Tax Appeals311Search all NYC.gov websites
Recent Decisions, Determinations, and Orders
Recent Decisions, Determinations & Orders
Appeals Division
Administrative Law Judge Division
Appeals Division
In the Matter of CT 157-162 LLC., et al.
TAT(E) 21-5 & 21-6 (RP) – DECISION
NEW YORK CITY TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL
APPEALS DIVISION
REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX – THE ACTING CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE PROPERLY GRANTED SUMMARY DETERMINATION DISMISSING THE PETITIONS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION, BECAUSE THEY WERE FILED WITH THE TRIBUNAL MORE THAN 90 DAYS AFTER THE MAILING OF THE NOTICES OF DETERMINATION. ADMINISTRATIVE CODE §11-2116(a) REQUIRES THE NOTICES TO BE MAILED TO THE ADDRESS SHOWN ON THE LAST RPTT RETURN FILED IN CONNECTION WITH THE REPORTED TRANSFER. THE NOTICES OF DETERMINATION WERE PROPERLY MAILED TO THAT ADDRESS, AS EVIDENCED BY POSTMARKED U.S. POSTAL SERVICE FORMS 3800.
OCTOBER 6, 2023
In the Matter of ASTRO GALLERY OF GEMS INC.
TAT(E)21-21(CR) – DECISION
NEW YORK CITY TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL
APPEALS DIVISION
COMMERCIAL RENT TAX – THE EXCEPTION WAS DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION. THE TRIBUNAL DOES NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO REVIEW AN EXCEPTION TO AN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DETERMINATION FILED MORE THAN 30 DAYS AFTER THE ISSUANCE OF THE DETERMINATION.
FEBRUARY 14, 2023
In the Matter of PATRICK MCCAULEY
TAT(E)20-8(RP) – DECISION
NEW YORK CITY TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL
APPEALS DIVISION
REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX – THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DETERMINATION CONCLUDING THAT THE TRANSFER OF TWO LEGALLY SEPARATE TWO-FAMILY HOUSES WAS TO BE TREATED AS THE TRANSFER OF A FOUR-FAMILY HOUSE FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING THE APPLICABLE TAX RATE ON THE TRANSFER, AND GRANTING SUMMARY DETERMINATION TO RESPONDENT, WAS REVERSED. THE TRIBUNAL GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGEMENT IN FAVOR OF PETITIONER, THE NOTICE OF DETERMINATION WAS CANCELED AND PETITIONER’S EXCEPTION WAS GRANTED.
FEBRUARY 14, 2023
In the Matter of SKIDMORE, OWINGS & MERRILL, LLP
TAT(E)17-21(UB) – DECISION
NEW YORK CITY TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL
APPEALS DIVISION
UNINCORPORATED BUSINESS TAX – PETITIONER’S DEDUCTION OF COMMISSION PAYMENTS TO A DOMESTIC INTERNATIONAL SALES CORPORATION, IN WHICH PETITIONER’S PARTNERS WERE THE SHAREHOLDERS, WAS DISALLOWED UNDER ADMINISTRATIVE CODE § 11-507(3) AND 19 RCNY §28-06(d)(1)(i)(B).
JANUARY 26, 2023
In the Matter of JAMIE HUANG
TAT(E)18-19(RP) - DECISION
NEW YORK CITY TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL
APPEALS DIVISION
REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX - THE EXCEPTION APPEALED THE DETERMINATION OF THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE (CALJ) DATED AUGUST 26, 2021, WHICH DISMISSED THIS MATTER BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DIVISION (ALJ DIVISION) ON THE GROUNDS THAT "THE PETITION FOR HEARING WAS PREMATURELY FILED." SINCE PETITIONER DID NOT, IN FACT, FILE A PETITION WITH THE CONCILIATION BUREAU, THE DETERMINATION, THEREFORE, IS IN ERROR, AND THE TRIBUNAL HAS JURISDICTION TO HEAR THIS MATTER ON THE MERITS. THE EXCEPTION WAS GRANTED, AND THE MATTER REMANDED TO THE ALJ DIVISION FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT WITH THIS DECISION.
JANUARY 25, 2022
In the Matter of KATZ & KERN LLP
TAT(E)19-20(UB) – DECISION
NEW YORK CITY TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL
APPEALS DIVISION
UNINCORPORATED BUSINESS TAX – THE EXCEPTION WAS DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION. THE TRIBUNAL DOES NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO REVIEW A FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT WHICH DOES NOT "GIVE A PERSON A RIGHT TO A HEARING" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 168.a OF THE NEW YORK CITY CHARTER.
JANUARY 10, 2022
In the Matter of GOLDMAN SACHS PETERSHILL FUND OFFSHORE HOLDINGS (DELAWARE) CORP.
TAT(E)16-9(GC) - DECISION
NEW YORK CITY TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL
APPEALS DIVISION
GENERAL CORPORATION TAX - UNDER GCT RULES 19 RCNY §11- 06(a) PETITIONER, A NON-DOMICILLIARY CORPORATION, HAD NEXUS TO THE CITY BY REASON OF ITS OWNERHIP OF AN INTEREST IN AN LLC WHICH PERFORMED 100% OF ITS BUSINESS ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE CITY AND WAS TAXED AS A PARTNERSHIP FOR PURPOSES OF BOTH THE FEDERAL INCOME TAX AND THE GCT; PETITITIONER WAS TAXABLE ON BOTH ITS SHARE OF THE PARTNERSHIP'S INCOME AND THE CAPITAL GAIN, THE VALUE OF WHICH WAS DERIVED ENTIRELY FROM THE PARTNERSHIP'S ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE CITY AND WHICH WAS ENTIRELY ALLOCABLE TO THE CITY, CONSISTENT WITH THE DUE PROCESS AND THE COMMERCE CLAUSES OF THE U.S CONSTITUTION.
MARCH 12, 2021
In the Matter of STEUBEN DELSHAH, LLC and In the Matter of AFRICAN-AMERICAN PARENT COUNCIL, INC.
TAT(E)12-12(RP) & TAT(E)12-23(RP) – ORDER
NEW YORK CITY TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL
APPEALS DIVISION
REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX – THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE (ALJ) DETERMINATION GRANTING SUMMARY DETERMINATION TO PETITIONERS WAS REVERSED, THE NOTICES WERE REINSTATED AND THE MATTER WAS REMANDED TO THE ALJ DIVISION FOR A HEARING. MOREOVER, THE CONSOLIDATION ORDER DENYING RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE THE PETITION FILED BY STEUBEN DELSHAH, LLC WITH SEVEN OTHER CASES PENDING BEFORE THE ALJ DIVISION (EXCEPT INSOFAR AS THE CASES INVOLVING THE GRANTEE AND GRANTOR OF EACH PROPERTY WERE CONSOLIDATED) WAS ALSO REVERSED AND IT WAS ORDERED THAT THIS MATTER BE CONSOLIDATED FOR HEARING WITH THE SIX OTHER CASES.
JUNE 24, 2019
In the Matter of INDIRA PATEL & BHARGAVI PATEL
TAT(E)14-23(RP) – ORDER OF DISMISSAL
NEW YORK CITY TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL
APPEALS DIVISION
REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX – THE EXCEPTION WAS DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION. THE TRIBUNAL DOES NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO REVIEW A CONCILIATION DETERMINATION WHERE A PETITION WAS FILED WITH THE TRIBUNAL MORE THAN NINETY DAYS FROM THE MAILING OF A CONCILIATION DETERMINATION.
MAY 21, 2019
In the Matter of ARK RESTAURANTS CORP.
TAT(E)16-18(GC) – DECISION
NEW YORK CITY TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL
APPEALS DIVISION
GENERAL CORPORATION TAX – THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY DETERMINATION WAS PROPERLY GRANTED BY THE CALJ. PETITIONER NEVER ASSERTED ALL OF THE FACTUAL ELEMENTS NECESSARY TO SUPPORT A CLAIM OF UNLAWFUL SELECTIVE ENFORCEMENT AND OFFERED NO EVIDENTIARY SUPPORT FOR ITS CLAIM, AND THERE ARE NO TRIABLE ISSUES OF FACT IN THIS CASE. IN DETERMINING ITS ENTIRE NET INCOME FOR GCT PURPOSES, PETITIONER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO A DEDUCTION FOR EXCESS FICA TAXES PAID FOR EACH OF THE TAX YEARS BECAUSE IT CLAIMED A CREDIT FOR EXCESS FICA TAXES PAID FOR FEDERAL PURPOSES UNDER IRC §45B FOR EACH OF THE TAX YEARS.
MARCH 21, 2019
In the Matter of U.S. SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY, LP
TAT(E)14-12(UT) and TAT(E)14-13(UT)- DECISION
NEW YORK CITY TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL
APPEALS DIVISION
UTILITY TAX - BECAUSE NO LONG DISTANCE CALL TO OR FROM A SPRINT CUSTOMER IN THE CITY CAN BE COMPLETED WITHOUT ACCESS PROVIDED BY THE CITY LOCAL EXCHANGE CARRIER TO SPRINT'S LONG DISTANCE SWITCH, A TAX ON RECEIPTS FOR CHARGES FOR SUCH ACCESS WOULD BE A TAX ON SUCH TRANSACTIONS AND, THEREFORE, IS PROHIBITED BY GCL §20-b. THE PROHIBITION UNDER GCL §20-b APPLIES "NOTWITHSTANDING THAT SOME ACT BE NECESSARILY PERFORMED WITH RESPECT TO SUCH TRANSACTION WITHIN" THE CITY, SUCH AS THE CITY LOCAL EXCHANGE CARRIER'S PROVISION OF LOCAL ACCESS TO SPRINT'S LONG DISTANCE SWITCH IN THE CITY. THE PORTION OF THE ALJ DETERMINATION TO WHICH RESPONDENT TOOK EXCEPTION IS AFFIRMED.
