The Intra-Party Fight Among the Democratic Candidates Is Necessary and Healthy

NEIL H. BUCHANAN

UF law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan explains why the Democratic presidential candidates attacking each other over policy differences and other issues rather than unifying to oppose President Trump in the general election. Buchanan argues that, perhaps illogically, the infighting is essential and a healthy part of the process.

Read More

Arlin Geophysical Company v. United States

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

Docket: 18-4166

Opinion Date: January 14, 2020

Judge: Carlos F. Lucero

Areas of Law: Business Law, Real Estate & Property Law, Tax Law

After John Worthen amassed over eighteen million dollars in unpaid tax liabilities, the federal government placed liens on properties it claimed belonged to his alter egos or nominees. Following a court- ordered sale of the properties, Worthen sought to exercise a statutory right to redeem under Utah state law. The district court concluded there were no redemption rights following sales under 26 U.S.C. 7403. The Tenth Circuit concurred, finding neither section 7403 nor 28 U.S.C. 2001, which governed the sale of realty under court order, explicitly provided for redemption rights. Moreover, federal tax proceedings provided sufficient protection for taxpayers and third parties.

Avis Budget Car Rental LLC v. County of Hennepin

Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

Docket: A19-0886

Opinion Date: January 15, 2020

Judge: David L. Lillehaug

Areas of Law: Tax Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Minnesota Tax Court dismissing Avis Budget Car Rental's property tax petition for failure to disclose certain concession fee information as required by Minn. Stat. 278.05, subd. 6, holding that the tax court did not err in dismissing the petition. On appeal, Avis argued that disclosure of the concession fee information was not required by the mandatory disclosure provision and that, even if disclosure of the concession fee was mandatory, other information provided to Hennepin County satisfied that requirement. The Supreme Court disagreed and affirmed, holding (1) under the circumstances of this case, the concession fees were subject to the mandatory disclosure provision, and such information was not disclosed by Avis by the deadline; and (2) because the information provided to Hennepin County was not disclosed by Avis the tax court properly dismissed the petition.

Enterprise Leasing Co. of Minnesota v. County of Hennepin

Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

Docket: A19-0889

Opinion Date: January 15, 2020

Judge: David L. Lillehaug

Areas of Law: Tax Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Minnesota Tax Court dismissing the property tax petition filed by Enterprise Leasing Company of Minnesota for failure to disclose certain concession fee information as required by Minn. Stat. 278.05, subd. 6, holding that the tax court did not err in dismissing the petition. Specifically, the Court held that, for the reasons explained in Avis Budget Car Rental LLC v. County of Hennepin, __ N.W.2d __, also decided this day, the tax court did not err in dismissing Enterprise's petition because the concession fees at issue in this case were subject to the mandatory disclosure requirements of Minn. Stat. 278.05, subd. 6 and Enterprise did not comply with the requirements of the statute.

Ventas Realty Limited Partnership v. City of Dover

Court: New Hampshire Supreme Court

Docket: 2018-0680

Opinion Date: January 10, 2020

Judge: Gary E. Hicks

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Government & Administrative Law, Real Estate & Property Law, Tax Law

Plaintiff Ventas Realty Limited Partnership (Ventas), appealed a superior court order denying its request for an abatement of the real estate taxes it paid defendant City of Dover (City), for the 2014 tax year. The subject real estate consists of a 5.15-acre site containing a skilled nursing facility serving both short-term and long-term patients, two garages, and a parking lot. At issue was the City’s April 1, 2014 assessment of the real estate at a value of $4,308,500. Ventas alleged that it timely applied to the City for an abatement of its 2014 taxes. The City presumably denied or failed to act upon the request, and Ventas, thereafter, petitioned the superior court for an abatement pursuant to RSA 76:17 (Supp. 2018), alleging that the City had unlawfully taxed the property in excess of its fair market value. Expert witnesses for both sides opined the property’s highest and best use was as a skilled nursing facility. The experts also agreed that the most reliable method for determining the property’s fair market value was the income capitalization method, although the City’s expert also completed analyses under the sales comparison and cost approaches. Both experts examined the same comparable properties and they also used similar definitions of “fair market value.” The main difference between the approaches of the two experts is that the City's expert used both market projections and the property’s actual income and expenses from 2012, 2013, and 2014 to forecast the property’s future net income, while Ventas' expert did not. Ventas' expert used the property’s actual income and expenses for the 11 months before the April 1, 2014 valuation date, without any market-based adjustments. Despite their different approaches, the experts gave similar estimates of the property’s projected gross income for tax year 2014. The experts differed greatly in their estimates of the property’s projected gross operating expenses for tax year 2014. All of Ventas’ arguments faulted the trial court for finding the City's expert's valuations more credible than its own expert's valuations. The New Hampshire found the trial court made numerous, specific findings which were supported by the record as to why it rejected Ventas' expert's appraisal. Accordingly, the Supreme Court upheld the trial court’s determination that Ventas' expert's appraisal failed to meet Ventas’ burden of proof.

Lowe's Home Ctrs., LLC v. Dep't of Revenue

Court: Washington Supreme Court

Docket: 96383-5

Opinion Date: January 16, 2020

Judge: Barbara Madsen

Areas of Law: Business Law, Civil Procedure, Government & Administrative Law, Tax Law

Lowe's Home Centers sought reimbursement of state sales taxes and Business and Occupation ("B&O") taxes from the Washington Department of Revenue ("DOR") because it contracted with banks to offer private-label credit cards to its customers, and agreed to repay the banks for losses it sustained when customers defaulted on their accounts. RCW 82.08.050 provided that a seller must collect and remit sales taxes to the State; for sellers unable to recoup sales taxes from buyers, RCW 82.08.037(1) provided that sellers could claim a deduction "for sales taxes previously paid on bad debts." In a split decision, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's denial of reimbursement. After its review, the Washington Supreme Court held that although banks were involved in the credit transaction, Lowe's was still the seller burdened with the loss from its customers' defaults, including their nonpayment of the sales taxes. Accordingly, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals.