Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

A business in Connecticut was assessed personal property taxes from 2008 to 2016. The defendant, who had moved to California years earlier and claimed to have left the business by 2007, was never notified of these tax assessments at her California address, despite having provided it to the tax collector in 2011 and 2016. Over the years, the city’s tax collector took funds from the defendant’s bank accounts multiple times via bank executions to satisfy the tax debt, without ever sending her a tax bill or notice at her actual residence.In 2021, the tax collector initiated another bank execution against the defendant. The defendant challenged this action, arguing she had not received due process or required statutory notice. The Superior Court for the judicial district of Litchfield held an evidentiary hearing and agreed with the defendant, finding the tax collector failed to provide required notice under General Statutes § 12-155 (a) and that the lack of notice deprived her of the opportunity to challenge the tax assessment. The court granted the defendant’s exemption motion, rendering the execution “of no effect.” The tax collector initially appealed but then withdrew the appeal. After sending a written demand to the defendant’s California address, the tax collector initiated a new bank execution, again without providing a new tax bill or an opportunity to challenge it.The trial court found the new action was a collateral attack on the earlier judgment and barred by collateral estoppel. The Appellate Court affirmed, concluding the issue of notice and opportunity to challenge had been actually litigated and necessarily determined in the 2021 action.The Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed the Appellate Court’s judgment. It held that, under Connecticut law, collateral estoppel applies to all independent, alternative grounds actually litigated and determined in a prior judgment, making them preclusive in subsequent actions. Thus, the tax collector was barred from relitigating the notice and due process issues already decided. The Court declined to recognize a public policy exception for municipal tax collection cases. View "Torrington Tax Collector, LLC v. Riley" on Justia Law

A municipality enacted an ordinance imposing a “stormwater charge” on owners of developed properties within its jurisdiction. The amount of this charge was based on the impervious surface area of each property, justified as covering the cost of constructing, operating, and maintaining the municipal stormwater system, as well as ensuring compliance with federal and state environmental mandates. The funds collected were deposited into a dedicated account for stormwater management purposes. The university system, which owns several properties within the municipality, refused to pay the charge, arguing that it constituted a tax from which it was immune under Pennsylvania law.The municipality initiated litigation in the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, seeking a declaration that the stormwater charge was a fee for service rather than a tax, and therefore enforceable against the university system. The university system responded with a preliminary objection and later an application for summary relief, maintaining the charge was a tax or, alternatively, a special assessment, both of which would render it immune from payment. The Commonwealth Court, after reviewing cross-motions for summary relief, ruled in favor of the university system. It concluded the stormwater charge was a tax because it funded projects that delivered general public benefits rather than discrete, individualized services for payors, and there was no voluntary, contractual relationship between the parties. The court also found the charge was not a special assessment.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the Commonwealth Court’s judgment. It held that the stormwater charge is a tax because the municipality provided stormwater management services as a public duty, for the general benefit of the community, and not within a voluntary or contractual fee-for-service framework. The court emphasized that, absent a quasiprivate relationship or proportional fee for individualized service, such charges are properly characterized as taxes, from which the university system is immune. View "The Boro of W. Chester v. PASSHE" on Justia Law

The dispute centers on how to calculate state tax credits for a municipal utility’s natural gas production. The Municipality of Anchorage owned a one-third interest in a Cook Inlet gas field and used most of its gas to generate electricity for its residents, selling only a small fraction to third parties. Alaska law taxes natural gas production but allows producers to claim tax credits based on production costs. A special statute for municipal producers required the Municipality to pay taxes only on the gas it sold to others, but also provided that it was eligible for tax credits “to the same extent as any other producer.” The Municipality sought tax credits by offsetting the costs of producing all its gas—including gas used for its own utility—against the relatively small amount of gas it actually paid taxes on, resulting in large credits.The Alaska Department of Revenue rejected this calculation, determining that tax credits should be based on the value of all gas produced, as defined by the general tax statutes, rather than only the gas actually taxed under the municipal exception. The Department awarded the Municipality much smaller tax credits. The Municipality challenged this decision. An administrative law judge and the Superior Court of the State of Alaska, Third Judicial District, affirmed the Department’s interpretation, finding it reasonable and not in conflict with applicable statutes or procedures.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Alaska held that the legislature intended municipal gas producers’ tax credits to be calculated according to the value of all gas defined as taxable under the general statutes, not merely the gas actually taxed due to the municipal exception. The court also held that the Department was not required to adopt a formal regulation to implement this interpretation, as it was foreseeable and not a substantive change in policy. The superior court’s judgment was affirmed. View "Municipality of Anchorage, formerly v. State of Alaska" on Justia Law