APRIL 3, 2018
In the Matter of VCP ONE PARK REIT LLC, VCP ONE PARK PARALLEL REIT LLC, AND ONE PARK AVENUE MEZZ PARTNERS LLC
TAT(E)14-26(RP) – DECISION
NEW YORK CITY TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL
APPEALS DIVISION
REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX – THE TRANSACTION DID NOT QUALIFY AS A REIT TRANSFER UNDER ADMINISTRATIVE CODE §11-2102.e(2) BECAUSE THE REIT INTERESTS RECEIVED DID NOT EQUAL AT LEAST 40% OF THE EQUITY INTERESTS IN THE PROPERTY OR ECONOMIC INTEREST IN PROPERTY CONVEYED. THEREFORE, THE RPTT DUE ON THE TRANSFER MUST BE CALCULATED AT THE OTHERWISE APPLICABLE 2.625% RATE. IN ADDITION, THE PAYMENT BY THE GRANTEES OF THE RPTT MUST BE INCLUDED IN CONSIDERATION USING THE CALCULATION CALLED FOR IN RPTT RULE §23-02 CONSIDERATION (2).
FEBRUARY 16, 2018
In the Matter of JAMESTOWN, L.P., AS SUCCESSOR TO JAMESTOWN CHELSEA MARKET, L.P.
TAT(E)14-8(RP) - DECISION
NEW YORK CITY TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL
APPEALS DIVISION
REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX - A REQUIRED RPTT PAYMENT IS CONSIDERED TO HAVE BEEN MADE WHEN THE CHECK WAS DELIVERED TO THE NYC DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, WHICH THE PARTIES HAVE AGREED WAS NO LATER THAN AUGUST 10, 2011. THUS, THE RPTT WAS PAID NO LATER THAN AUGUST 10, 2011. AN APPLICATION TO THE COMMISSIONER OF FINANCE FOR A REFUND OF THE AMOUNT OF RPTT PAID HAD TO BE MADE WITHIN ONE YEAR FROM THE PAYMENT OF THE RPTT. ONE YEAR FROM AUGUST 10, 2011 WAS AUGUST 10, 2012, DETERMINED BY COUNTING 365 DAYS STARTING WITH AUGUST 11, 2011. THE FACT THAT 2012 WAS A LEAP YEAR IS DISREGARDED UNDER GENERAL CONSTRUCTION LAW §58. THUS, THE RPTT REFUND REQUEST FILED ON AUGUST 13, 2012 WAS TIME-BARRED.
JANUARY 31, 2018
In the Matter of GERSON LEHRMAN GROUP, INC.
TAT(E)08-79(GC) - DECISION
(E)12-38(GC)
(E)12-39(GC)
NEW YORK CITY TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL
APPEALS DIVISION
GENERAL CORPORATION TAX - PETITIONER'S RECEIPTS REPRESENT A FLAT PAYMENT FOR A SUBSCRIPTION SERVICE THAT IS THE PRODUCT OF THE EFFORTS OF PETITIONER'S EMPLOYEES (INCLUDING ITS SALESPEOPLE) AS WELL AS INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS. HAVING FOUND THAT THE METHODOLOGIES FOR CALCULATING PETITIONER'S RECEIPTS FACTOR, ADVANCED BY RESPONDENT AND PETITIONER, AS WELL AS THE METHODOLOGY ADOPTED BY THE ALJ, TO BE INCORRECT, THE TRIBUNAL CALCULATED A RECEIPTS FACTOR FOR EACH OF THE TAX YEARS. THE MATTER IS REMANDED TO THE ALJ DIVISION FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS FOR THE PURPOSE OF CALCULATING PETITIONER'S GCT LIABILITY FOR THE TAX YEARS USING THE RECALCULATED RECEIPTS FACTOR TO DETERMINE ANY DEFICIENCIES OR OVERPAYMENTS.
DECEMBER 28, 2017
In the Matter of VESTRY ACQUISITION LLC
TAT(E)15-14(RP) - DECISION
NEW YORK CITY TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL
APPEALS DIVISION
REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX - PETITIONER'S DISTRIBUTION OF A CONDOMINIUM UNIT TO A MEMBER OF PETITIONER WAS 25% EXEMPT AS A MERE CHANGE IN OWNERSHIP FOR PURPOSES OF THE REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX BASED ON THE MEMBER'S PERCENTAGE IN PETITIONER AS SET FORTH IN PETITIONER'S LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY AGREEMENT.
DECEMBER 1, 2017
In the Matter of 1018 MORRIS PARK AVENUE REALTY INC.
TAT(E)14-4(GC) - DECISION
NEW YORK CITY TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL
APPEALS DIVISION
GENERAL CORPORATION TAX - THE NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE CORRECTLY ASSERTED A GCT DEFICIENCY BASED ON PETITIONER'S FAILURE TO INCLUDE THE ENTIRE GAIN FROM PETITIONER'S INSTALLMENT SALE OF PROPERTY IN NOVEMBER 2009 IN ITS GCT RETURN FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING NOVEMBER 30, 2009. PETITIONER FILED A GCT RETURN FOR THE YEAR ENDING NOVEMBER 30, 2009 INDICATING THAT IT HAD CEASED OPERATIONS AND THAT IT WAS A FINAL RETURN AND FAILED TO ESTABLISH THAT IT WAS DOING BUSINESS IN NEW YORK CITY AFTER NOVEMBER 30, 2009.
AUGUST 7, 2017
In the Matter of PLASMANET, INC.
TAT(E)12-17(GC) – DECISION
NEW YORK CITY TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL
APPEALS DIVISION
GENERAL CORPORATION TAX – UNDER ADMINISTRATIVE CODE § 11-602.8(f), THE NET OPERATING LOSS DEDUCTION ALLOWED FOR GCT PURPOSES IS THE SAME AS THE FEDERAL NET OPERATING LOSS DEDUCTION ALLOWED UNDER IRC § 172, WITH CERTAIN ADJUSTMENTS. THE "SAME SOURCE YEAR RULE" APPLIES IN THIS CASE AND REQUIRES THAT THE NET OPERATING LOSSES COMPRISING PETITIONER'S NET OPERATING LOSS DEDUCTION FOR GCT PURPOSES FOR 2008 AND 2009 MUST HAVE ARISEN IN THE SAME TAX YEARS AS THE LOSSES COMPRISING THE FEDERAL NET OPERATING LOSS DEDUCTIONS FOR 2008 AND 2009. IN ADDITION, PETITIONER'S CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTIONS IN THE YEARS 2006 THROUGH 2009 MUST BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN CALCULATING THE AMOUNT OF NET OPERATING LOSS CARRYOVERS FOR FEDERAL INCOME TAX AND GCT PURPOSES.
JANUARY 20, 2017
In the Matter of GKK 2 HERALD LLC
TAT(E)13-25(RP) - DECISION
NEW YORK CITY TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL
APPEALS DIVISION
REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX - A SERIES OF ACTIONS OCCURRING ON DECEMBER 22, 2010 REPRESENTED STEPS IN A SINGLE, INTEGRATED TRANSACTION WHEREBY PETITIONER CONVEYED ITS TENANT-IN-COMMON INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY TO 2 HERALD OWNER LLC IN A TAXABLE TRANSACTION FOR PURPOSES OF THE RPTT IN EXCHANGE FOR CASH AND RELIEF FROM LIABILITIES. THE STEP TRANSACTION DOCTRINE APPLIES TO TREAT THE SERIES OF ACTIONS AS A SINGLE TRANSACTION NOT EXEMPT FROM RPTT EITHER AS A MERE CHANGE IN FORM OF OWNERSHIP OR AS A TRANSFER OF A NON-CONTROLLING INTEREST IN PROPERTY.
JULY 15, 2016
In the Matter of AETNA, INC.
TAT(E)12-3(GC) AND TAT(E)12-4(GC) - DECISION
NEW YORK CITY TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL
APPEALS DIVISION
GENERAL CORPORATION TAX - PETITIONER, A HOLDING COMPANY, IS REQUIRED TO INCLUDE ITS SUBSIDIARIES THAT ARE HEALTH MAINTENANCE ORGANIZATIONS (HMOs) IN ITS COMBINED GCT RETURNS FOR THE TAX YEARS. SUCH HMOs, THEREFORE, ARE NOT "INSURANCE CORPORATIONS" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE GCT ENABLING LEGISLATION AND ARE NOT EXEMPT FROM THE GCT. PETITIONER'S REFUND CLAIMS WERE DENIED.
JUNE 3, 2016
In the Matter of ASTORIA FINANCIAL CORPORATION & AFFILIATES
TAT(E)10-35(BT)ET AL. - DECISION
NEW YORK CITY TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL
APPEALS DIVISION
BANKING CORPORATION TAX - PETITIONER DID NOT HAVE TO INCLUDE FIDATA SERVICE CORP. (FIDATA) A CONNECTICUT PASSIVE INVESTMENT COMPANY IN ITS COMBINED NEW YORK CITY BANKING CORPORATION TAX RETURN FOR EACH OF THE TAX YEARS ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2006, DECEMBER 31, 2007 AND DECEMBER 31, 2008. PETITIONER REBUTTED THE PRESUMPTION OF DISTORTION BY ESTABLISHING THAT PRICES PAID BY FIDATA IN THE INTERCORPORATE TRANSACTIONS BETWEEN FIDATA AND PETITIONER WERE ARM'S LENGTH PRICES. IN ADDITION, THE RECORD DOES NOT SUPPORT A FINDING THAT THERE WAS "ANY AGREEMENT, UNDERSTANDING OR ARRANGEMENT" BETWEEN FIDATA AND PETITIONER THAT RESULTED IN THE IMPROPER REFLECTION OF THE "ACTIVITY, BUSINESS, INCOME OR ASSETS OF" PETITIONER REQURING THE INCLUSION OF FIDATA IN THE COMBINED RETURNS UNDER NEW YORK CITY ADMINISTRATIVE CODE § 11-646(g).
MAY 19, 2016
In the Matter of 1465-69-71 BUSHWICK AVE LLC
TAT(E)14-14(RP) – DECISION
NEW YORK CITY TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL
APPEALS DIVISION
REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX – THE CONCILIATION BUREAU OF THE NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE PROPERLY MAILED A CONCILIATION DECISION TO PETITIONER'S AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE BY CERTIFIED MAIL ON MARCH 14, 2014, STARTING THE RUNNING OF THE 90-DAY LIMITATIONS PERIOD FOR FILING A PETITION WITH THE NEW YORK CITY TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL. AS A CONSEQUENCE, THE MAILING OF THE PETITION ON JULY 9, 2014 WAS UNTIMELY AND THE TRIBUNAL DOES NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO ADDRESS THE ISSUES RAISED IN THE PETITION.
JANUARY 19, 2016
In the Matter of THE MCGRAW-HILL COMPANIES, INC.
TAT (E)10-19 (GC) ET AL. - DECISION
NEW YORK CITY TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL
APPEALS DIVISION
GENERAL CORPORATION TAX - THE NYC DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE DID NOT VIOLATE PETITIONER'S FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS IN DISALLOWING PETITIONER'S USE OF AN AUDIENCE METHOD TO ALLOCATE ITS RECEIPTS FROM GENERATING CREDIT RATINGS. PETITIONER ALSO DID NOT ESTABLISH THAT ITS RECEIPTS FROM GENERATING CREDIT RATINGS SHOULD BE ALLOCATED AS "OTHER BUSINESS RECEIPTS" UNDER ADMINISTRATIVE CODE §11-604.3(a)(2)(D). FINALLY, PETITIONER DID NOT PROVE THAT THE TRIBUNAL SHOULD EXERCISE THE COMMISSIONER'S DISCRETION UNDER ADMINISTRATIVE CODE §11-604.9 TO PERMIT IT TO USE THE LOCATION OF VISITORS TO ITS FREE WEBSITE TO ALLOCATE PETITIONER'S RECEIPTS FROM GENERATING CREDIT RATINGS.
OCTOBER 28, 2015
In the Matter of SECURITIES INDUSTRY AUTOMATION CORP.
TAT (E)12-9(UT) AND TAT (E)12-10(UT) – DECISION
NEW YORK CITY TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL
APPEALS DIVISION
UTILITY TAX - PETITIONER, A PROVIDER OF SECURE FINANCIAL TRANSACTION INFRASTRUCTURE (SFTI) ACCESS, A TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICE, COULD NOT TREAT "PER END USER FEES" RECEIVED FROM PURCHASERS OF SFTI ACCESS AS SALES FOR RESALE EXCLUDIBLE FROM GROSS OPERATING INCOME FOR PURPOSES OF THE NYC UTILITY TAX. HOWEVER, RECEIPTS FROM SALES OF SFTI ACCESS TO EXTRANETS WERE EXCLUDIBLE AS SALES FOR RESALE. RECEIPTS FROM CO-LOCATION SERVICES SOLD IN CONNECTION WITH SFTI ACCESS ALSO WERE INCLUDIBLE IN GROSS OPERATING INCOME. THE MATTER IS REMANDED TO THE ALJ DIVISION FOR PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT WITH THIS DECISION.
OCTOBER 27, 2015
In the Matter of TOCQUEVILLE ASSET MANAGEMENT L.P.
TAT(E)10-37(UB) - DECISION
NEW YORK CITY TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL
APPEALS DIVISION
UNINCORPORATED BUSINESS TAX – PETITIONER CANNOT DEDUCT THE PORTION OF ITS PAYMENT TO THE GENERAL PARTNER REPRESENTING COMPENSATION FOR THE SERVICES OF EMPLOYEE-PARTNERS FOR PURPOSES OF THE NEW YORK CITY UNINCORPORATED BUSINESS TAX. THE EMPLOYEE-PARTNERS WERE NOT MERELY EMPLOYEES OF THE GENERAL PARTNER BUT WERE ALSO INDIVIDUAL PARTNERS IN PETITIONER.
MAY 29, 2015
In the Matter of JONIS REALTY/E. 29TH STREET, LLC.
TAT (E) 09-9 (RP)MR – ORDER
NEW YORK CITY TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL
APPEALS DIVISION
REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX – RESPONDENT'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO REARGUE AN OCTOBER 24, 2011 ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL WAS DENIED.
SEPTEMBER 28, 2012
In the Matter of JONIS REALTY/E. 29TH STREET, LLC.
TAT (E) 09-9 (RP) - ORDER
NEW YORK CITY TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL
APPEALS DIVISION
REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX - THE EXCEPTION WAS GRANTED INSOFAR AS THE MATTER WAS REMANDED WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ANY CLAIM OR ARGUMENT THAT MAY BE PRESENTED BY THE PARTIES AND THE PETITION WAS REINSTATED.
OCTOBER 24, 2011
In the Matter of 1 WORLD TRADE CENTER LLC, ET AL.
TAT (E) 07-34 (CR), et al. - DECISION
NEW YORK CITY TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL
APPEALS DIVISION
COMMERCIAL RENT TAX - PETITIONERS' PAYMENTS TO THE PORT AUTHORITY FOR THE PERIOD AFTER SEPTEMBER 11, 2001, ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE COMMERCIAL RENT TAX (THE "CRT"). PETITIONERS' PAYMENTS TO THE PORT AUTHORITY FOR THE PERIOD ENDING SEPTEMBER 10, 2001, ARE SUBJECT TO THE CRT. PETITIONERS CORRECTLY REPORTED THE INITIAL RENT PAYMENTS ON THEIR CRT RETURNS AS RENT FOR THE FIRST TAX YEAR ATTRIBUTABLE SOLELY TO THE PERIOD PRIOR TO SEPTEMBER 11, 2001, AND CANNOT PRORATE SUCH PAYMENTS OVER THE ENTIRE 99-YEAR TERM OF THE LEASE OR ON A DAILY BASIS OVER THE PERIOD BEGINNING JULY 16, 2001, AND ENDING MAY 31, 2002. BUSINESS INTERRUPTION INSURANCE PAYMENTS CANNOT BE DEDUCTED IN COMPUTING BASE RENT AS EQUIVALENT TO SUBTENANT RENTS. ALL PENALTIES ARE CANCELLED.
OCTOBER 12, 2011
In the Matter of MURPHY & O'CONNELL
TAT (E) 06-18 (UB) – DECISION
NEW YORK CITY TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL
APPEALS DIVISION
UNINCORPORATED BUSINESS TAX – A PARTNERSHIP'S PAYMENTS TO A PENSION PLAN ON BEHALF OF ITS PARTNERS ARE WITHIN THE SCOPE OF §11-507(3) OF THE NEW YORK CITY ADMINISTRATIVE CODE AND ARE NOT DEDUCTIBLE FOR PURPOSES OF THE NEW YORK CITY UNINCORPORATED BUSINESS TAX. PETITIONER IS DUE A REFUND IN THE AMOUNT OF THE PENALTIES AND IS ENTITLED TO INTEREST ON THE REFUND OF THE PENALTIES.
JULY 26, 2011
In the Matter of AMERICAN BANKNOTE CORPORATION; AMERICAN BANK NOTE CORP.; AMERICAN BANK NOTE CO., INC. AND COMBINED AFFILIATES
TAT (E) 03-31 (GC) - ORDER
TAT (E) 03-32 (GC)
TAT (E) 03-33 (GC)
NEW YORK CITY TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL
APPEALS DIVISION
GENERAL CORPORATION TAX - IN RESPONSE TO AN EXCEPTION TAKEN BY PETITIONERS, THE TRIBUNAL COMMISSIONERS ISSUED A DECISION DATED NOVEMBER 14, 2008. ON THE PARTIES' POST-DECISION MOTIONS, THE TRIBUNAL COMMISSIONERS CLARIFIED THE LAST SENTENCE OF THE DECISION TO PROVIDE THAT THE NOTICES OF DETERMINATION ARE CANCELLED IN FULL. IN ALL OTHER RESPECTS, THE MOTIONS WERE DENIED.
DECEMBER 3, 2010
In the Matter of BANKERS TRUST CORPORATION (f/k/a BANKERS TRUST NEW YORK CORPORATION) AND ITS AFFILIATED ENTITIES
TAT (E) 04-36 (BT) - DECISION
NEW YORK CITY TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL
APPEALS DIVISION
BANK TAX - PETITIONERS DID NOT PROVE THAT BANKERS TRUST COMPANY WAS THE ACTUAL BENEFICIAL OWNER OF THE VOTING STOCK OF TWO INDIRECT SUBSIDIARIES DURING THE TAX YEARS FOR PURPOSES OF THE NEW YORK CITY BANKING CORPORATION TAX AND, THUS, PETITIONERS WERE NOT ENTITLED TO A DEDUCTION FOR 17% OF THE INTEREST INCOME PAID BY THE TWO INDIRECT SUBSIDIARIES TO BANKERS TRUST COMPANY IN THE TAX YEARS.
APRIL 8, 2010
In the Matter of AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC.
TAT (E) 05-29 (HO) - DECISION
NEW YORK CITY TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL
APPEALS DIVISION
HOTEL ROOM OCCUPANCY TAX - THE HOTEL ROOM OCCUPANCY TAX ("HROT") EXEMPTION FOR A PERMANENT RESIDENT DOES NOT APPLY TO ADDITIONAL ROOMS RENTED BY PETITIONER ON A TEMPORARY BASIS UNTIL SUCH ROOMS HAVE BEEN OCCUPIED FOR AT LEAST 180 CONSECUTIVE DAYS. IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE SEPARATE TAXATION OF EACH OCCUPANCY FOR PURPOSES OF THE HROT FOR A PERSON TO BE A PERMANENT RESIDENT WITH RESPECT TO ONE OCCUPANCY FOR 180 CONSECUTIVE DAYS WITHOUT BEING A PERMANENT RESIDENT WITH RESPECT TO ANOTHER OCCUPANCY OF A SHORTER DURATION IN THE SAME HOTEL. THEREFORE, THE LAST SENTENCE OF SUBDIVISION (2) AND ILLUSTRATION (ii) OF SUBDIVISION (3) OF HROT RULE §12-01 "PERMANENT RESIDENT", WHICH LIMIT THE EXEMPTION TO THE MINIMUM NUMBER OF ROOMS OCCUPIED CONTINUOUSLY FOR AT LEAST 180 CONSECUTIVE DAYS, ARE VALID.
JUNE 29, 2009
In the Matter of AMERICAN BANKNOTE CORPORATION;
AMERICAN BANK NOTE CORP.;
AMERICAN BANK NOTE CO., INC.
