Babcock Center, Inc. v. United States The plaintiff-taxpayer has forecasted evidence that, during the time it failed to pay payroll taxes, it was suffering financial hardship and it only paid essential creditors; as such, there is a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the taxpayer is entitled to a refund of penalties paid for six of the seven quarters in question.
Bodman v. State Since plaintiff challenges the entire scheme of exclusions and caps to our state sales tax, we cannot examine each exclusion and cap individually to determine whether it violates the S.C. Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause. As we did in Ed Robinson Laundry & Dry Cleaning, Inc. v. South Carolina Department of Revenue, 356 S.C. 120, 588 S.E.2d 97 (2003), we reject plaintiff’s argument that the scheme must stand or fall as a whole based on the sheer number of exclusions and caps.
Taylor v. Aiken County Assessor Although plaintiff did not buy the real property at issue until a foreclosure sale on Sept. 7, 2010 and so did not own it when the 2010 tax was assessed as of Dec. 31, 2009, plaintiff has standing to challenge the 2010 property tax assessment as a person whose property is subject to the property tax under S.C .Code Ann. §§ 12-60-30(22) and 12-60-2510(A)(4).
Taylor v. Aiken County Assessor Although plaintiff did not buy the real property at issue until a foreclosure sale on Sept. 7, 2010 and so did not own it when the 2010 tax was assessed as of Dec. 31, 2009, plaintiff has standing to challenge the 2010 property tax assessment as a person whose property is subject to the property tax under S.C .Code Ann. §§ 12-60-30(22) and 12-60-2510(A)(4).
Charleston County Assessor v. LMP Properties, Inc. S.C. Code Ann. § n 12-43-215 states merely that any adjustments to a property's value must be "based on the market values of real property as they existed in the year that the equalization and reassessment program was conducted...." The statute is silent on the date to be used for determining the highest and best use of the property. Accordingly, it cannot be read to mandate a diversion from the general rule that the use of the property is to be determined as of December 31st of the preceding year.
Hampton Friends of the Arts v. South Carolina Department of Revenue Since the real property at issue was owned by a non-exempt entity – and was therefore subject to taxation – on Dec. 31, 2007, the property was not exempt from 2008 property taxes, despite the fact that it was purchased by a non-profit corporation in March 2008, before the taxes were levied.
Alltel Communications, Inc. v. South Carolina Department of Revenue S.C. Code Ann. § 12-20-100 imposes higher license fees on certain companies, including every “telephone company.” Since the statute does not define “telephone company”, it is ambiguous. We construe the ambiguity in favor of the petitioner-taxpayers – cellular telephone service providers – and rule that the statute does not apply to petitioners.
U.S. v. Jinwright A couple who served as co-pastors of a North Carolina church are convicted of tax evasion for omitting millions of dollars of taxable income from their jointly filed tax returns; the 4th Circuit rejects the taxpayers’ claims that they did not “knowingly” underreport their income.
Ford v. Beaufort County Assessor Since petitioners rented out their Hilton Head home for more than 14 days a year, the respondent-assessor properly taxed their home at the rate applicable to rental property rather than at the lower rate applicable to residences.
Starnes v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue Four former owners of a trucking business who sold their stake to a company that in turn sold it to another buyer, without following through on an agreement to pay taxes the former owners owed on the sale proceeds, do not have to pay the back taxes to the IRS; the 4th Circuit upholds a Tax Court decision that the IRS could not collect from the former owners because, under the controlling state law, a creditor of the buyer company could not recover on the buyer’s company debts.
Next Page »
