You are here: / Tax Law

INFORMATION ABOUT COMPETITORS’ PRODUCT PRICING PROVIDED TO SUPERMARKET CHAIN IS NOT TAXABLE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the tax tribunal, determined that the information provided by a contractor (RetailData) to petitioner, a supermarket chain, about product-prices charged by competitors, was subject to exclusion from the sales and use tax:

​

While there is no question that the pricing information that RetailData collects on petitioner’s behalf is information that is available to the public, we agree with petitioner that, under the circumstances presented here, such information does not derive from a singular, widely accessible common source or database as that test has previously been applied and commonly understood in determining the applicability of the subject tax exclusion … . * * *

​

… [W]e find that the information services that petitioner purchased from RetailData were personal or individual in nature and were not substantially incorporated into reports of others such that petitioner’s purchase of these information services should have been excluded from taxation pursuant to Tax Law § 1105 (c) (1) … . … In our view, to expand the interpretation of Tax Law § 1105 (c) (1) to allow for the Tribunal’s denial of the subject tax exclusion based solely on the fact that the information ultimately furnished derived from a public source would, under the circumstances presented, serve to defeat the purpose of the exclusion … . Matter of Wegmans Food Mkts., Inc. v Tax Appeals Trib. of The State of New York, 2017 NY Slip Op 08225, Third Dept 11-22-17

 

TAX LAW (SALES AND USE TAX, INFORMATION ABOUT COMPETITORS’ PRODUCT PRICING PROVIDED TO SUPERMARKET CHAIN IS NOT TAXABLE (THIRD DEPT))/SALES AND USE TAX (INFORMATION ABOUT COMPETITORS’ PRODUCT PRICING PROVIDED TO SUPERMARKET CHAIN IS NOT TAXABLE (THIRD DEPT))/INFORMATION SERVICES (SALES AND USE TAX,  INFORMATION ABOUT COMPETITORS’ PRODUCT PRICING PROVIDED TO SUPERMARKET CHAIN IS NOT TAXABLE (THIRD DEPT))

, ,

DOCTRINE OF TAX ESTOPPEL PREVENTED DEFENDANTS FROM ASSERTING FACTS ABOUT THE SALE OF PROPERTY CONTRARY TO THE INFORMATION IN THE REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER REPORT, PLAINTIFF’S ACTION TO ENFORCE A RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the doctrine of tax estoppel prevented defendants from asserting facts contrary to the information provided in the Real Property Transfer Report (RPT report). Plaintiff had a right of first refusal on the sale of defendants’ commercial property. Defendants sold the property without giving plaintiff the right of first refusal, claiming it was not a bona fide sale because the same person controlled the seller and the buyer, an allegation negated by the RPT report:

​

Under the doctrine of tax estoppel, ” [a] party to litigation may not take a position contrary to a position taken in [a] tax return’ ” … . Here, 428 Co. and SS jointly submitted a Real Property Transfer Report (RPT report) … to the Department of Taxation and Finance in which they certified that the transfer of the subject property was not a “sale between related companies or partners in business.”  …

​

The sworn statements made in the RPT report further estop defendants from asserting that various mortgage assumptions worth over $2 million constituted part of the purchase price, and that plaintiff was therefore unwilling to purchase the property “at the same price and under the same terms” … . The instructions for the tax form require that any mortgage assumptions be listed as part of the “Full Sale Price” on the RPT report, and [defendants] did not do so here. … [Defendants] listed only a cash sale price of $238,493 as the “Full Sale Price” on the RPT report, and it is undisputed that plaintiff was ready, willing, and able to purchase the property for that amount. Amalfi, Inc. v 428 Co., Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 06770, Fourth Dept 9-29-17

 

REAL ESTATE (DOCTRINE OF TAX ESTOPPEL PREVENTED DEFENDANTS FROM ASSERTING FACTS ABOUT THE SALE OF PROPERTY CONTRARY TO THE INFORMATION IN THE REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER REPORT, PLAINTIFF’S ACTION TO ENFORCE A RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (REAL ESTATE, RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL, DOCTRINE OF TAX ESTOPPEL PREVENTED DEFENDANTS FROM ASSERTING FACTS ABOUT THE SALE OF PROPERTY CONTRARY TO THE INFORMATION IN THE REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER REPORT, PLAINTIFF’S ACTION TO ENFORCE A RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT))/TAX LAW  (DOCTRINE OF TAX ESTOPPEL PREVENTED DEFENDANTS FROM ASSERTING FACTS ABOUT THE SALE OF PROPERTY CONTRARY TO THE INFORMATION IN THE REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER REPORT, PLAINTIFF’S ACTION TO ENFORCE A RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT))/TAX ESTOPPEL (DOCTRINE OF TAX ESTOPPEL PREVENTED DEFENDANTS FROM ASSERTING FACTS ABOUT THE SALE OF PROPERTY CONTRARY TO THE INFORMATION IN THE REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER REPORT, PLAINTIFF’S ACTION TO ENFORCE A RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT))

