You are here: / Tax Law
, , ,

ABSENT AN ORDER BASED UPON AN EXCEPTION TO THE SECRECY PROVSIONS IN TAX LAW SECTION 697, THE NYS DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION AND FINANCE WAS NOT REQUIRED TO TURN OVER TAX FORMS SUBMITTED BY THE CORPORATE DEFENDANTS IN THIS LABOR LAW ACTION TO RECOVER UNPAID WAGES AND TIPS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiffs’ subpoena demanding that the nonparty NYS Department of Taxation and Finance turn over tax forms submitted by the corporate defendants should have been quashed. The plaintiffs brought a class action to recover unpaid wages and tips pursuant to Labor Law 196-d. The relevant portion of the Tax Law prohibits disclosure of the tax forms absent an order based upon an exception in the controlling statute:

The Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the Department’s motion which was to quash so much of the subpoena as sought “All Form NYS-45 for each quarter from 2009 until present submitted by or related to” the corporate defendants pursuant to Tax Law § 697 (see CPLR 2304). The Department established that it should not be required to disclose the information contained in any return filed with it, as, pursuant to Tax Law § 697(e)(1) and (2), “‘[e]xcept in accordance with proper judicial order or as otherwise provided by law, it shall be unlawful’ for the [D]epartment or any of its officers to divulge the information contained in any return filed with it, and . . . it ‘shall not be required to produce any of them or evidence of anything contained in them in any action or proceeding in any court'” … . “[A] ‘proper order’ is one which either effectuates the enumerated exceptions within the statute or which arises out of a case in which the report is itself at issue, as in a forgery or perjury prosecution” … . In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to identify any exceptions to the statute … or demonstrate extraordinary circumstances … . Cornejo v Rose Castle Corp., 2024 NY Slip Op 04193, Second Dept 8-14-24

Practice Point: The NYS Department of Taxation and Finance is not required to turn over tax forms pursuant to a subpoena absent a court order based upon an exception to the privacy/secrecy provisions in Tax Law section 697​.

 

,

APPELLANTS IMPROPERLY DEDUCTED ROYALTY PAYMENTS RECEIVED FROM FOREIGN AFFILIATE CORPORATIONS WHICH WERE NOT SUBJECT TO NEW YORK FRANCHISE TAXES (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Cannataro, over a two-judge concurrence, determined the appellant corporations improperly deducted royalty payments received from foreign affiliates not subject to New York’s franchise taxes:

Under a taxation scheme in effect from 2003 through 2013, New York allowed corporations that paid franchise taxes in New York to deduct income received as royalty payments from members of the same corporate group, or family, in calculating their taxable income. The deduction was allowed only if the royalty payment came from a related entity that had already paid a New York tax on the same income through operation of another provision in the Tax Law that required companies to add back royalty payments made to related entities for the purposes of calculating their own taxable income.

In these cases, the state Department of Taxation and Finance determined that appellants improperly deducted royalty payments they received from affiliates in foreign countries that were not subject to New York franchise taxes and, so, were not required to add those payments back on a New York tax return. Appellants challenge the Tribunal’s denial of the deduction as being contrary to the clear language of the statute and as violating the Commerce Clause’s prohibition on discrimination against foreign commerce. Because the Appellate Division correctly interpreted the statutes as permitting a tax deduction only where a related subsidiary was subject to the add back requirement, and because any burden on interstate or foreign commerce created by this tax scheme was incidental and did not violate the dormant Commerce Clause, we affirm. Matter of Matter of Walt Disney Co. & Consol. Subsidiaries v Tax Appeals Trib. of the State of New York, 2024 NY Slip Op 02127, CtApp 4-23-24

Practice Point: Corporations may not deduct royalties received from foreign affiliate corporations which are not subject to New York’s franchise taxes.

 

, ,

PETITIONER, THE PRESIDENT AND MAJORITY STOCK HOLDER OF A CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, WAS THE “PERSON RESPONSIBLE” FOR COLLECTING AND PAYING EMPLOYEE WITHHOLDING TAXES; TWO-JUDGE DISSENT (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Cannataro, over a two-judge dissent, affirming the New York State Tax Tribunal and the Appellate Division, determined petitioner, the president and majority shareholder of a construction company, was the person responsible for the collection and payment of employee withholding taxes:

… [P]etitioner and the dissenters argue that the Tribunal employed an incorrect legal test in making its determination, under Tax Law § 685 (g), that petitioner was a person responsible for the collection and payment of employee withholding taxes on behalf of New England Construction Company, Inc. (NECC), a corporation of which petitioner was president and the majority shareholder, and on behalf of which petitioner had repeatedly held himself out as being responsible for payment of taxes. We conclude that the Tribunal committed no such error. Rather, in resolving the question before it, the Tribunal properly considered whether petitioner had the actual authority and effective power to pay the withholding taxes and, thus, was a “responsible person” under section 685. Moreover, substantial evidence supports the Tribunal’s determination that petitioner willfully failed to pay the withholding taxes. * * *

Under Tax Law § 685 (g), a person may be held liable for the withholding taxes of a corporation if the person is “required to collect, truthfully account for, and pay over the tax imposed” and “willfully fails to collect such tax or . . . willfully attempts in any manner to evade or defeat the tax or the payment thereof.” … [S]ection 685 (g) essentially provides that “a person responsible for collecting and paying taxes withheld from employees’ wages is liable for a 100% civil penalty if [that person] willfully fails to collect and pay over the tax” … . Such a responsible person includes “an officer or employee of a corporation . . . who . . . is under a duty to perform the act in respect of which the violation occurs” … . Under the broad terms of this definition, more than one person can be a responsible person under Tax Law § 685 … . Because section 685 (g) was modeled after 26 USC § 6672 (a) … , the terms in the former are to be interpreted in conformity with the latter unless a different meaning is clearly required … . Matter of Black v New York State Tax Appeals Trib., 2023 NY Slip Op 05961, CtApp, 11-20-23

Practice Point: Tax Law 685 makes the “person responsible” for the collection and payment of employee withholding taxes civilly liable for failure to pay the tax.

 

, , , ,

THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION ALLEGING THE COUNTY TAX MAP VERIFICATION FEES CONSTITUTED UNAUTHORIZED TAXES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the plaintiffs’ declaratory judgment action should not have been dismissed. Plaintiffs alleged that certain fees (tax map verification fees) charged by the county’s Real Property Tax Service Agency constituted taxes which were not legislatively authorized:

… [T]he tax map verification fees were not expressly authorized by the State Legislature through the 2019 revisions to CPLR 8019 and 8021. A tax is exacted from a citizen to “defray the general costs of government unrelated to any particular benefit received by that citizen” … . “The State Constitution vests the taxing power in the state legislature and authorizes the legislature to delegate that power to local governments” ( … see NY Const, art XVI, § 1). “‘[T]he delegation of any part of [the] power [of taxation] to a subdivision of the State must be made in express terms,’ and the delegation of any form of taxation authority ‘cannot be inferred'” … .. “The legislature must describe with specificity the taxes authorized by any enabling statute. In turn, local governments can only levy and collect taxes within the expressed limitations of specific enabling legislation” … .

Here, while the revisions to CPLR 8019 and 8021 reference the County’s authority to collect tax map verification fees … , the revisions do not provide an express delegation of taxing authority, nor do they provide for a review mechanism, as is constitutionally required … . Cella v Suffolk County, 2023 NY Slip Op 05387, Second Dept 10-25-23

Practice Point: Fees imposed by a county which are not justified by the related expenses may constitute unauthorized taxes.

 

, , , ,

PLAINTIFF-TENANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE, AS A MATTER OF LAW, THAT DEFENDANTS ENGAGED IN A FRAUDULENT SCHEME TO DEREGULATE APARTMENTS WHILE RECEIVING J51 TAX BENEFITS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Kennedy, over a comprehensive, two-justice dissenting opinion, determined plaintiff-tenants did not demonstrate, as a matter of law, a fraudulent scheme on the part of the defendants re: deregulation of apartments while receiving J51 tax benefits. The facts and legal discussions are too detailed and complex to fairly summarize here:

The issues presented on this appeal are (1) what is the appropriate base date rent for calculating damages and (2) whether the record before us sets forth evidence of a fraudulent scheme to deregulate the subject apartments to permit use of the default formula pursuant to Rent Stabilization Code (RSC) (9 NYCRR) § 2526.1(g). * * *

… [W]e conclude that the record before us did not establish evidence of a fraudulent scheme to deregulate the subject apartments as a matter of law, and that it was improper to utilize the default formula to calculate damages … . Aras v B-U Realty Corp., 2023 NY Slip Op 04917, First Dept 10-3-23

Practice Point: This comprehensive opinion explains in detail the proof requirements for finding a landlord engaged in a fraudulent scheme to deregulate apartments while receiving J51 tax benefits.

 

,

FATHER, AS THE NONCUSTODIAL PARENT PROVIDING MOST OF THE FINANCIAL SUPPORT FOR THE CHILDREN, WAS ENTITLED TO DECLARE THE CHILDREN DEPENDENTS FOR INCOME TAX PURPOSES (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined father, as the noncustodial parent contributing most of the financial support for the children, was entitled to declare the children dependents for income-tax purposes:

Where, as here, the noncustodial parent is contributing the majority of the financial support of the parties’ children, “the court may determine that the noncustodial parent is entitled to declare the children as dependents on his or her income tax returns” … . Accordingly, under the circumstances here, the plaintiff is entitled to declare all of the parties’ unemancipated children as his dependents for income tax purposes … . Miller v Miller, 2023 NY Slip Op 02872, Second Dept 5-31-23

Practice Point: Here father, as the noncustodial parent providing most of the financial support for the children, was entitled to declare the children dependents for income tax purposes.

 

, ,

COVID STIMULUS PAYMENTS WERE ADVANCE TAX REFUNDS MEASURED BY THE NUMBER OF CHILDREN, NOT PAYMENTS FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE CHILDREN; THEREFORE THE PAYMENTS WERE SUBJECT TO EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION IN THIS DIVORCE PROCEEDING AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED TO MOTHER AS CHILD SUPPORT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined the COVID stimulus payments were advance tax refunds constituting marital property subject to equitable distribution in this divorce/family offense proceeding. Family Court had ordered father to turn over the stimulus payments to mother as temporary child support:

… [F]ather argues that the federal stimulus payments are subject to equitable distribution and, therefore, Family Court did not have jurisdiction to direct him to remit them to the mother. We agree. “Family Court is a court of limited jurisdiction that cannot exercise powers beyond those granted to it by statute” … . In response to the global pandemic, Congress enacted several economic stimulus payments which created advance refunds of tax credits. As relevant here, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (the CARES Act) … provided eligible individuals an “advance refund amount” of the applicable tax credit of $500 for each qualifying child … . Thereafter, eligible individuals were entitled to an additional “advance refund” of the applicable tax credit of $600 for each qualifying child under the Tax Relief Act of 2020 … .

… [T]hese federal stimulus payments were not paid “for the benefit of the minor children,” but they were the parties’ advance refund for a tax credit earned pursuant to their last tax return, which was jointly filed, and which was partially measured by the number of children the tax filers had listed as dependents … . Generally, a tax refund is marital property and subject to equitable distribution by Supreme Court … . Although, within the context of a family offense petition, Family Court may issue an order for temporary child support (see Family Ct Act § 828 [4]), and there could be appropriate circumstances where a party’s tax refund may be seized to satisfy child support obligations … , those circumstances are not present here. Matter of Josefina O. v Francisco P., 2023 NY Slip Op 01031, Third Dept 2-23-23

Practice Point: COVID stimulus payments were advance tax refunds subject to equitable distribution in a divorce proceeding which should not have been awarded to mother as child support.

 

, ,

NONPUBLIC RESIDENTIAL HEALTH CARE FACILITIES NEED PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW EQUITY OR TRANSFER ASSETS IN EXCESS OF 3% OF THE FACILITIES’ REVENUE; CORPORATE OWNERS NEED NOT INCLUDE FEDERAL AND STATE INCOME TAXES IN THE 3% CALCULATION; FACILITIES OWNED BY PASS-THROUGH ENTITIES (I.E., LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANIES) MUST INCLUDE FEDERAL AND STATE INCOME TAXES IN THE 3% CALCULATION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in two full-fledged opinions by Justice Lynch, determined that nonpublic residential health care facilities owned by pass-through entities (i.e., a limited liability company, S corporation, partnership or sole proprietorship) must include federal and state income taxes in the calculation of equity withdrawals. Public Health Law 2808 (5) prohibits the withdrawal of equity or transfer of assets in excess of 3% of the facility’s total revenue without prior written approval of the Commissioner of Health. If the residential health care facility is owned by a corporation, federal and state income taxes are not included in the 3% calculation:

Public Health Law § 2808 (5) (c) responds to the Legislature’s concern that a facility’s improvident withdrawal of substantial assets would compromise the facility’s operation and “occasion irreparable harm within an especially fragile and dependent resident population” … . Given this context, “[w]ithdrawals for facility purposes”  are necessarily those that concern a facility’s own financial obligations and expenses … . … . Petitioners do not dispute that, for a pass-through entity, income tax liability is borne by the owner, not the facility. Thus, given the regulatory scheme, income tax payments by such an entity would necessarily be equity withdrawals or asset transfers satisfying the obligation of the owner, not the facility … . In other words, even though such withdrawals are for tax payments, they are not “[w]ithdrawals for facility purposes” … . Matter of Brightonian Nursing Home, Inc. v Zucker, 2023 NY Slip Op 00008, Third Dept 1-5-23

Practice Point: Unlike nonpublic health care facilities owned by corporations, nonpublic health care facilities owned by pass-through entities (i.e., a limited liability company, S corporation, partnership or sole proprietorship) must include federal and state income taxes in their calculation of withdrawals from equity. Withdrawal of equity or transfer of assets in excess of 3% of revenue requires the permission of the Commissioner of Health pursuant to Public Health Law 2802 (5).

 

, , ,

THE CITY’S COMPLAINT ALLEGED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE BASED UPON DEFENDANT’S SALE OF UNSTAMPED, UNTAXED CIGARETTES (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiff-city’s complaint stated a cause of action for public nuisance against defendant City Tobacco House for selling unstamped, untaxed cigarettes:

… [T]he complaint alleged that City Tobacco House was a commercial establishment where several violations of Tax Law § 1814(b) and Administrative Code § 11-4012(b) had occurred during the six-month period preceding the commencement of this action. On one occasion, law enforcement officers allegedly recovered 8.4 cartons of untaxed cigarettes at the subject premises, and one person was arrested and charged with violating Tax Law § 1814. On another occasion, 28 packs of untaxed cigarettes allegedly were recovered from the subject premises, and one person was arrested and charged with violating Tax Law § 1814. On two other occasions, an undercover police officer allegedly purchased one pack of untaxed cigarettes from an employee in the subject premises. On another occasion, the execution of a search warrant at the subject premises allegedly resulted in the seizure of 64 packs of untaxed cigarettes and the arrest of one person. * * *

The allegations of unlawful conduct … , along with the allegation in the complaint that City Tobacco House knowingly conducted or maintained the subject premises as a place where persons gathered for purposes of engaging in conduct that violated Tax Law § 1814 and Administrative Code § 11-4012(b), were sufficient to allege the commission of criminal nuisance in the second degree, as defined in Penal Law § 240.45. Thus, having alleged facts supporting the proposition that City Tobacco House was a place “wherein there is occurring a criminal nuisance as defined in section 240.45 of the penal law” (Administrative Code § 7-703[l]), the complaint validly alleged the existence of a public nuisance at the subject premises. City of New York v Land & Bldg. Known as 4802 4th Ave., 2022 NY Slip Op 05988, Second Dept 10-26-22

Practice Point: Here the city’s allegation defendant sold unstamped, untaxed cigarettes stated a cause of action for public nuisance.

 

,

DISNEY WAS DEDUCTING ROYALTY PAYMENTS MADE BY AFFILIATES WHICH DID NOT PAY NEW YORK TAXES; THE TAX LAW WAS DESIGNED TO PLUG THAT “LOOPHOLE” AND THE DEDUCTIONS WERE PROPERLY DISALLOWED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Fisher, determined the Tax Law did not permit petitioner to deduct royalty payments made by affiliates organized under the law of foreign countries pursuant to intellectual-property licensing agreements. The opinion is too detailed and comprehensive to be fairly summarized here: Essentially, the petitioner was deemed to be taking advantage of a “loophole” to avoid paying franchise taxes which had been addressed and closed by the Tax Law:

At the hearing, the Department’s employees testified that petitioner was denied the royalty deduction because the foreign affiliates it had received payments from were not New York taxpayers. The ALJ [Administrative Law Judge] found that “[t]he addback and exclusion provisions contained in Tax Law [§ 208 former] (9) (o) work in tandem to ensure that royalty transactions between related members are taxed only once” and do “not escape taxation altogether.” In determining that petitioner’s interpretation of the statute effectively allowed it to avoid taxation on that income, which went against the Legislature’s intent in enacting the statute, the ALJ concluded that the Department’s interpretation of the statute was rational and therefore petitioner was not permitted to deduct royalty payments from its income. When the Tribunal affirmed the findings of the ALJ, it added that “the [L]egislature did not intend for a taxpayer to gain the benefit of the income exclusion . . . without the corresponding cost to a related member of the add back.”  Matter of Walt Disney Co. & Consol. Subsidiaries v Tax Appeals Trib. of the State of N.Y., 2022 NY Slip Op 05898, Third Dept 10-20-22

Practice Point: Disney was deducting royalty payments made by affiliates which did not pay New York taxes. The Third Department determined the Tax Law did not allow the deductions.

 

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 © 2024 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy