You are here: / / Equipment Leases Are Not “Securities” for Purposes of Tax Law

Equipment Leases Are Not “Securities” for Purposes of Tax Law

In a detailed decision going into depth on many of the related issues, the Third Department determined that (1) leases of equipment which the customer has the option to buy at the end of the term and (2) installment sales of equipment in which title is conferred to the customer at the outset, both referred to as “financial agreements,” were not “securities” and therefore the related interest was not “investment income” within the meaning of Tax Law 208:

Business income is defined as “entire net income minus investment income” (Tax Law § 208 [8]); investment income, as relevant here, is defined as “income . . . [derived] from investment capital” less allowable deductions (Tax Law § 208 [6]), which is “investments in stocks, bonds and other securities, corporate and governmental, not held for sale to customers in the regular course of business” (see Tax Law § 208 [5] [emphasis added]).  The corporate franchise tax statutes do not offer a definition of the term security or the phrase “other securities.”  The [Tax] Department’s regulations provide that the phrase “stocks, bonds and other securities,” among other things, means “debt instruments issued by . . . government[s]” (20 NYCRR 3-3.2 [c] [2]).  Petitioner’s main argument is that the finance agreements in issue constitute such debt instruments and, thus, the income derived therefrom is investment income under Tax Law § 208 (5) and (6).  The [Tax Appeals] Tribunal rejected this interpretation, and we confirm.  Xerox Corp v NYS Tax Appeals Tribunal, 514464, 3rd Dept 10-24-13

 

You might also like
No Need to Be Affiliated with an Authorized Rescue Entity or Volunteer Agency to Qualify for Benefits from World Trade Center Volunteer Fund
A JAIL PHONE CALL IN WHICH DEFENDANT SAID HE MIGHT PLEAD GUILTY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED BECAUSE ITS PREJUDICIAL EFFECT OUTWEIGHED ANY PROBATIVE VALUE; THE PROSECUTOR’S SUMMATION REFERENCE TO THE PORTION OF THE PHONE CALL IN WHICH DEFENDANT SAID HE NEEDED A “PAID LAWYER” WAS AN IMPROPER USE OF THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL AGAINST THE DEFENDANT; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (THIRD DEPT).
 DISPUTED BOUNDARY PROVEN THROUGH DOCTRINE OF PRACTICAL LOCATION.
Where One Resident Consents to a Search and Another Resident Does Not Consent, the Search Can Not Be Executed—However, the Refusal to Consent Is Only Operative As Long As the Objecting Resident Is Physically Present
PERMITTING NONRESPONSIVE ANSWERS FROM WITNESSES AND NOT ADDRESSING THE PEOPLE’S FAILURE TO PRESENT THE CONFIDENTIAL INFORMANT AS A WITNESS CONSTITUTED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE.
NEITHER THE “HABIT” NOR THE “ERROR IN JUDGMENT” JURY INSTRUCTION WAS APPROPRIATE IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (THIRD DEPT).
THE DENIAL OF RELIGIOUS EXEMPTIONS TO THE COVID VACCINE MANDATE WAS NOT ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS (THIRD DEPT). ​
Substantial Evidence Supported Finding Claimant Was an Employee, Not an Independent Contractor

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Letters Between Attorney and City Re: Fees Did Not Create Unilateral Contra... Construction of Dock Could Not Be Regulated by Town—Land Under Navigable...