Birmingham, AL
Corporate and incorporation Lawyer at Birmingham, AL
Practice Areas: Corporate & Incorporation, Real Estate ... +2 more
OUTCOME: Mabry won
Ryder sold Mabry interests in the People in Profit System investment scheme. Mabry determined that the investment scheme was fraudulent. Ryder failed to return Mabry's money. Mabry filed a lawsuit f ... or the return of his money under provisions of the Alabama Securities Act.
OUTCOME: Cintas won.
Alabama Department of Revenue alleged that non-taxable intra-company sales were actually taxable inter-company sales leading to an understatement of corporate income tax. The ADOR alleged that Cintas ... kept its records in a manner so as to make inter-company sales appear to be intra-company sales and that Cintas had not provided enough information to the ADOR to overcome the presumption of correctness of the assessment.
OUTCOME: AT&T won.
The Alabama Business Privilege Tax allowed taxpayers to exclude from their BPT tax base the book value of investments in the equity of other taxpayers doing business in Alabama. The Alabama Corporate ... Shares Tax allowed taxpayers to deduct from their CST tax base the book value of investments in the equity of other corporations doing business in Alabama. AT&T Corp. deducted/excluded from its BPT and CST tax base the book value of its investments in all entities, regardless of where they were doing business. The Alabama Department of Revenue assessed AT&T for the BPT and CST deductions/exclusions taken for entities not doing business in Alabama. AT&T challenged the assessment in Jefferson County Circuit Court on the basis that the statutory scheme was facially discriminatory in violation of the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution and that it should be allowed a deduction for the book value of its investments in the equity of companies regardless of where such companies were doing business. The Circuit Court held that the statutes in question were not discriminatory and that AT&T had not met its burden of overcoming the presumption of correctness of the assessment. On appeal, the Court of Civil Appeals held that the deduction/exemption statutes in question were facially discriminatory. The case was remanded to the Jefferson County Circuit Court for proceedings regarding whether the State had a valid justification for the discriminatory deduction/exemption scheme.
OUTCOME: Southern Banknote won.
The Alabama Department of Revenue alleged that Southern Banknote was required to collect sales tax on the purchase of printed bond materials. The printed materials at issue were purchased with a check ... from investment banking companies that were handling the bond transactions for the tax-exempt governmental entities. The ADOR alleged that its regulations required these transactions to be taxable because the investment banking firm was not the agent of the issuing governmental entities, due to no written agency agreement; no purchase order was made by the governmental entity, because the purchase order was not in writing; the credit of the governmental entity was not obligated; and the funds of the tax-exempt governmental entity were not used. The Court held that an agency relationship existed between the investment bankers and the governmental entities--that no written agency agreement was required; purchase orders existed and the credit of the governmental entity was obligated because the governmental resolutions authorizing the payment of the cost, the agreement between the investment banking company and the governmental entity requiring that such costs be paid, and the direct invoicing of the governmental entity; and the funds of the governmental entity were used because the investment banking company checks used to pay for the printed materials were drawn upon special escrow accounts holding the governmental entities' funds.
OUTCOME: Hoover won
The Alabama Department of Revenue asseessed Hoover, Inc. for failing to collect Alabama sales taxes on Mississippi local governmental entities purchasing aggregate from Hoover's Alabama locations. Ala ... bama local governmental entity purchases are exempt from Alabama state & local sales taxes, whereas the purchases of out-of-state local governmental entities are not. Hoover challenged the assessment on the basis that the State's practice of exempting Alabama governmental entities while taxing the governmental entities of other states violates the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Summary judgment was granted against Hoover, Inc. by the Colbert County Circuit Court. Hoover, Inc. appealed on the basis that the statutes in question are facially disciminatory, U.S. Supreme Court Commerce Clause jurisprudence requires the State to present a justification for such discriminatory treatment, and genuine material issues of fact exist with respect to any justification State would present. The Court found the statutes in question to be facially discriminatory, that the burden was on the State to present an acceptable justification for such discrimination, and that genuine issues of material fact exist with respect to any justification that would be presented. The case was remanded to the Circuit Court for proceedings regarding the existence of a justification for the discriminatory tax exemption statutes.
Ad
Transform legal challenges into solutions.
Connect now to review your situation.