Amazon Services, LLC operated the online marketplace Amazon.com, which allowed third-party merchants to sell products to South Carolina residents. In 2016, although Amazon Services collected and remitted sales tax for products it and its affiliates sold, it did not do so for sales made by third-party merchants. After an audit, the South Carolina Department of Revenue assessed Amazon Services for $12,490,502.15 in unpaid sales taxes, penalties, and interest, claiming that Amazon Services was legally required to collect and remit sales taxes on third-party merchant sales due to the company's significant involvement in those transactions.Amazon Services contested the assessment before the South Carolina Administrative Law Court, which upheld the Department of Revenue’s determination, finding Amazon Services was “engaged in the business of selling” under the South Carolina Sales and Use Tax Act and thus responsible for remitting the tax. Amazon Services appealed, and the South Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed the Administrative Law Court’s ruling, agreeing with the interpretation that Amazon Services’ role in third-party sales triggered the statutory obligation to collect and remit sales tax.The Supreme Court of South Carolina granted certiorari and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court held that, under the plain language of subsection 12-36-910(A) of the South Carolina Sales and Use Tax Act, Amazon Services was “engaged in the business of selling” due to its comprehensive control and involvement in third-party transactions and was therefore required to remit sales tax on those sales. The Court also held that this application did not violate due process, as the relevant statutory provisions were in effect prior to the challenged assessment, and clarified that its holding was not based on interpreting tax statutes broadly but on ordinary statutory interpretation principles. View "Amazon Services v. SCDOR" on Justia Law

A Texas-based company sold bunker fuel to primarily foreign-registered vessels at Texas ports, transferring possession and control of the fuel in Texas. The company initially paid franchise taxes on these sales, but later sought a refund, arguing that these transactions should not be attributed to Texas for franchise-tax purposes because the fuel was not used, sold, or consumed in Texas. The company contended that, under the relevant statute, sales should be sourced to the buyer’s ultimate destination or place of use, not merely the location where possession was transferred.After the Texas Comptroller denied the refund, the company exhausted administrative remedies and filed suit, also challenging the validity of regulations that sourced sales to Texas based on the point of delivery to the buyer. Both parties filed motions for summary judgment, focusing on whether the statutory phrase “delivered or shipped to a buyer in this state” refers to the place where the buyer takes delivery or to the location where the buyer uses or consumes the goods. The trial court ruled in favor of the Comptroller, upholding the regulations. On interlocutory appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Third District of Texas affirmed, finding the statute unambiguously sources sales based on where the buyer receives the property.The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed the case to resolve the statutory interpretation. The Court held that the statute sources receipts from sales of tangible personal property to Texas if the seller transfers possession and control to the buyer at a location in Texas, regardless of where the buyer ultimately uses or consumes the goods. The Court found that the Comptroller’s rules were consistent with this interpretation and thus valid. The judgment of the court of appeals was affirmed and the case remanded for further proceedings. View "NUSTAR ENERGY, L.P. v. HANCOCK" on Justia Law

A city-owned zoo in Alameda County is managed through a contract with a nonprofit corporation. In 2022, local voters approved an initiative, Measure Y, which imposed a parcel tax to fund zoo operations. The measure specified that tax revenue would be placed in a city fund and distributed to the “Zoo Operator” for certain uses. Measure Y identified the Conservation Society of California, the current nonprofit operator, by name and assigned it specific duties and powers related to the new tax revenue. The measure stated it would take effect if approved by a simple majority of voters and received 63.1% support.Following the election, the Alameda County Taxpayers’ Association and an individual filed a reverse validation action in the Superior Court of Alameda County, seeking to invalidate Measure Y. They argued that the measure violated article II, section 12 of the California Constitution by naming a private corporation to perform functions or have duties, and that the measure required a two-thirds supermajority to pass. The trial court sustained demurrers to the supermajority claims, finding only a simple majority was needed, and granted judgment on the pleadings as to the constitutional claims. The court concluded that any reference to the Conservation Society was either not a violation or, if so, was severable, leaving the rest of the measure valid. Judgment was entered for the city and the Conservation Society.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Four, found that Measure Y’s references to the Conservation Society as the “Zoo Operator” violated article II, section 12 because they assigned specific functions and duties to a named private corporation. However, the court held these references could be severed without affecting the remainder of the measure, which would remain valid. The court further held that only a simple majority vote was required for passage. The trial court’s judgment was affirmed as modified to reflect severance. View "Alameda County Taxpayers' Assn., Inc. v. City of Oakland" on Justia Law

A group of organizations challenged the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) policy permitting the sharing of taxpayer address information with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for immigration enforcement. The plaintiffs initiated suit after reports that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) was seeking addresses from the IRS to locate undocumented immigrants. The IRS and DHS subsequently formalized an agreement (Memorandum of Understanding, or MOU) specifying procedures for ICE to request taxpayer addresses from the IRS for use in nontax criminal investigations, provided statutory requirements were met.The case was first heard in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. After denying a temporary restraining order, the District Court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. The District Court found that at least one plaintiff had standing and concluded the plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed on their claims. Specifically, the court found that 26 U.S.C. § 6103(i)(2) unambiguously allowed the IRS to disclose address information in response to valid requests, and that the IRS’s prior internal guidelines to the contrary did not have the force of law. The court also determined that the MOU was a nonbinding policy statement, not a final agency action subject to judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the District Court’s denial of preliminary injunction. The appellate court held that the plaintiffs likely had standing, but were unlikely to succeed on the merits. The court ruled that § 6103(i)(2) clearly authorizes the IRS to disclose taxpayer address information, and that the MOU was not a reviewable agency action. It further held that any challenge to the agency’s change of interpretation was not viable because the court’s interpretation of the statute controls. The judgment of the District Court was affirmed. View "Centro de Trabajadores Unidos v. Bessent" on Justia Law

Several organizations and individuals petitioned to prevent the Idaho State Tax Commission from implementing a newly enacted parental choice tax credit. This tax credit, established in 2025, provides refundable credits to parents, guardians, and foster parents for certain private educational expenses, including private school tuition and related services, for dependent students not enrolled in public schools. The law caps total annual credits and includes prioritization based on income and previous participation. The petitioners, including advocacy groups, a school district, and parents, argued that the statute creates a separate, non-public education system funded by public resources, allegedly violating the Idaho Constitution’s mandate for a single, general, uniform, and thorough system of public schools. They also claimed the statute failed the “public purpose doctrine,” asserting it primarily benefits private rather than public interests.Before the Idaho Supreme Court, the petitioners sought a writ of prohibition, which would prevent the Tax Commission from carrying out the law. The respondents, including the State and the Idaho Legislature, contested the petitioners’ standing and the merits of the constitutional claims. The Supreme Court determined that the petitioners lacked traditional standing but, given the urgency and importance of the constitutional question and the absence of another suitable challenger, relaxed standing requirements to address the merits.The Supreme Court of Idaho denied the petition. It held that Article IX, section 1 of the Idaho Constitution does not restrict the legislature from enacting educational measures beyond the required public school system, so long as the public system remains intact and constitutionally sufficient. The Court also found that the tax credit serves a legitimate public purpose—supporting parental choice in education—even if private entities benefit. The petition was dismissed, and the Tax Commission was awarded attorney fees and costs. View "Committee to Protect and Preserve v. State" on Justia Law

Disney Platform Distribution, BAMTech, and Hulu, subsidiaries of the Walt Disney Company, provide video streaming services to subscribers in the City of Santa Barbara. In 2022, the City’s Tax Administrator notified these companies that they had failed to collect and remit video users’ taxes under Ordinance 5471 for the period January 1, 2018, through December 31, 2020, resulting in substantial assessments. The companies appealed to the City Administrator, and a retired Associate Justice served as hearing officer, ultimately upholding the Tax Administrator’s decision.Following the administrative appeal, the companies sought judicial review by filing a petition for a writ of administrative mandate in the Superior Court of Santa Barbara County. The trial court denied their petition, finding that the Ordinance does apply to video streaming services and rejecting arguments that the Ordinance violated the Internet Tax Freedom Act, the First Amendment, and Article XIII C of the California Constitution. The trial court also found there was no violation of Public Utilities Code section 799’s notice requirements, as the City’s actions did not constitute a change in the tax base or adoption of a new tax.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Six, affirmed the trial court’s judgment. The court held that the Ordinance applies to video streaming services, interpreting the term “channel” in its ordinary, non-technical sense and finding that the voters intended technological neutrality. The court further held that the Ordinance does not violate the Internet Tax Freedom Act because video streaming subscriptions and DVD sales/rentals are not “similar” under the Act. Additionally, the court concluded the tax is not a content-based regulation of speech under the First Amendment, and that delayed enforcement did not constitute a tax increase requiring additional voter approval or notice under the California Constitution or Public Utilities Code section 799. View "Disney Platform Distribution v. City of Santa Barbara" on Justia Law

This case concerns the State Water Resources Control Board's intervention in the Tulare Lake groundwater subbasin pursuant to California’s Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (the Act). After local agencies in the subbasin submitted a groundwater sustainability plan that the Department of Water Resources twice determined to be inadequate, the State Board designated the basin as probationary in April 2024. This designation triggered state-imposed monitoring, reporting, and fee obligations on certain groundwater extractors. In response, the Kings County Farm Bureau and others filed a petition for writ of mandate and complaint, asserting that the State Board exceeded its authority and challenging the validity of the designation and associated fees on several grounds.The Superior Court of Kings County addressed both a demurrer filed by the State Board and a request from the Farm Bureau for a preliminary injunction. The trial court dismissed the equal protection claim with leave to amend, but overruled the demurrer as to claims that (1) the State Board used improper “underground regulations” not adopted under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), (2) the imposed extraction fee constituted an unlawful tax, and (3) general declaratory relief was appropriate. The trial court also granted a preliminary injunction, temporarily halting the State Board’s enforcement activities.The California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, reviewed the trial court’s order overruling the demurrer. The appellate court held that all actions by the State Board taken under sections 10735.2 and 10735.8 of the Act—including the designation of a probationary basin—are exempt from the APA unless the State Board voluntarily opts to adopt regulations using APA procedures. Therefore, the claim for improper “underground regulations” could not proceed. The court also held that a challenge to the extraction fee as an unlawful tax was barred by the constitutional “pay first” rule, as no exception applied. Lastly, the court determined that declaratory relief was unavailable because the Legislature provided for review of State Board actions exclusively by writ of mandate. The appellate court ordered the trial court to grant the demurrer without leave to amend as to these three claims. View "State Water Resources Control Bd. v. Superior Court" on Justia Law