AND COMBINED AFFILIATES
TAT (E) 03-31 (GC) - DECISION
TAT (E) 03-32 (GC)
TAT (E) 03-33 (GC)
NEW YORK CITY TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL
APPEALS DIVISION
GENERAL CORPORATION TAX - PETITIONERS (THE "HOLDING COMPANIES" AND THE "OPERATING COMPANIES") SHOULD HAVE BEEN PERMITTED TO FILE A COMBINED GCT RETURN FOR THE TAX YEARS. THE MERGER WAS ESSENTIAL TO THE FUTURE OF THE BUSINESS AND RESULTED IN SUBSTANTIAL ECONOMIES OF SCALE FOR ALL PARTICIPANTS. ON THIS RECORD, THE CORPORATE STRUCTURE AND THE REPLACEMENT OF PRE-MERGER DEBT, BOTH REQUIRED BY A THIRD PARTY LENDER, SUPPORT THE FINDINGS THAT THE HOLDING COMPANIES WERE PART OF THE UNITARY BUSINESS CONDUCTED BY THE OPERATING COMPANIES AND SEPARATE GCT FILING WOULD RESULT IN A DISTORTION.
NOVEMBER 14, 2008
In the Matter of JUNGIL SONG
TAT (E) 06-12 (RP) - DECISION
NEW YORK CITY TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL
APPEALS DIVISION
REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX – A TRANSFER OF PROPERTY SUBJECT TO A MORTGAGE IS TAXABLE, REGARDLESS OF THE PERSONAL LIABILITY OF THE PARTIES TO THE TRANSFER. ONE-HALF THE MORTGAGE IS TAXABLE CONSIDERATION FOR THE TRANSFER OF THE PROPERTY FROM PETITIONER TO PETITIONER AND HIS WIFE BECAUSE THE MORTGAGE WAS A LIEN ON THE PROPERTY AT THE TIME OF THE TRANSFER, REGARDLESS OF THE FACT THAT PETITIONER'S WIFE GUARANTEED THE MORTGAGE PRIOR TO THE TRANSFER, AND REGARDLESS OF WHETHER ANY ADDITIONAL PURCHASE PRICE WAS PAID FOR THE PROPERTY PURSUANT TO THE TRANSFER.
SEPTEMBER 29, 2008
In the Matter of CASTLE POWER LLC
TAT (E) 04-32 (UT) - DECISION
NEW YORK CITY TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL
APPEALS DIVISION
UTILITY TAX - SALES OF NATURAL GAS BY MARKETER TO CUSTOMERS IN NEW YORK CITY WERE NOT SUBJECT TO THE NEW YORK CITY UTILITY TAX BECAUSE THE SALES TOOK PLACE OUTSIDE THE CITY. HOWEVER, THE TRIBUNAL CONCLUDED THAT SECTION 172.b OF THE CITY CHARTER DID NOT ENTITLE PETITIONER TO RECOVER ITS COSTS IN LITIGATING THIS CASE BEFORE THE ALJ OR THE TRIBUNAL COMMISSIONERS.
DECEMBER 5, 2007
In the Matter of NATIONAL BULK CARRIERS, INC. AND AFFILIATES
TAT (E) 04-33 (GC) - DECISION
NEW YORK CITY TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL
APPEALS DIVISION
GENERAL CORPORATION TAX - UNDER THE CAPITAL METHOD OF COMPUTING ITS GCT LIABILITY, PETITIONER SHOULD INCLUDE IN ITS BUSINESS CAPITAL A RATABLE PORTION OF THE REAL PROPERTY OWNED BY PARTNERSHIPS IN WHICH PETITIONER OWNED INTERESTS. THAT PORTION OF PETITIONER'S BUSINESS CAPITAL SHOULD BE VALUED USING THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF PETITIONER'S RATABLE SHARE OF THE PARTNERSHIPS' REAL PROPERTY.
NOVEMBER 30, 2007
In the Matter of PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
TAT (E) 01-19 (UB), ET AL. - DECISION
NEW YORK CITY TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL
APPEALS DIVISION
UNINCORPORATED BUSINESS TAX – PAYMENTS MADE BY PETITIONER TO RETIRED PARTNERS THAT WERE ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY A FUNCTION OF SERVICES RENDERED TO PETITIONER BY THE RETIRED PARTNERS HAD TO BE ADDED BACK IN COMPUTING PETITIONER'S UNINCORPORATED BUSINESS TAXABLE INCOME FOR THE TAX YEARS AS PAYMENTS FOR SERVICES PURSUANT TO CODE §11-507(3). THE TRIBUNAL REJECTED PETITIONER'S ARGUMENT THAT, NOTWITHSTANDING A PROHIBITION AGAINST PAYMENT FOR GOODWILL IN SECTION 13 OF THE PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT, THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE FOR THE RETIRED PARTNERS' SHARES OF PETITIONER'S GOODWILL. IN ADDITION, PETITIONER DID NOT PROVIDE SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT A FINDING THAT THE PAYMENTS WERE NOT FOR "SERVICES" OF RETIRED PARTNERS. AS A SEPARATE ISSUE, PETITIONER'S CONTRIBUTIONS TO RETIREMENT PLANS IN EACH OF THE TAX YEARS REPRESENTED PAYMENTS MADE BY PETITIONER ON BEHALF OF ITS PARTNERS FOR "SERVICES" UNDER CODE §11-507(3) THAT MUST BE ADDED BACK IN DETERMINING PETITIONER'S UNINCORPORATED BUSINESS TAXABLE INCOME FOR THE TAX YEARS.
NOVEMBER 5, 2007
In the Matter of CITRIN COOPERMAN & COMPANY, LLP
TAT (E) 01-17 (UB) - DECISION
NEW YORK CITY TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL
APPEALS DIVISION
UNINCORPORATED BUSINESS TAX - PAYMENTS MADE BY PETITIONER TO RETIRED PARTNERS AND IDENTIFIED IN THE PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT AND OTHER RELEVANT AGREEMENTS AS "PAST SERVICE COMPENSATION" HAD TO BE ADDED BACK IN COMPUTING PETITIONER'S UNINCORPORATED BUSINESS TAXABLE INCOME FOR THE TAX YEARS AS PAYMENTS FOR SERVICES PURSUANT TO CODE §11-507(3). THE TRIBUNAL REJECTED PETITIONER'S ARGUMENT THAT, NOTWITHSTANDING IDENTIFICATION OF THE PAYMENTS IN PETITIONER'S AGREEMENTS AS "PAST SERVICE COMPENSATION", THE PAYMENTS WERE ACTUALLY PAYMENTS FOR GOODWILL AND NOT PAST SERVICES. THE TRIBUNAL HELD PETITIONER TO THE TERMS OF ITS FREELY ADOPTED AND UNAMBIGUOUS AGREEMENTS.
SEPTEMBER 10, 2007
In the Matter of RAYMOND AND ALICE MARQUEZ
TAT (E) 97-107 (UB) - DECISION
NEW YORK CITY TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL
APPEALS DIVISION
UNINCORPORATED BUSINESS TAX - PETITIONER RAYMOND MARQUEZ WAS ENGAGED IN AN UNINCORPORATED BUSINESS IN THE CITY DURING EACH OF THE TAX YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1990 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 1993 (THE "TAX YEARS"), HOWEVER, THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE THAT PETITIONER ALICE MARQUEZ WAS ENGAGED IN THAT SAME UNINCORPORATED BUSINESS IN THE CITY DURING THE TAX YEARS. RESPONDENT'S ADOPTION OF A STATE AUDIT OF PETITIONER RAYMOND MARQUEZ FOR 1993 TO SUPPORT THE UBT DEFICIENCY AFTER THE COMPLETION OF THE CITY HEARING CONSTITUTED A NEW FACTUAL ISSUE PREJUDICIAL TO PETITIONERS. WHILE RESPONDENT WAS PRECLUDED FROM ADOPTING THE STATE AUDIT METHODOLOGY, RESPONDENT WAS FOUND TO HAVE MODIFIED THE NOTICE OF DETERMINATION TO REDUCE THE DEFICIENCY ASSERTED. RESPONDENT ADEQUATELY DESCRIBED THE METHODOLOGY USED IN THE ORIGINAL CITY AUDIT AND THE RECORD SUPPORTED THE REDUCED UBT DEFICIENCY ASSERTED IN THE MODIFIED NOTICE. THE RECORD ALSO SUPPORTED THE IMPOSITION OF FRAUD PENALTIES AND A SUBSTANTIAL UNDERSTATEMENT PENALTY FOR THE TAX YEARS.
MAY 16, 2007
In the Matter of SAMUEL D. FRIEDMAN
TAT (E) 03-21 (UB) - ORDER
TAT (E) 03-22 (UB)
TAT (E) 03-23 (UB)
NEW YORK CITY TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL
APPEALS DIVISION
UNINCORPORATED BUSINESS TAX - THE TRIBUNAL ISSUED AN ORDER PLACING THIS MATTER ON HOLD SINE DIE.
APRIL 30, 2007
In the Matter of ASSOCIATED BUSINESS TELEPHONE SYSTEMS CORPORATION
TAT (E) 99-65 (UT) - DECISION
TAT (E) 99-66 (UT)
NEW YORK CITY TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL
APPEALS DIVISION
UTILITY TAX - RESPONDENT PROVED THAT THE NOTICES OF DETERMINATION (THE "NOTICES") WERE MAILED TO PETITIONER ON APRIL 7, 1999 BY (1) OFFERING PROOF OF A STANDARD PROCEDURE USED REGARDING THE ISSUANCE OF NOTICES OF DETERMINATION BY AN INDIVIDUAL WITH KNOWLEDGE OF THAT PROCEDURE AND (2) OFFERING PROOF THAT THE STANDARD PROCEDURE WAS FOLLOWED IN THIS CASE. THUS, THE PETITIONS FOR HEARING WERE UNTIMELY AS THEY WERE MAILED ON SEPTEMBER 1, 1999, MORE THAN NINETY DAYS FROM THE DATE THE NOTICES WERE MAILED.
APRIL 12, 2007
In the Matter of ASSOCIATED BUSINESS TELEPHONE SYSTEMS CORPORATION
TAT (E) 93-1053 (UT) - DECISION
NEW YORK CITY TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL
APPEALS DIVISION
UTILITY TAX - PETITIONER IS LIABLE FOR UTILITY TAX AS A VENDOR OF UTILITY SERVICES. PETITIONER, AS A CONCESSIONAIRE, PROVIDED TELEPHONE SERVICE TO THE HOTEL AND TO THE HOTEL'S GUESTS ALL OF WHOM WERE THE END USERS OF THE SERVICE. UNDER THE FACTS OF THIS CASE, THERE WAS NO SALE OF UTILITY SERVICES TO THE HOTEL FOR RESALE AND THUS PETITIONER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO REDUCE ITS GROSS OPERATING INCOME BY RECEIPTS FOR SALES OF TELEPHONE SERVICE FOR RESALE.
APRIL 12, 2007
In the Matter of RHM-88, LLC
TAT (E) 01-23 (RP) - DECISION
NEW YORK CITY TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL
APPEALS DIVISION
REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX - THE ASSESSMENT OF REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX ("RPTT") ON A TRANSACTION INVOLVING A SUBLEASE BETWEEN PETITIONER AND THE UNITED NATIONS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION FOR ALL PORTIONS OF TWO U.N. PLAZA CONSTITUTING THE UNITED NATIONS PLAZA HOTEL (THE "SUBLEASE") WAS TIME-BARRED. THE NOTICE OF DETERMINATION WAS ISSUED AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF THE THREE-YEAR LIMITATIONS PERIOD FOR ASSESSING RPTT AND THE WAIVERS DID NOT COVER THE SUBLEASE. THERE WAS NO MUTUAL MISTAKE OF THE PARTIES THAT WOULD REQUIRE REFORMATION OF THE WAIVERS TO INCLUDE THE SUBLEASE. FURTHERMORE, AS THERE WAS NO AFFIRMATIVE WRONGDOING ON PETITIONER'S PART IN THE FORM OF FALSE STATEMENTS OR MISLEADING SILENCES, PETITIONER WAS NOT ESTOPPED FROM ASSERTING THAT THE ASSESSMENT WAS TIME-BARRED.
JANUARY 4, 2007
In the Matter of DAVID GRUBER
TAT (E) 03-7 (RP) - DECISION
TAT (E) 03-8 (RP)
TAT (E) 03-9 (RP)
NEW YORK CITY TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL
APPEALS DIVISION
REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX - THE SALE OF THREE CONTIGUOUS RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM UNITS WAS SUBJECT TO NEW YORK CITY REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX ("RPTT") AT THE LOWER TAX RATE SCHEDULE ACCORDED TO THE CONVEYANCES OF ONE, TWO OR THREE FAMILY HOUSES AND INDIVIDUAL RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM UNITS PURSUANT TO SECTION 11-2102.a(9)(i) OF THE NEW YORK CITY ADMINISTRATIVE CODE (THE "CODE"). UNDER THE FACTS PRESENTED IN THE RECORD, THE TRANSFERS OF THE THREE UNITS DID NOT COMPRISE THE CONVEYANCE OF MORE THAN ONE RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM UNIT. THUS, THE THREE NOTICES OF DETERMINATION ASSESSING RPTT AT THE HIGHER TAX RATES ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT WERE DISMISSED. HOWEVER, UNDER THE FACTS OF THIS CASE IT WAS NOT NECESSARY FOR THE TRIBUNAL COMMISSIONERS TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF WHETHER ANY SALE OF MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM UNITS FROM THE SAME SELLER TO THE SAME BUYER COULD EVER BE SUBJECT TO THE HIGHER TAX RATE SCHEDULE ACCORDED "ALL OTHER CONVEYANCES" PURSUANT TO SECTION 11-2102.a(9)(ii) OF THE CODE. PETITIONER'S MOTION TO RECUSE A TRIBUNAL COMMISSIONER WAS RENDERED MOOT BECAUSE PURSUANT TO THE RULE OF NECESSITY THAT COMMISSIONER WILL HAVE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE REVIEW OF THE APPEAL. OTHERWISE, THE TRIBUNAL, HAVING ONLY ONE NON-DISQUALIFIED COMMISSIONER, WOULD BE UNABLE TO ISSUE A DECISION.
SEPTEMBER 12, 2006
In the Matter of DANIEL AND SHEILA ROSENBLUM
TAT (E) 01-31 (RP) - DECISION
NEW YORK CITY TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL
APPEALS DIVISION
REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX - THE SALE OF A DUPLEX CONDOMINIUM UNIT (THE "RESIDENTIAL UNIT") AND A NONCONTIGUOUS SUITE UNIT LOCATED ON A SEPARATE FLOOR OF THE SAME BUILDING AND RESTRICTED TO USE AS A RESIDENCE FOR A NONPAYING GUEST OR DOMESTIC EMPLOYEE OF THE OWNER OF THE RESIDENTIAL UNIT WAS SUBJECT TO THE NEW YORK CITY REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX ("RPTT") AT THE LOWER TAX RATE SCHEDULE ACCORDED TO THE CONVEYANCES OF ONE, TWO OR THREE FAMILY HOUSES AND INDIVIDUAL RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM UNITS PURSUANT TO SECTION 11-2102.a(9)(i) OF THE NEW YORK CITY ADMINISTRATIVE CODE (THE "CODE"). THE SUITE UNIT WAS NOT A SEPARATE INDIVIDUAL RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM UNIT BUT WAS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE SAME RESIDENCE AS THE RESIDENTIAL UNIT. THE APPROPRIATE TAX RATE APPLICABLE TO THE SALE OF A STORAGE UNIT AND A WINE CELLAR UNIT AS PART OF THE SAME TRANSACTION WAS NOT AT ISSUE IN THE CASE. THUS, PETITIONERS' REFUND REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL RPTT PAID WITH RESPECT TO THE RESIDENTIAL UNIT AT THE HIGHER TAX RATE SCHEDULE PURSUANT TO SECTION 11-2102.a(9)(ii) OF THE CODE WAS GRANTED WITHOUT INTEREST. UNDER THE FACTS OF THIS CASE IT WAS NOT NECESSARY FOR THE TRIBUNAL COMMISSIONERS TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF WHETHER ANY SALE OF MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM UNITS FROM THE SAME SELLER TO THE SAME BUYER COULD EVER BE SUBJECT TO THE HIGHER TAX RATE SCHEDULE ACCORDED "ALL OTHER CONVEYANCES" PURSUANT TO SECTION 11-2102.a(9)(ii) OF THE CODE. WHILE A TRIBUNAL COMMISSIONER WOULD HAVE DISQUALIFIED HERSELF FROM PARTICIPATING IN THE REVIEW OF THIS CASE BECAUSE OF HER PARTICIPATION IN THE ISSUANCE OF A LETTER RULING TO PETITIONERS WHILE THE COMMISSIONER SERVED AS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER FOR TAX LAW AND CONCILIATIONS FOR THE NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE PRIOR TO HER APPOINTMENT TO THE TRIBUNAL, SHE MUST, PURSUANT TO THE RULE OF NECESSITY, PARTICIPATE IN THE REVIEW. OTHERWISE, THE TRIBUNAL, HAVING ONLY ONE NON-DISQUALIFIED COMMISSIONER, WOULD BE UNABLE TO ISSUE A DECISION.
SEPTEMBER 12, 2006
In the Matter of CAMBRIDGE LEASING CORPORATION
TAT (E) 03-11 (RP) - DECISION
NEW YORK CITY TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL
APPEALS DIVISION
REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX - THE SALE OF A DUPLEX APARTMENT COMPRISING TWO CONDOMINIUM UNITS THAT WERE PHYSICALLY COMBINED PRIOR TO THE SALE AND A NONCONTIGUOUS MAID'S ROOM LOCATED ON A SEPARATE FLOOR OF THE SAME BUILDING WAS SUBJECT TO THE NEW YORK CITY REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX ("RPTT") AT THE LOWER TAX RATE SCHEDULE ACCORDED TO THE CONVEYANCES OF ONE, TWO OR THREE FAMILY HOUSES AND INDIVIDUAL RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM UNITS PURSUANT TO SECTION 11-2102.a(9)(i) OF THE NEW YORK CITY ADMINISTRATIVE CODE (THE "CODE"). THE MAID'S ROOM WAS NOT A SEPARATE INDIVIDUAL RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM UNIT BUT WAS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE SAME RESIDENCE AS THE DUPLEX APARTMENT. THUS, PETITIONER'S REFUND REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL RPTT PAID AT THE HIGHER TAX RATE SCHEDULE PURSUANT TO SECTION 11-2102.a(9)(ii) OF THE CODE WAS GRANTED. UNDER THE FACTS OF THIS CASE IT WAS NOT NECESSARY FOR THE TRIBUNAL COMMISSIONERS TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF WHETHER ANY SALE OF MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM UNITS FROM THE SAME SELLER TO THE SAME BUYER COULD EVER BE SUBJECT TO THE HIGHER TAX RATE SCHEDULE ACCORDED "ALL OTHER CONVEYANCES" PURSUANT TO SECTION 11-2102.a(9)(ii) OF THE CODE.
SEPTEMBER 12, 2006
In the Matter of PATTERSON, BELKNAP, WEBB & TYLER, LLP
TAT (E) 00-8 (CR) - DECISION
NEW YORK CITY TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL
APPEALS DIVISION
COMMERCIAL RENT TAX - PETITIONER COULD NOT REDUCE ITS BASE RENT FOR COMMERCIAL RENT TAX PURPOSES FOR THE PERIOD JUNE 1, 1996 THROUGH MAY 31, 1997 BY ITS SHARE OF A REAL PROPERTY TAX REFUND THAT PETITIONER RECEIVED IN 1996 BUT THAT WAS RELATED TO PAYMENTS INVOLVING ANOTHER LEASE WITH ANOTHER LANDLORD FOR A DIFFERENT PREMISES FOR EARLIER TAX PERIODS. PETITIONER FAILED TO FILE PROTECTIVE REFUND CLAIMS WITHIN THE APPLICABLE LIMITATIONS PERIODS. HOWEVER, PETITIONER IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE NEGLIGENCE PENALTIES UNDER CODE SECTION 11-715(d) AS THE BASE RENT REDUCTION WHILE WRONG, WAS NOT NEGLIGENT NOR WAS THERE AN INTENTIONAL DISREGARD OF THE LAW OR RULES.
JULY 7, 2006
In the Matter of CREDIT INDUSTRIEL ET COMMERCIAL
TAT (E) 02-19 (BT) - DECISION
NEW YORK CITY TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL
APPEALS DIVISION
BANK TAX - IN COMPUTING ITS BANK TAX LIABILITY FOR THE TAX YEAR 1994, PETITIONER ELECTED TO USE THE FORMULA ALLOCATION MODIFICATION WITH RESPECT TO THE INTERNATIONAL BANKING FACILITY ("IBF") ESTABLISHED BY PETITIONER'S BRANCH IN NEW YORK CITY. THUS, PETITIONER INCLUDED IN ITS ENTIRE NET INCOME THE INCOME OR LOSS OF THE IBF BUT TREATED CERTAIN PAYROLL, RECEIPTS AND DEPOSITS AS DERIVED FROM OUTSIDE NEW YORK CITY FOR PURPOSES OF CALCULATING THE ALLOCATION FACTORS. PETITIONER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO EXCLUDE FROM THE NUMERATOR OF ITS DEPOSITS FACTOR ALL OF THE DEPOSITS INCLUDED ON THE BOOKS OF THE IBF BECAUSE CERTAIN DEPOSITS FROM FOREIGN PERSONS RECORDED IN THE ACCOUNTS OF THE IBF WERE NOT PROPERLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE PRODUCTION OF ELIGIBLE GROSS INCOME.
JUNE 30, 2006
CORWOOD ENTERPRISES, INC. ET AL. - DECISION - 06/02/06
TAT (E) 00-39 (RP),et al
REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX - THE DENIALS OF REFUNDS OF REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX ("RPTT") CLAIMED BY FIVE FOREIGN CORPORATIONS ON THE TRANSFER OF ALL THE STOCK IN FIVE SUBSIDIARY FOREIGN CORPORATIONS WERE AFFIRMED. EACH OF THE FIVE FOREIGN SUBSIDIARY CORPORATIONS OWNED ONE OF FIVE DELAWARE CORPORATIONS WHICH TOGETHER HELD THE ENTIRE OWNERSHIP INTERESTS IN A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY THAT OWNED THE FOUR SEASONS HOTEL IN THE CITY. IN DETERMINING WHETHER THIS MULTI-TIER TRANSACTION IS A TRANSFER OF A CONTROLLING ECONOMIC INTEREST IN AN ENTITY THAT OWNS REAL PROPERTY, THE DEPARTMENT IS PERMITTED TO LOOK THROUGH LAYERS OF PASSIVE, SINGLE-PURPOSE ENTITIES TO TREAT THE TRANSFER AS A TRANSFER OF A CONTROLLING ECONOMIC INTEREST IN AN ENTITY THAT OWNS REAL PROPERTY. THE ENABLING LEGISLATION DOES NOT PRECLUDE THE IMPOSITION OF THE RPTT ON TRANSFERS THAT CLOSE OUTSIDE THE CITY WHERE THE REAL PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE CITY. IN ADDITION, THE IMPOSITION OF THE RPTT ON THE TRANSFERS DOES NOT VIOLATE THE NEW YORK STATE CONSTITUTION OR THE DUE PROCESS OR COMMERCE CLAUSES OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.
JUNE 2, 2006
LEONARD I. HOROWITZ - DECISION - 09/01/05
TAT (E) 99-3 (UB) et al.
UNINCORPORATED BUSINESS TAX - PAYMENTS MADE BY THE UNINCORPORATED BUSINESS OF AN ATTORNEY ENGAGED IN THE PRACTICE OF LAW AS A SOLE PROPRIETOR FOR ONE-HALF OF THE PROPRIETOR'S SELF-EMPLOYMENT TAX; THE COST OF THE PROPRIETOR'S HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUMS AND CONTRIBUTIONS TO A DEFINED BENEFIT PLAN FOR THE PROPRIETOR ARE NOT DEDUCTIBLE FROM UNINCORPORATED BUSINESS GROSS INCOME PURSUANT TO THE NEW YORK CITY ADMINISTRATIVE CODE (THE "CODE"). SECTION 11-507(3) OF THE CODE PROVIDES, IN RELEVANT PART, THAT "[N]O DEDUCTION SHALL BE ALLOWED . . . FOR AMOUNTS PAID OR INCURRED TO A PROPRIETOR OR PARTNER FOR SERVICES OR FOR USE OF CAPITAL." THE PAYMENTS AT ISSUE WHILE MADE TO THIRD PARTIES WERE MADE BY THE UNINCORPORATED BUSINESS AND WERE REMUNERATION FOR SERVICES RENDERED BY THE PROPRIETOR TO HIS UNINCORPORATED BUSINESS.
SEPTEMBER 1, 2005
GOLDMAN & GOLDMAN, P.C. - DECISION - 03/24/05
TAT (E) 02-12 (CR)
COMMERCIAL RENT TAX - SINCE THERE WERE NO UNRESOLVED ISSUES OF MATERIAL FACT, THE COMMISSIONER OF FINANCE OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK (THE "COMMISSIONER") WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY DETERMINATION THAT THE PETITION FILED ON FEBRUARY 27, 2002 BY THE PETITIONER WAS NOT TIMELY FILED WITHIN NINETY DAYS OF THE ISSUANCE OF THE NOTICE OF DETERMINATION (THE "NOTICE") BEING PROTESTED. THE COMMISSIONER PROVED THAT THE NOTICE WAS PROPERLY ADDRESSED AND ESTABLISHED WHEN THE NOTICE WAS MAILED BY (1) OFFERING PROOF OF A STANDARD PROCEDURE USED REGARDING THE ISSUANCE OF NOTICES OF DETERMINATION BY AN INDIVIDUAL WITH KNOWLEDGE OF THAT PROCEDURE AND (2) OFFERING PROOF THAT THE STANDARD PROCEDURE WAS FOLLOWED IN THIS CASE. PETITIONER WAS UNABLE TO REBUT THE PRESUMPTION OF RECEIPT
MARCH 24, 2005
AIR PEGASUS CORPORATION - DECISION - 02/04/05
TAT (E) 00-23 (CR), TAT (E) 00-24 (CR)
COMMERCIAL RENT TAX - PETITIONER WAS SUBJECT TO THE COMMERCIAL RENT OR OCCUPANCY TAX ("CRT") AS THE PETITIONER PAID RENT TO THE PORT AUTHORITY OF THE STATES OF NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY (THE "PORT AUTHORITY") FOR THE USE AND OCCUPANCY OF TAXABLE PREMISES, THE WEST 30TH STREET HELIPORT (THE "HELIPORT"). PETITIONER WAS NOT THE AGENT OF THE PORT AUTHORITY FOR PURPOSES OF PETITIONER'S OPERATIONS AT THE HELIPORT. IN ADDITION, THERE IS NO PROVISION IN THE CRT OR ANY OTHER STATUTE EXEMPTING PETITIONER FROM THE CRT.
FEBRUARY 4, 2005
Administrative Law Judge Division
In the Matter of 105-02 Forest Hills LLC, et al.
TAT(H)20-18(RP) & TAT(H)20-19(RP) – DETERMINATION
NEW YORK CITY TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL
ADMINISTRATIIVE LAW JUDGE DIVISION
REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX – IT WAS APPROPRIATE FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE TO APPLY THE STEP TRANSACTION DOCTRINE TO A DEED TRANSFER FOLLOWED BY AN ISSUANCE OF A MINORITY MEMBERSHIP INTEREST BY THE TRANSFEREE /GRANTEE BECAUSE BOTH TRANSACTIONS WERE EFFECTUATED TO ACHIEVE THE SAME ULTIMATE RESULT. HOWEVER, THE SUBSTANCE OF THE COLLAPSED TRANSACTIONS QUALIFIED AS A NON-TAXABLE TRANSFER OF A NON-CONTROLLING ECONOMIC INTEREST. THE NOTICES OF DETERMINATION ARE THEREFORE CANCELLED.
SEPTEMBER 17, 2024
(When you click on the name of the Decision, Determination or Order, a PDF file for that item will be displayed)
In the Matter of A&E Television Networks, LLC
TAT(H)20-32(UB) – DETERMINATION
NEW YORK CITY TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL
ADMINISTRATIIVE LAW JUDGE DIVISION
UNINCORPORATED BUSINESS TAX – IN THE CONTEXT OF THE INTRODUCTORY PARAGRAPH OF ADMINISTRATIVE CODE § 11-507, AND FOR PURPOSES OF DETERMINING AN ITEM’S DEDUCTIBILITY UNDER THE UNINCORPORATED BUSINESS TAX, THE PHRASE “DIRECTLY CONNECTED WITH OR INCURRED IN THE CONDUCT OF THE BUSINESS” DOES NOT IMPOSE A DISCRETE REQUIREMENT THAT SHOULD BE INTERPRETED WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE PHRASE “ALLOWABLE FOR FEDERAL INCOME TAX PURPOSES FOR THE TAXABLE YEAR.” RATHER, A DETERMINATION OF WHETHER A PARTICULAR ITEM IS “DIRECTLY CONNECTED WITH OR INCURRED IN THE CONDUCT OF THE BUSINESS” MUST BE MADE UNDER THE APPLICABLE FEDERAL STANDARD.
AS RESPONDENT CONCEDED THAT THE EXPENSE AT ISSUE WAS ALLOWABLE FOR FEDERAL INCOME TAX PURPOSES, AND NONE OF THE ENUMERATED MODIFICATIONS OF ADMINISTRATIVE CODE § 11-507 APPLIED, THE EXPENSE WAS AN ALLOWABLE DEDUCTION FOR UNINCORPORATED BUSINESS TAX PURPOSES.
JULY 2, 2024
In the Matter of CCB HOLDCO INC.
TAT(H)22-13(GC) – DETERMINATION
NEW YORK CITY TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL
ADMINISTRATIIVE LAW JUDGE DIVISION
GENERAL CORPORATION TAX – THE PETITION WAS NOT FILED WITHIN THE STATUTORY PERIOD FOR FILING A PETITION FOR HEARING BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. ADDITIONALLY, THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUITABLE TOLLING IS INAPPLICABLE TO SUCH DEADLINE. THEREFORE, SUMMARY DETERMINATION WAS GRANTED DISMISSING THE PETITION.
MAY 22, 2024
In the Matter of Zev Weisberger and Elizabeth Weisberger
TAT(H)11-3(RP) - DETERMINATION
NEW YORK CITY TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DIVISION
REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX – THE AMOUNT OF THE MORTGAGE ASSIGNED IN CONNECTION WITH THE CONVEYANCE OF AN INIVIDUAL RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM UNIT DID NOT QUALIFY FOR THE CONTINUING LIEN EXCLUSION BECAUSE PETITIONERS FAILED TO ESTABLISH THAT THE TERMS OF THE MORTGAGE WERE NOT MATERIALLY ALTERED IN ANTICIPATION OF THE CONVEYANCE. THEREFORE, THE AMOUNT OF THE MORTGAGE WAS SUBJECT TO REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX.
MAY 8, 2024
USA STAY, LLC – DETERMINATION – 04/02/24
TAT(H)19-2(HO) et al. – DETERMINATION
NEW YORK CITY TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DIVISION
HOTEL ROOM OCCUPANCY TAX (HOTEL TAX) – PETITIONER'S RESIDENTIAL APARTMENTS, WHICH WERE SUBLEASED BY PETITIONER TO THIRD PARTIES FOR VARYING PERIODS OF LESS THAN 180 DAYS AT A TIME, CONSTITUTED A HOTEL AND, THEREFORE, THE CHARGES FOR THEIR SUBLEASE WERE SUBJECT TO HOTEL TAX.
APRIL 2, 2024
In the Matter of CT 157-162 LLC, et al.
TAT(H)21-5(RP) – DETERMINATION
NEW YORK CITY TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DIVISION
REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX – THE PETITIONS WERE DISMISSED BECAUSE THEY WERE FILED WITH THE TRIBUNAL MORE THAN 90 DAYS AFTER THE MAILING OF THE NOTICES OF DETERMINATION. THE NOTICES OF DETERMINATION WERE PROPERLY MAILED, AS EVIDENCED BY POSTMARKED U.S. POSTAL SERVICE FORMS 3800.
AUGUST 9, 2022
In the Matter of PATRICK MCCAULEY
TAT(H)20-8(RP) – DETERMINATION
NEW YORK CITY TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DIVISION
REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX – THE COMMISSIONER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE ESTABLISHED THAT A PROPERTY HAD FOUR FAMILY DWELLINGS, SUBJECTING IT TO A HIGHER RATE OF REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX THAN CALCULATED ON THE RETURN. THE TAXPAYER FAILED TO RAISE A MATERIAL FACTUAL ISSUE AND THEREFOE, SUMMARY DETERMINATION WAS GRANTED.
MARCH 2, 2022
In the Matter of PARK CENTRAL HOTEL (DE) LLC, et al.
TAT(H)15-33(RP) - DETERMINATION
NEW YORK CITY TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DIVISION
REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX - IN THE CASE OF A QUALIFIED REIT TRANSFER, CONSIDERATION IS THE ESTIMATED MARKET VALUE OF THE REAL PROPERTY AS DETERMINED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF FINANCE FOR REAL PROPERTY TAX PURPOSES AS REFLECTED ON THE MOST RECENT NOTICE OF ASSESSMENT.
OCTOBER 29, 2021
In the Matter of SKIDMORE, OWINGS & MERRILL LLP
TAT(H)17-21(UB) - DETERMINATION
NEW YORK CITY TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DIVISION
UNINCORPORATED BUSINESS TAX - PETITIONER'S COMMISSION PAYMENTS TO A DOMESTIC INTERNATIONAL SALES ORGANIZATION OWNED BY PETITIONER'S PARTNERS ARE NOT DEDUCTIBLE BY PETITIONER FOR PURPOSES OF THE UNINCORPORATED BUSINESS TAX.
JULY 30, 2021
In the Matter of MARS HOLDINGS, INC.
(f/k/a MARS ASSOCIATES, INC.)
TAT(H)16-14(GC) - DETERMINATION
NEW YORK CITY TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DIVISION
GENERAL CORPORATION TAX - CAPITAL GAINS REALIZED BY A NONDOMICILIARY TAXPAYER FROM THE SALE OF ITS INTEREST IN A CITY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP THAT HELD, LEASED AND MANAGED CITY REAL PROPERTY IS PROPERLY INCLUDED IN THE TAXPAYER'S ENTIRE NET INCOME SUBJECT TO THE CITY GCT. ADMINISTRATIVE CODE FEDERAL CONFORMITY PROVISIONS DO NOT APPLY.
JUNE 26, 2020
In the Matter of ROBERT A. SCHMIDT
TAT(H)18-12(CT) - DETERMINATION
NEW YORK CITY TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL
ADMINISTRATIIVE LAW JUDGE DIVISION
CIGARETTE TAX - PETITIONER'S POSSESSION OF UNTAXED CIGARETTES WAS ESTABLISHED BY A GUILTY PLEA IN A RELATED CRIMINAL CASE, THE CONFLICT IN THE NUMBER OF CIGARETTES WAS RESOLVED BY TAKING THE LOWER OF THE TWO REPORTED NUMBERS OF CIGARETTES, AND BECAUSE THE STATUTE AND REGULATION PROVIDE NO FACTORS TO DETERMINE THE AMOUNT OF THE PENALTY, THE TRIBUNAL IS PRECLUDED FROM DETERMINING WHETHER THE PENALTY IS APPROPRIATE.
11/21/19
In the Matter of JACOB AND ANITA PENZER FOUNDATION, INC.
TAT(H)18-18(RP) - DETERMINATION
NEW YORK CITY TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DIVISION
REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX - A TAX-EXEMPT ENTITY THAT IS A PARTNER IN A TAXABLE PARTNERSHIP IS NOT ENTITLED TO A REFUND OF THE PRO-RATA AMOUNT OF REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX PAID BY THE PARTNERSHIP ON THE SALE OF REAL PROPERTY.
JULY 31, 2019
In the Matter of ALEX MCNAUGHTON
TAT(H)17-9(RP) - DISMISSAL DETERMINATION
NEW YORK CITY TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DIVISION
REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX - A PETITION FILED BEFORE THE ISSUANCE OF THE CONCILIATION DECISION DOES NOT CONFER JURISDICTION ON THE TRIBUNAL AND MUST BE DISMISSED.
JULY 11, 2019
In the Matter of GOLDMAN SACHS PETERSHILL FUND OFFSHORE HOLDINGS (DELAWARE) CORP.
TAT(H)16-9(GC) – DETERMINATION
NEW YORK CITY TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL
ADMINISTRATIIVE LAW JUDGE DIVISION
GENERAL CORPORATION TAX – THE CAPITAL GAIN REALIZED BY PETITIONER, A NONDOMICILIARY CORPORATION WITH NO CITY BUSINESS ACTIVITIES, ON THE SALE OF ITS MINORITY INTEREST IN A CITY OPERATING LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY IS SUBJECT TO GENERAL CORPORATION TAX. THE IMPOSITION OF GENERAL CORPORATION TAX ON THE GAIN DOES NOT VIOLATE THE DUE PROCESS OR COMMERCE CLAUSES OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION. THE PETITION IS DENIED AND THE NOTICE OF DETERMINATION IS SUSTAINED.
12/6/18
In the Matter of ARK RESTAURANTS CORP.
TAT(H)16-18(GC) - ORDER/DETERMINATION
NEW YORK CITY TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DIVISION
GENERAL CORPORATION TAX - PETITIONER DID NOT PRESENT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN ADMISSIBLE FORM OR OTHER OFFERS OF PROOF TO SUPPORT ITS UNSUBSTANTIATED ALLEGATION THAT THERE ARE MATERIAL TRIABLE ISSUES OF FACT PRESENTED. SUMMARY DETERMINATION IS FOUND IN FAVOR OF MOVANT COMMISSIONER OF FINANCE BASED UPON THE AGREED DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE.
3/6/2018
In the Matter of STEUBEN DELSHAH, LLC and In the Matter of AFRICAN AMERICAN PARENT COUNCIL, INC.
TAT(H)12-12(RP) & TAT(H)12-23(RP) – ORDER & DETERMINATION
NEW YORK CITY TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DIVISION
REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX – SUMMARY DETERMINATION WAS GRANTED TO PETITIONERS WHERE FINANCE ISSUED NOTICES BEYOND THE RPTT STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS AND THE PETITIONERS' RETURNS WERE FOUND NOT TO BE FRAUDULENT.
January 9, 2018
In the Matter of HMC-NEW YORK INC.
TAT(H)14-15(GC) - DETERMINATION
NEW YORK CITY TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DIVISION
GENERAL CORPORATION TAX - PETITIONER HAD SUBSTANTIAL INTERCORPORATE TRANSACTIONS WITH RELATED CORPORATIONS FOR THE YEARS AT ISSUE. FOR 2008, THIS LED TO A PRESUMPTION OF DISTORTION WHICH WAS NOT REBUTTED BY A TRANSFER PRICING ANALYSIS, AND REQUIRED COMBINED RETURNS. FOR 2009 AND 2010, UNDER THE AMENDED STATUTE, COMBINATION WAS ALSO REQUIRED. RESPONDENT ERRED IN COMPUTING THE PAYROLL FACTOR BY CONCLUDING THAT THERE WAS ONLY ONE GENERAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER. RESPONDENT ERRED IN COMPUTING THE RECEIPTS FACTOR BY NOT ELIMINATING INTERCORPORATE TRANSACTIONS AND NOT SOURCING RECEIPTS TO WHERE THE SERVICES WERE PERFORMED.
APRIL 27, 2017
In the Matter of VESTRY ACQUISITION LLC
TAT(H)15-14(RP) - DETERMINATION
NEW YORK CITY TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DIVISION
REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX - PETITIONER, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, RECEIVED A 25% EXEMPTION OF REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX BECAUSE THE RECORD ESTABLISHED A 75% CHANGE, BUT NOT A 50% CHANGE, IN BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP. PETITIONER ESTABLISHED REASONABLE CAUSE FOR THE ABATEMENT OF PENALTIES.
FEBRUARY 7, 2017
In the Matter of VCP ONE PARK REIT LLC, ET AL.