,

SPRINT IS NOT A UTILITY AND THEREFORE IS NOT EXEMPT FROM THE UNINCORPORATED BUSINESS INCOME TAX.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Sweeney, determined plaintiff (Sprint) was not a “utility” within the meaning of the relevant statutes and therefore was required to pay both the Utility Tax and the Unincorporated Business Income Tax (UBT). If Sprint were deemed a utility, as opposed to a vendor of utility services, it would have been exempt from the UBT:

The question in Cable & Wireless [Cable & Wireless v City of N.Y. Dept. of Fin. (190 Misc 2d 410, 416 [Sup Ct, NY County 2001])], as it is here, was whether the plaintiff telecommunications firm was a utility or a vendor of utility services. The plaintiff there argued, as plaintiff does here, that, under the plain statutory language, it was “supervised” by the PSC [Public Service Commission] and thus must be classified as a utility. In rejecting plaintiff’s argument, the court conducted an extensive review of the legislative history of the statutes and their amendments, including the history of the circumstances surrounding the statutes’ initial passage in 1933 and their amendments through the 1940s to more recent times. After holding that plaintiff had the burden of proving that it was a supervised utility and thus exempt from the tax at issue, the court held that “in using the words subject to the supervision of the [PSC],’ the City Council did not envision imposing the Utility Tax on gross income on entities such as [the plaintiff] which exhibit none of the characteristics of the monopolies to which the tax was intended to apply” … . The plaintiff was therefore not a utility and was not entitled to an exemption from the UBT.

We find the reasoning in Astoria [Matter of Astoria Gas Turbine Power, LLC v Tax Commn. of City of N.Y. (7 NY3d 451 [2006])] and Cable & Wireless to be equally applicable to the present case. By its own admission, plaintiff is “a competitive entity” that does not enjoy monopoly status. As a result, the “light regulation” by the PSC to which it is subject does not rise to the level of “supervision” necessary to classify it as a utility and thus warrant an exemption from the UBT. Sprint Communications Co., L.P. v City of N.Y. Dept. of Fin., 2017 NY Slip Op 05194, 1st Dept 6-27-17

 

IN THIS PROSECUTION ALLEGING DEFENDANT CELL PHONE COMPANY’S UNDERPAYMENT OF SALES TAX, DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO THE SALES TAX RETURNS OF OTHER CELL PHONE SERVICE PROVIDERS.

The First Department determined defendant Sprint Communications was entitled to the state’s sales tax returns and records of other providers of mobile telecommunications voice services, but with the names of the providers redacted.  The action was brought by the state and alleged the underpayment of sales tax:

The People claim that they will use only material obtained from third-party discovery and that they have disclosed those materials to defendants. However, the fact that the People have chosen to restrict the materials they will use to prosecute defendants does not mean that defendants must restrict the materials they will use to defend themselves. Moreover, defendants cannot obtain … [the] documents from third parties.

If a document that shows another cell phone company’s or DTF’s position about debundling, etc., happens to mention the other cell phone company’s name, the People may not withhold the entire document. … Instead, the People should replace the taxpayers’ names with “Cell Phone Company No. 1” and “Cell Phone Company No. 2,” or the like. People v Sprint Communications Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 01801, 1st Dept 3-15-17

 

TAX LAW (IN THIS PROSECUTION ALLEGING DEFENDANT CELL PHONE COMPANY’S UNDERPAYMENT OF SALES TAX, DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO THE SALES TAX RETURNS OF OTHER CELL PHONE SERVICE PROVIDERS)/SALES TAX (CELL PHONE SERVICE PROVIDERS, IN THIS PROSECUTION ALLEGING DEFENDANT CELL PHONE COMPANY’S UNDERPAYMENT OF SALES TAX, DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO THE SALES TAX RETURNS OF OTHER CELL PHONE SERVICE PROVIDERS)/CELL PHONE SERVICE PROVIDERS (SALES TAX, IN THIS PROSECUTION ALLEGING DEFENDANT CELL PHONE COMPANY’S UNDERPAYMENT OF SALES TAX, DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO THE SALES TAX RETURNS OF OTHER CELL PHONE SERVICE PROVIDERS)

AMUSEMENT TAX AND CABARET TAX PROVISIONS ARE NOT UNCONSTITUTIONALLY APPLIED TO AN ADULT ENTERTAINMENT CLUB; TAX EXEMPTIONS FOR CERTAIN TYPES OF DRAMATIC OR MUSICAL ART PERFORMANCES ARE PROPERLY NOT AVAILABLE TO THE CLUB.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Tom, determined the provisions of the Tax Law which allow the imposition of an amusement tax and a cabaret tax were not unconstitutional either facially or as applied to the plaintiffs.  The plaintiffs operate a men’s entertainment club featuring topless dancers (Hustler Club). The Tax Law includes exemptions for certain types of entertainment, i.e., dramatic or musical art performances. Plaintiffs argued the exemptions should apply to the adult entertainment at the club, as well. In rejecting the constitutional arguments, the court wrote:

Here, the Tax Laws are laws “of general application” … . The Amusement Tax applies to sales at “[a]ny place where any facilities for entertainment, amusement, or sports are provided” (Tax Law § 1101[d][10]), and the Cabaret Tax applies to sales at “[a]ny roof garden, cabaret or other similar place which furnishes a public performance for profit” (Tax Law § 1101[d][12]). The Tax Laws “ha[ve] not selected a narrow group to bear fully the burden of the tax” … , since the taxes imposed on plaintiffs are equally applicable to many other types of entertainment and recreational activities, including sporting events, car races, amusement parks, arcades, zoos, animal performances, and magic acts … . Nor are the performances of the sort presented at the Hustler Club “singled out for special treatment”… based on their erotic, sexual, or adult nature. The performances merely happen to fall under the very broad categories of “entertainment” or “amusement,” for purposes of the Amusement Tax, and “public performance for profit,” for purposes of the Cabaret Tax. CMSG Rest. Group, LLC v State of New York, 2016 NY Slip Op 07280, 1st Dept 11-3-16

TAX LAW (AMUSEMENT TAX AND CABARET TAX PROVISIONS ARE NOT UNCONSTITUTIONALLY APPLIED TO AN ADULT ENTERTAINMENT CLUB; TAX EXEMPTIONS FOR CERTAIN TYPES OF DRAMATIC OR MUSICAL ART PERFORMANCES ARE PROPERLY NOT AVAILABLE TO THE CLUB)/AMUSEMENT TAX (AMUSEMENT TAX AND CABARET TAX PROVISIONS ARE NOT UNCONSTITUTIONALLY APPLIED TO AN ADULT ENTERTAINMENT CLUB; TAX EXEMPTIONS FOR CERTAIN TYPES OF DRAMATIC OR MUSICAL ART PERFORMANCES ARE PROPERLY NOT AVAILABLE TO THE CLUB)/CABARET TAX (AMUSEMENT TAX AND CABARET TAX PROVISIONS ARE NOT UNCONSTITUTIONALLY APPLIED TO AN ADULT ENTERTAINMENT CLUB; TAX EXEMPTIONS FOR CERTAIN TYPES OF DRAMATIC OR MUSICAL ART PERFORMANCES ARE PROPERLY NOT AVAILABLE TO THE CLUB)/ADULT ENTERTAINMENT (AMUSEMENT TAX AND CABARET TAX PROVISIONS ARE NOT UNCONSTITUTIONALLY APPLIED TO AN ADULT ENTERTAINMENT CLUB; TAX EXEMPTIONS FOR CERTAIN TYPES OF DRAMATIC OR MUSICAL ART PERFORMANCES ARE PROPERLY NOT AVAILABLE TO THE CLUB)

,

DOCUMENTS WHICH REFLECT INFORMATION IN TAX RETURNS ARE EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE UNDER THE TAX LAW.

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW (FOIL), TAX LAW.

The Third Department determined Supreme Court properly withheld from disclosure both tax returns and documents which reflect information included in tax returns:

“The policy behind the [tax] secrecy provisions is twofold: to protect personal privacy interests in the information on a return, which may reveal information concerning a person’s activities, associations and beliefs, and to encourage voluntary compliance with the tax laws by preventing use of return information to harm the reporting taxpayer” … . As relevant here, the statute prohibits the disclosure of “any particulars” by any person who “is permitted to inspect” a return, receives “any information contained in any [return]” or who “in any manner may acquire knowledge of the contents of a [return]” (Tax Law § 211 [8] [a]). By its terms, therefore, the confidentially required by the statute necessarily extends to any document that reflects information included in a return. If we were to construe the statute to only protect the secrecy of the return, the purpose of the statute would not be served … , and we find, in particular, that Tax Law § 211 (8) (a) prohibits the Department from releasing an agreement made with another taxpayer (see Tax Law §§ 171 [18]; 210-A [11]). … Contrary to petitioner’s arguments, where, as here, a document is exempt from disclosure pursuant to state statute, it may not be subjected to redaction … . Matter of Moody’s Corp. & Subsidiaries v New York State Dept. of Taxation & Fin., 2016 NY Slip Op 05612, 3rd Dept 7-21-16

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW (FOIL) (DOCUMENTS WHICH REFLECT INFORMATION IN TAX RETURNS ARE EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE UNDER THE TAX LAW)/TAX LAW (DOCUMENTS WHICH REFLECT INFORMATION IN TAX RETURNS ARE EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE UNDER THE TAX LAW)/TAX RETURNS  (DOCUMENTS WHICH REFLECT INFORMATION IN TAX RETURNS ARE EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE UNDER THE TAX LAW)

,

TAX ON CIGARETTE SALES TO NON-INDIANS UPHELD.

The Fourth Department upheld the state's ability to impose a tax on the sale of cigarettes to non-Indians and non-members of the Seneca Nation:

It is well established that “the States have a valid interest in ensuring compliance with lawful taxes that might easily be evaded through purchases of tax-exempt cigarettes on reservations . . . States may impose on reservation retailers minimal burdens reasonably tailored to the collection of valid taxes from non-Indians” … . Although plaintiffs are obligated to pay the amount due as tax from non-Indians who have the tax liability, and from whom the amount is collected at the time of the sale, “this burden is not, strictly speaking, a tax at all” … . White v Schneiderman, 2016 NY Slip Op 04533, 4th Dept 6-18-16

TAX LAW (TAX ON CIGARETTE SALES TO NON-INDIANS UPHELD)/INDIAN LAW (TAX ON CIGARETTE SALES TO NON-INDIANS UPHELD)/CIGARETTES (TAX ON CIGARETTE SALES TO NON-INDIANS UPHELD)

,

LIFE ESTATES IN A CONDOMINIUM AND COOPERATIVE APARTMENT DID NOT DIMINISH VALUE OF THE PROPERTIES FOR ESTATE TAX PURPOSES.

The Second Department determined the value of properties transferred upon decedent's death was the fair market value at the time of death. The fact that decedent willed life estates in the properties did not diminish the value of the properties for estate tax purposes:

“Because the estate tax is a tax on the privilege of transferring property upon one's death, the property to be valued for estate tax purposes is that which the decedent actually transfers at his death rather than the interest held by the decedent before death or that held by the legatee after death” … . An estate tax taxes “not the interest to which the legatees and devisees succeeded on death, but the interest which ceased by reason of the death” … . “The value of every item of property includible in a decedent's gross estate … is its fair market value at the time of the decedent's death” … . An estate tax is a tax on the privilege of passing on property, not a tax on the privilege of receiving property; “[t]he tax is on the act of the testator not on the receipt of the property by the legatees” … .

Therefore, contrary to the petitioner's contention, the life estates in the condominium and cooperative apartment granted by the decedent to his longtime companion upon the decedent's death did not diminish the value of those properties for estate tax purposes and should not have been taken into account on the estate tax return. Matter of Cleary, 2016 NY Slip Op 04410, 2nd Dept 6-8-16

TRUSTS AND ESTATES (LIFE ESTATES IN A CONDOMINIUM AND COOPERATIVE APARTMENT DID NOT DIMINISH VALUE OF THE PROPERTIES FOR ESTATE TAX PURPOSES)/TAX LAW (ESTATE TAX, (LIFE ESTATES IN A CONDOMINIUM AND COOPERATIVE APARTMENT DID NOT DIMINISH VALUE OF THE PROPERTIES FOR ESTATE TAX PURPOSES)/ESTATE TAX (LIFE ESTATES IN A CONDOMINIUM AND COOPERATIVE APARTMENT DID NOT DIMINISH VALUE OF THE PROPERTIES FOR ESTATE TAX PURPOSES)

,

PETITIONER’S EMPIRE ZONE CERTIFICATION PROPERLY REVOKED.

The Third Department determined decertification of petitioner's Empire Zone status was supported by sufficient evidence, including, but not limited to, petitioner's affirmative response to whether it was subject to a Tax Law provision which required it to demonstrate the business was formed for a valid business purpose:

As a participant in the Empire Zones Program, petitioner was required to complete and submit business annual reports (hereinafter BARs) that provided information about its activities, employment and investments (see 5 NYCRR 11.7). The BAR that petitioner completed for 2006 included a section inquiring whether its business was subject to a recently-enacted Tax Law provision that excluded certain firms from receiving tax benefits unless they could establish that they had been formed for a valid business purpose (see Tax Law § 14 [j] [4] [B]). Petitioner responded affirmatively and, as required by the form, attached a statement explaining that it had been formed by combining two previously-existing accounting firms for various valid business purposes. We find that petitioner's affirmative response on the 2006 BAR, taken together with facts set forth in the attached explanatory statement, provided a rational basis for the Commissioner's decertification decision.

Petitioner's mere affirmative response to the question whether the Tax Law provision was applicable to its business, without more, would not have sufficed to provide a rational basis for the determination that it was a shirt-changer. * * * However, the statement that petitioner attached to the 2006 BAR to demonstrate that it was formed for a valid business purpose contained factual information that was relevant to the Commissioner's 2009 analysis. In the statement, petitioner averred that it was formed in 2002 by combining two previously existing accounting firms, one of which — then known as Dermody, Burke & Brown, P.C. — had been engaged in the practice of public accountancy for 50 years. According to the statement, the 14 shareholders of this firm joined with the seven partners of a second accounting firm, Pasquale and Bowers, LLP, to become members of a new entity, which subsequently carried on the combined practices of the two previous firms. These factual assertions were sufficient to give rise to the reasonable inference that petitioner had caused individuals to transfer from existing employment with the previous two accounting firms to similar employment with petitioner, and that — as petitioner's members were the same individuals who had been the members and shareholders of its predecessors — its ownership was similar to that of the prior firms. Accordingly, there was an evidentiary basis for the determination that petitioner was a shirt-changer within the meaning of the 2009 legislation … . Matter of Dermody, Burke & Brown, CPAs, LLC v Department of Economic Dev., 2016 NY Slip Op 04286, 3rd Dept 6-2-16

MUNICIPAL LAW (PETITIONER'S EMPIRE ZONE CERTIFICATION PROPERLY REVOKED)/TAX LAW (PETITIONER'S EMPIRE ZONE CERTIFICATION PROPERLY REVOKED)/EMPIRE ZONES PROGRAM (PETITIONER'S EMPIRE ZONE CERTIFICATION PROPERLY REVOKED)

,

PETITIONER’S EMPIRE ZONE CERTIFICATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REVOKED.

The Third Department, reversing the Empire Zone Designation Board, determined the decision to revoke petitioner's Empire Zones Program certification was arbitrary and capricious. The court noted that petitioner's affirmative response to a question mandated by the Tax Law concerning whether petitioner had ever been required to demonstrate the business was formed for a valid business purpose was not, standing alone, a basis for decertification:

In deciding whether a business should be decertified for failing the shirt-changer test, the Commissioner was directed to determine whether the entity had “caused individuals to transfer from existing employment with another business enterprise with similar ownership . . . to similar employment with the certified business enterprise or if the enterprise acquired, purchased, leased, or had transferred to it real property previously owned by an entity with similar ownership, regardless of form of incorporation or organization” (General Municipal Law § 959 [a] [v] [5]; see General Municipal Law § 959 [w]). Petitioner contends that it never engaged in such transfers of real property or employment, that the administrative record lacks any evidence to the contrary, and, thus, that there is no factual basis for the determination that this provision was violated. We agree, and therefore find that the Board's denial of petitioner's appeal from the revocation of its certificate was “arbitrary and capricious and without a rational basis” … . Matter of PG Erie Props., LLC v Department of Economic Dev., 2016 NY Slip Op 04284, 3rd Dept 6-2-16

MUNICIPAL LAW (PETITIONER'S EMPIRE ZONE CERTIFICATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REVOKED)/TAX LAW (MUNICIPAL LAW, PETITIONER'S EMPIRE ZONE CERTIFICATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REVOKED)/EMPIRE ZONES PROGRAM (PETITIONER'S EMPIRE ZONE CERTIFICATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REVOKED)

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy