Latest 4 Cases This Week: United States v. Henco Holding Corp. (11th Cir.), Bohnett v. County of Santa Barbara (Cal. Ct. App.), Houghton v. ...

Should the Law Prohibit Anti-Fat Discrimination?

SHERRY F. COLB

Cornell law professor Sherry F. Colb explores the problem of fat discrimination and considers what a law of anti-fat discrimination might look like, and why it could be important. Professor Colb explores the similarities and differences between legally protected characteristics and fatness and expresses optimism that a change in law could persuade some individuals to recognize fat people for the colleagues, students, friends, partners, and neighbors that they are.

Read More

Members-Only Unionism is Lawful and Can Make Sense

SAMUEL ESTREICHER

NYU law professor Samuel Estreicher responds to an op-ed by Ron Holland criticizing the recent announcement of a members-only union of 300 Google workers. Professor Estreicher points out several errors and assumptions in Mr. Holland’s piece, and he argues that, in sum, there is no good public policy case for barring or restricting members-only unionism.

Read More

United States v. Henco Holding Corp.

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

Docket: 19-12758

Opinion Date: January 19, 2021

Judge: Lagoa

Areas of Law: Tax Law

The government was not required to separately assess a transferor's tax liabilities against a transferee under I.R.C. 6901 in order to collect those tax liabilities from the transferee. The government appeals the district court's order dismissing its complaint against the Caceres Defendants, contending that the government had not timely assessed tax liabilities against them as transferees of Henco under section 6901. As a preliminary matter, the Eleventh Circuit concluded that the government is not bound by Georgia's statute of limitations where it is well settled that the United States is not bound by state statutes of limitation in enforcing its rights. The court reversed the district court's dismissal of the complaint as to the Caceres Defendants, holding that it was bound by the United States Supreme Court's decision in Leighton v. United States, 289 U.S. 506 (1933), which held that a suit was properly brought against the shareholders without a separate assessment against them as transferees. In this case, the government was not required to separately assess the Caceres Defendants for Henco's assessed tax liabilities under section 6901.

Bohnett v. County of Santa Barbara

Court: California Courts of Appeal

Docket: B303520(Second Appellate District)

Opinion Date: January 19, 2021

Judge: Tangeman

Areas of Law: Real Estate & Property Law, Tax Law, Trusts & Estates

Bernard and Sheila created the Family Trust and transferred their home to themselves as trustees. The trust became irrevocable upon the death of the surviving spouse, when the estate would be distributed to Sheila’s 13 children, including Bohnett. Sheila died in 2003. Bernard died in 2008. The property was rented out. The rent was deposited into the trust’s bank account. In 2012, the trustee filed a successful Claim for Reassessment Exclusion for Transfer Between Parent and Child (Proposition 58 claim), listing Sheila and Bernard as transferors, her children as transferees, and the date of Bernard’s death as the date of transfer. In 2013, the property was transferred by the trustee to Bohnett. A Preliminary Change of Ownership Report listed the trust as the seller/transferor, stated that the purchase was a transfer between parent(s) and child(ren), and listed the sale price as $1,030,000. The trustee distributed the money in equal shares to the 13 siblings. A second Proposition 58 claim listed Sheila and Bernard as transferors and Bohnett as transferee, leaving blank the date of transfer. The county found that there was a 12/13 change in ownership and reassessed the property from $157,731 to $962,873 for 2012/2013, and $963,114 for 2013/2014. Bohnett filed unsuccessful Applications for Changed Assessment. The court of appeal affirmed in favor of the County. The purchase by one beneficiary from his siblings and co-beneficiaries was not a parent-child transfer exempt from reassessment for property tax purposes.

Houghton v. Nebraska Department of Revenue

Court: Nebraska Supreme Court

Citation: 308 Neb. 188

Opinion Date: January 15, 2021

Judge: William B. Cassel

Areas of Law: Government & Administrative Law, Tax Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court concluding that income taxpayers did not meet their burden of proof that they abandoned their domicile in Nebraska and acquired a domicile in the United Kingdom (U.K.), holding that competent evidence supported the district court's factual findings. The Department of Revenue issued to Appellants a notice of proposed deficiency determination for individual income tax for tax years 2012 to 2014. Appellants requested a redetermination that no money was due, claiming that the U.K. was their domicile. The Tax Commissioner determined that Appellants failed to sustain their burden of proof. The district court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court's ultimate decision to affirm the Tax Commissioner's order was not in error.

In Re: Appeal of Coatesville Area Sch Dist

Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Docket: 7 MAP 2020

Opinion Date: January 20, 2021

Judge: Thomas G. Saylor

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Government & Administrative Law, Non-Profit Corporations, Real Estate & Property Law, Tax Law

Two taxing districts undertook parallel challenges to a property’s partial tax exemption. Appellee Huston Properties, Inc. (“Taxpayer”), owned the subject property (the “Property”). In 2013, Taxpayer, claiming to be a charitable institution, sought tax-exempt status for the Property for the 2014 tax year. After a hearing, the Chester County Board of Assessment Appeals granted a partial exemption, reasoning that that portion of the Property was used for charitable purposes. The City of Coatesville appealed that decision to the Court of Common Pleas. Six days later, the Coatesville Area School District, another taxing authority encompassing the Property, lodged its own appeal, also challenging the Property’s partially-tax-exempt status. The School District also intervened in the City's case. Ultimately, the trial court affirmed the Board's grant of a partial exemption. Both the City and the School District appealed to the Commonwealth Court, and Taxpayer cross-appealed as to each, seeking fully-exempt status for the Property. In a memorandum decision, the Commonwealth Court vacated and remanded to the trial court for more specific findings to support the partial tax exemption. On remand, the trial court set forth particularized findings and conclusions, and re-affirmed its earlier decision assessing the Property. At this juncture, the City elected not to appeal to the Commonwealth Court. The School District appealed the ruling in its own case, but it did not appeal the identical, simultaneous ruling which contained the City’s docket number. Taxpayer moved to quash the School District’s appeal. The Commonwealth Court granted the motion and dismissed the appeal observing that the common pleas court’s ruling in the City’s case became final after no party appealed it. Because the School District had intervened in that matter, it was a party to those proceedings. With that premise, the court found that res judicata and collateral estoppel barred it from reaching the merits. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court found that issue preclusion under the rubric of collateral estoppel should not have been applied to defeat the School District’s ability to obtain merits review of its substantive arguments in the intermediate court. The Commonwealth Court's judgment was vacated and the matter remanded for a merits disposition of the consolidated cross-appeals.