This case centered upon how Appellee Synthes USA HQ, Inc. should apportion its income between Pennsylvania and other states in order to calculate its Pennsylvania corporate net income tax. The two issues presented were: (1) does the Pennsylvania Office of the Attorney General (“OAG”) have the authority to represent the Commonwealth in this litigation, where it asserted an interpretation of the relevant tax provision contrary to the reading forwarded by the Pennsylvania Department of Revenue (“Department”); and (2) whether the allocation of a corporation's sales of services between Pennsylvania and other states for purposes of calculating the corporation’s income that was taxable in Pennsylvania. After review, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court concluded the Commonwealth Attorneys Act permitted the OAG to take a position on behalf of the Commonwealth that was inconsistent with the position adopted by the Department, but the Court ultimately rejected the OAG’s reading of the relevant tax provision in favor of the interpretation presented by the Department. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the order of the Commonwealth Court remanding this case to the Board of Finance and Revenue for calculation and issuance of a tax refund by the Department to Synthes for the 2011 tax year. View "Synthes USA HQ v. Pennsylvania" on Justia Law

An agency's self-imposed limitation at issue in these cases consolidated for argument was the Environmental Hearing Board’s rule that no private party to an appeal could be compelled to reimburse another party unless it has pursued or defended the appeal in bad faith or for an improper purpose. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court concluded that the to-all-appearances per se bad-faith standard that the Board applied to any effort to recover fees against a private party was incompatible with the intent embodied in the Clean Streams Law (“CSL”). The Board justified its contrary view with an overbroad reading of Pennsylvania case law, relying upon an assumed equivalency between permit applicants and citizen objectors that the Supreme Court could not reconcile with the parties’ respective roles and incentives in pursuing or defending such appeals under the CSL. The Supreme Court further concluded that the Department of Environmental Protection should stand on an equal footing with all other parties at the outset of a fee-shifting inquiry, subject to disparate treatment only when it bears disparate responsibility for whatever prompted a successful appeal. View "Clean Air Council, et al. v. Dept. Env. Prot. et al." on Justia Law

This direct appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court centered on the efforts of Appellee John Myers to obtain a refund of 38 cents in sales tax he paid on purchases he made with redeemed coupons at BJ’s Wholesale Club, Inc. (BJ’s). The parties petitioned the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to interpret Section 33.2(b) of the Pennsylvania Department of Revenue Code, which excluded “from the taxable portion of the purchase price, if separately stated and identified." A vendor owes the state sales tax on the full price of the item unless it can establish a “new purchase price” of the item, which may be established where “both the item and the coupon are described on the invoice or cash register tape.” The Pennsylvania Department of Revenue Board of Appeals (BOA) relied on Section 33.2, which permitted amounts represented by coupons to establish a new purchase price “if both the item and the coupon are described on the invoice or cash register tape.” The BOA concluded that the coupons were not adequately described on the receipts, and nothing indicated which items the coupons were related. A unanimous three-judge panel of the Commonwealth Court reversed the Board’s order and found Appellee was entitled to a refund of overpaid sales tax. The Supreme Court reversed the Commonwealth Court, finding none of the receipts at issue here satisfied subsection 33.2(b)(2)’s description requirement. Because it was Appellee’s burden to prove that he was entitled to a refund of sales tax, he did not meet his burden. View "Myers v. Pennsylvania" on Justia Law

This case concerned the statute of limitations in the California Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act. One of these protections was described in Government Code section 3304 (d)(1): a public agency cannot discipline a peace officer “for any act, omission, or other allegation of misconduct” unless the agency completes its investigation and notifies the officer of its proposed discipline “within one year of the public agency’s discovery by a person authorized to initiate an investigation of the allegation of an act, omission, or other misconduct.” Under the interpretation offered by appellant Luis Garcia, section 3304(d)(1)’s one-year limitations period begins to run on all acts of misconduct once the agency initiates an investigation into any one of these acts. But under the second interpretation, offered by Garcia’s employer, the limitations period begins to run on an act of misconduct only once the agency discovers that particular act. The Court of Appeal determined the latter interpretation was the correct one: Section 3304(d)(1)’s text was "clear" that the limitations period for an act of misconduct begins to run on the date the agency discovers the misconduct, not the date it initiates an investigation into unrelated misconduct. Under this rule, as under similar discovery rules, each act of misconduct must be considered separately in determining the date the agency discovered the misconduct. Because the trial court here interpreted section 3304(d)(1) consistent with the Court of Appeal's interpretation, the judgment was affirmed. View "Garcia v. State Dept. of Developmental Services" on Justia Law

While at a bar at the U.S. Embassy compound in Baghdad, Iraq, Plaintiff was shoved by an intoxicated co-worker. She was reluctant to report the incident, but she eventually acquiesced to requests of the State Department and her employer. Because of her report, Plaintiff’s employer attempted to transfer her to a different position. After initially refusing the transfer, she was fired. Plaintiff filed suit under the Defense Contractor Whistleblower Protection Act (DCWPA). The district court dismissed her complaint without prejudice, allowing leave to amend.   The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Plaintiff’s action under DCWPA against Valiant Integrated Services, LLC, and The Electronic On-Ramp, Inc. The panel held that to survive a motion to dismiss under the DCWPA, a plaintiff must plausibly allege that: (1) she made a disclosure that she reasonably believed was evidence of a violation related to a Department of Defense contract; and (2) her employer discharged, demoted, or otherwise discriminated against her because of that disclosure. The panel held that Plaintiff did not plausibly allege a reasonable belief that her complaint about the shoving incident encompassed one of the acts described in Section 4701(a)(1)(A)-(C). The panel held that, in the context of a defense contract, a violation of law is related to the contract if it is related to the purpose of the contract or affects the services provided by the defense contractor to the Department of Defense. The panel concluded that, under this standard, Plaintiff’s complaint failed to allege a sufficient nexus between the shove and the Department of Defense-Valiant contract. View "SANA KAPPOUTA V. VALIANT INTEGRATED SERVICES, ET AL" on Justia Law

Section 401 certification obligates any applicant for a federal license or permit to conduct activity that may result in a discharge into the navigable waters of the United States to obtain certification (or waiver of certification) from the state governing the area where a discharge would originate. The Section 401 regulatory scheme remained unchanged until July 2020, when the EPA promulgated CWA Section 401 Certification Rule (“2020 Rule”). Several states, environmental groups, and tribes (“Plaintiffs”) filed lawsuits challenging the 2020 Rule. A different set of states and energy industry groups intervened to defend the 2020 Rule. The EPA publicly announced its intent to revise the 2020 Rule and moved in district court for a remand of the 2020 Rule so that the agency could reconsider it. The district court granted the EPA’s remand motion and granted Plaintiffs’ request for vacatur of the 2020 Rule. Intervenor-Defendants appealed the district court’s order vacating the 2020 Rule.   The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s order granting a voluntary remand and vacated an EPA regulation promulgated under the CWA. The panel held that a court granting a voluntary remand lacks authority to also vacate the regulation without first holding it unlawful. The panel exercised its jurisdiction and held that courts may not vacate agency actions in conjunction with granting requests for voluntary remands without first holding the agency actions unlawful. Plaintiffs contended that if voluntary remand before merits determinations existed, then so too must the authority to vacate the challenged authority in the interim. The panel held that federal courts do not have unlimited equitable authority. View "IN RE: AMERICAN RIVERS, ET AL V. AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE, ET AL" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the superior court in favor of Defendant, in her capacity as the Town of Lincoln's tax assessor, holding that Plaintiff was not entitled to relief on its claims of error.Plaintiff brought this action arguing that Defendant (1) illegally increased the value of Plaintiff's property in light of a solar energy development on a portion of Plaintiff's property for tax years 2019 and 2020, and (2) improperly created a new tax classification not recognized by R.I. Gen. Laws 44-5-11.8(b). The superior court granted judgment in favor of Defendant. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) there was no error in including the presence of a solar energy development as an element of value assessed to real property; and (2) Plaintiff's claim that the tax assessor effectively created a new tax classification for property upon which a solar energy development is located, in contravention of R.I. Gen. Laws 44-5-11.8(b), was unpersuasive. View "Polseno Properties Management, LLC v. Keeble" on Justia Law

The Office of Professional Responsibility (“OPR”) investigates allegations of practitioner misconduct before the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”). Appellant sued the IRS under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), seeking disclosure of documents relating to the OPR’s investigation of a misconduct report on him. The district court ruled that the four documents were protected from disclosure by FOIA Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege and granted summary judgment to the IRS. Appellant contends that the withheld documents are nondeliberative and, therefore, unprotected by Exemption 5.   The DC Circuit affirmed in part the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the IRS and reversed in part as to the Marchetti Memo and the Kelly Memo. The court explained that withholding the contested documents, with the exception of the Kelly Memo and the unprotected portion of the Marchetti Memo, is consonant with Exemption 5’s purposes. At least some of the recommendations in the contested documents were not adopted in the OPR’s ultimate determination, so disclosure of the authors’ potentially mistaken recommendations might have a chilling effect on their willingness to make such recommendations. Further, the court wrote that insofar as the OPR’s ultimate determination departs from the course of action proposed by at least some of the contested documents or from their reasoning, the release of those predecisional documents might well mislead the public about the OPR’s view of Appellant’s conduct. View "Bradley Waterman v. IRS" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the superior court granting summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff, Key Corporation, holding that Defendant, Greenville Public Library, was not entitled to relief on its two claims of error.Plaintiff filed a complaint seeing a declaratory judgment that Defendant violated the Access to Public Records Act (the APRA), R.I. Gen. Laws 1956 chapter 2 of title 38, and seeking an order directing Defendant to produce requested records pursuant to the APRA. Plaintiff argued that Defendant was a quasi-municipal corporation that received seventy percent of its funding from the Town of Smithfield and therefore was a "public body" or "agency" as defined by the APRA. The hearing justice determined that Defendant was a public body subject to the APRA and accordingly granted Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the hearing justice (1) did not err in determining that Defendant was a public body; and (2) acted within his discretion in awarding fees and costs. View "Key Corp. v. Greenville Public Library" on Justia Law

A woman who suffered from schizophrenia appealed court orders authorizing her involuntary commitment and administration of psychotropic medication. She argued the superior court erred by relying on a cursory report from the court visitor and by failing to make specific findings that involuntary medication was in her best interests. She also contended it was error to commit her to a psychiatric hospital instead of to a less restrictive facility. Finding no reversible error, the Alaska Supreme Court affirmed the superior court’s orders. View "In the Matter of the Necessity for the Hospitalization of: Tonja P." on Justia Law