations of consumer protection laws. The district court dismissed. The Sixth Circuit reversed, View "Ouwinga v. Benistar 419 Plan Servs., Inc." on Justia Law

In 1998, Harchars filed a Chapter 13 petition. The government was a creditor because of a tax arrearage. A reorganization plan was confirmed, requiring that they pay in full priority tax claims and pay five cents on the dollar, over 43 months, unsecured, nonpriority claims by the government and similarly-situated creditors. In 2000, Harchars pursued an adversary proceeding, alleging injury caused by the government’s practice of “freezing” computer-automated refunding of tax overpayments to Chapter 13 debtors and refusal to issue a refund for their 1999 return until after the bankruptcy court resolved its motion to modify the plan to include the refund in plan funding. Harchars opposed the motion, explaining that they had separated, husband was no longer employed, and the refund was needed for living expenses. After Harchars filed amended schedules, the IRS withdrew its motion and issued the refund with interest. The bankruptcy court concluded that the IRS had not violated the automatic stay by manually processing or withholding the tax refund. The district court affirmed and held that a due-process claim was barred by sovereign immunity and that Harchars did not identify any provision of the plan that had been violated. The Sixth Circuit affirmed and dismissed the claims. View "Harchar v. United States" on Justia Law

Customers who rent rooms from the online travel companies pay those companies a higher “retail” rate; the online travel companies pay the hotels an agreed-upon “wholesale” rate, plus any taxes applicable to the “wholesale” price. Ohio allows municipalities and townships to levy excise taxes on “transactions by which lodging by a hotel is or is to be furnished to transient guests.” Ohio Rev. Code 5739.08.The municipalities alleged that the online travel companies violated local tax laws by failing to pay the local occupancy tax on the revenue they collect in the form of the difference between the “wholesale” room rate and the higher “retail” rate charged by the online travel companies. In granting the travel companies’ motion to dismiss, the district court determined that the companies had no obligation under any of the ordinances, regulations, or resolutions to collect and remit guest taxes because the laws created tax-collection obligations only for “vendors,” “operators,” and “hotels.” The Sixth Circuit affirmed. The language of the laws is aimed expressly at taxing the cost of furnishing hotel lodging, and does not purport to tax the additional fees charged by the online travel companies. View "City of Columbus v. Hotels.com, L.P." on Justia Law