TAT(H)14-26(RP) - DETERMINATION
NEW YORK CITY TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DIVISION
REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX – PETITIONERS WERE A GRANTOR AND TWO GRANTEES OF CONTROLLING INTERESTS IN REAL PROPERTY TO REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUSTS (REITs). TRANSFERS OF CONTROLLING INTERESTS ARE SUBJECT TO THE REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX PROVISIONS TO REDUCE TAX WHERE TRANSFER IS TO A REIT. REIT TRANSFERS ARE SUBJECT TO A TEST TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE VALUE OF THE RETAINED INTERESTS IS 40% OR MORE OF THE EQUITY INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY, USING ESTIMATED MARKET VALUE FOR REAL PROPERTY TAX PURPOSES TO DETERMINE EQUITY. IN THIS CASE, DEBT EXCEEDED THE ESTIMATED MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY. THERE IS NO AUTHORITY TO DISREGARD THE TEST OR SUBSTITUTE A DIFFERENT ONE IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES. FINALLY, ESTIMATED MARKET VALUE IS THE EXCLUSIVE MEASURE OF CONSIDERATION IN REIT TRANSFERS, SO THE GRANTEES' PAYMENT OF THE TRANSFER TAX DID NOT INCREASE THE TAX, AS IT WOULD IN THE CASE OF A NON-REIT TRANSFER.
JANUARY 24, 2017
In the Matter of U.S. SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY, LP
TAT(H)14-12(UT) ET AL. – AMENDED DETERMINATION
NEW YORK CITY TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DIVISION
UTILITY TAX – GENERAL CITY LAW § 20-b PROHIBITS UTILITY TAX FROM BEING IMPOSED ON A “TRANSACTION ORIGINATING OR CONSUMMATED OUTSIDE THE TERRITORIAL LIMITS” OF THE CITY. ONCE A LONG-DISTANCE TRANSACTION IS IDENTIFIED, ALL OF THE REVENUE ASSOCIATED WITH IT IS EXEMPTED BY GENERAL CITY LAW § 20-b. THE EXEMPTION APPLIES TO CUSTOMER CHARGES TO RECOUP TAXES, FEES AND ACCESS CHARGES WHETHER OR NOT BASED ON USAGE. HOWEVER, CHARGES FOR VOICEMAIL, EQUIPMENT SALES AND INSTALLATION, TELEMANAGEMENT REPORTS AND THE SINGLE BILL FEE WERE NOT SHOWN TO BE LONG-DISTANCE TRANSACTIONS AND ARE SUBJECT TO TAX. CHARGES FOR INTERNET ACCESS ARE EXEMPTED FROM TAX BY THE INTERNET TAX FREEDOM ACT.
12/29/2016
In the Matter of 1018 MORRIS PARK AVENUE REALTY INC.
TAT(H)14-4(GC) – DETERMINATION
NEW YORK CITY TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DIVISION
GENERAL CORPORATION TAX – PETITIONER FAILED TO PROVE THAT THE TAX YEAR ENDING NOVEMBER 30, 2009 WAS NOT ITS FINAL TAX YEAR. THE DEPARTMENT PROPERLY INCLUDED THE ENTIRE UNTAXED GAIN FROM PETITIONER'S INSTALLMENT SALE OF PROPERTY IN PETITIONER'S FINAL YEAR'S RETURN.
12/5/2016
In the Matter of JAMESTOWN, L.P. AS SUCCESSOR TO JAMESTOWN CHELSEA MARKET, L.P.
TAT(H)14-8(RP) – DETERMINATION
NEW YORK CITY TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DIVISION
REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX - ON THE FACTS PRESENTED THE RPTT PAYMENT DATE WAS WHEN THE CHECK WAS RECEIVED BY THE DEPARTMENT, WHICH WAS NO LATER THAN AUGUST 10, 2011. UNDER THE APPLICABLE LAW, PAYMENT OF RPTT OCCURS ON THE DELIVERY DATE OF THE UNCERTIFIED CHECK TO THE DEPARTMENT. ADMINISTRATIVE CODE § 11-2108 [a] AND RPTT RULES § 23-14 PROVIDE THAT AN RPTT REFUND REQUEST MUST BE MADE WITHIN ONE YEAR FROM THE DATE OF PAYMENT. PETITIONER'S RPTT REFUND REQUEST DID NOT OCCUR WITHIN ONE YEAR AFTER THE DEPARTMENT'S RECEIPT OF THE CHECK, AND THEREFORE, WAS NOT TIMELY FILED. RESPONDENT'S SUMMARY DETERMINATION IS GRANTED AND THE PETITION IS DENIED.
11/04/2016
In the Matter of GERSON LEHRMAN GROUP, INC.
TAT(H)08-79(GC) ET AL.
NEW YORK CITY TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DIVISION
GENERAL CORPORATION TAX - THE RECEIPTS FACTOR FOR SERVICES IS ALLOCATED BASED ON THE LOCATION OF THE INDIVIDUALS PROVIDING THE SERVICE. PETITIONER'S SERVICE OF EXPERT ADVICE WAS PROVIDED BY ITS CONSULTANTS AND RESEARCH MANAGERS, NOT BY ITS SALESPEOPLE WHO SOLD NON-REFUNDABLE SUBSCRIPTION AGREEMENTS TO PETITIONER'S CLIENTS. THE NOTICES OF DETERMINATION ARE THEREFORE CANCELLED. PETITIONER'S CLAIM FOR REFUND FOR 2003 IS ALLOWED, BUT ITS CLAIMS FOR REFUND FOR 2004-2010 WERE NOT SUBSTANTIATED AND ARE THEREFORE DISALLOWED.
10/4/16
In the Matter of PLASMANET, INC.
TAT(H)12-17(GC) - DETERMINATION
NEW YORK CITY TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DIVISION
GENERAL CORPORATION TAX - THE NET OPERATING LOSS (NOL) DEDUCTION ALLOWABLE IN ANY TAX YEAR IN COMPUTING PETITIONER'S GENERAL CORPORATION TAX (GCT) IS LIMITED TO THOSE NOLS THAT HAVE THE SAME SOURCE YEAR AS THE NOLS DEDUCTED BY THE TAXPAYER ON ITS U.S. CORPORATION INCOME TAX RETURN FOR THE SAME TAX YEAR.
THE CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTION DEDUCTION ALLOWABLE IN ANY TAX YEAR IN COMPUTING PETITIONER'S GCT IS LIMITED TO THOSE CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTIONS DEDUCTED BY PETITIONER ON ITS U.S. CORPORATION INCOME TAX RETURN FOR THE SAME TAX YEAR.
PETITIONER ADEQUATELY DISCLOSED THE BASIS FOR ITS TREATMENT OF NOLS ON ITS GCT RETURNS AND THEREFORE IS NOT LIABLE FOR THE PENALTY FOR SUBSTANTIAL UNDERSTATEMENT OF GCT LIABILITY.
9/29/15
In the Matter of JONIS REALTY/E. 29TH STREET, LLC.
TAT(H)09-9R(RP) – DETERMINATION
NEW YORK CITY TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DIVISION
REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX - THE TRANSFER OF AN INTEREST IN AN ENTITY OWNING REAL PROPERTY WAS NOT RELATED TO TWO EARLIER TRANSFERS AND WILL NOT BE AGGREGATED WITH THEM. ACCORDINGLY, THERE WAS NO TRANSFER OF A CONTROLLING INTEREST AND THE CLAIM FOR REFUND IS ALLOWED. THE TRIBUNAL HAS JURISDICITION OVER THE PETITION BECAUSE THE INDIVIDUAL WHO FILED THE CLAIM FOR REFUND AND THE PETITION PAID THE TAX AND IS THE REAL PARTY IN INTEREST.
9/9/15
In the Matter of INDIRA PATEL & BHARGAVI PATEL
TAT(H)14-23(RP) – DETERMINATION
NEW YORK CITY TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DIVISION
REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX – THE PETITION WAS DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION. PETITIONERS PROTESTED A WARRANT THAT DOES NOT CREATE A RIGHT TO TAKE AN APPEAL. FURTHER, THE PETITION WAS FILED MORE THAN NINETY DAYS AFTER THE MAILING OF A CONCILIATION DETERMINATION.
5/8/15
In the Matter of GKK 2 HERALD LLC
TAT(H)13-25 (RP) - DETERMINATION
NEW YORK CITY TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DIVISION
REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX – PETITIONER IS LIABLE FOR REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX ON A TRANSFER ACCOMPLISHED THROUGH STEP TRANSACTIONS. THE TRANSACTIONS WERE NOT EXEMPT FROM REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX AS EITHER A MERE CHANGE IN FORM OR THE TRANSFER OF A NON-CONTROLLING INTEREST.
4/1/15
In the Matter of 1465-69-71 BUSHWICK AVE LLC
TAT(H)14-14(RP) - AMENDED DETERMINATION
NEW YORK CITY TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DIVISION
REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX - THE PETITION WAS DISMISSED BECAUSE IT WAS FILED WITH THE TRIBUNAL MORE THAN 90 DAYS AFTER THE MAILING OF THE CONCILIATION DECISION. THE CONCILIATION DECISION WAS PROPERLY MAILED TO THE REPRESENTATIVE LISTED ON THE POWER OF ATTORNEY FILED WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE.
3/16/15
In the Matter of CAFÉ NACIONAL LLC
TAT(H)13-12(CR) - DETERMINATION
NEW YORK CITY TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DIVISION
COMMERCIAL RENT TAX - PETITIONER IS LIABLE FOR COMMERCIAL RENT TAX COMPUTED USING THE TOTAL OF THE RENT EXPENSE DEDUCTED BY PETITIONER AND THE RENT EXPENSE DEDUCTED BY A RELATED ENTITY ON SEPARATE FEDERAL PARTNERSHIP INCOME TAX RETURNS FOR EACH OF THE YEARS 2004 THROUGH 2010. RESPONDENT WAS NOT COLLATERALLY ESTOPPED FROM ASSERTING PENALTIES.
3/9/15
In the Matter of TIMOTHY J. YOUNG
TAT(H)12-19 (UB) - DETERMINATION
NEW YORK CITY TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DIVISION
UNINCORPORATED BUSINESS TAX - PETITIONER FLOOR CLERK WAS AN EMPLOYEE AND WAS NOT AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR IN 2005. HE DID NOT CARRY ON A BUSINESS OF STOCK BROKERAGE IN THAT YEAR. HIS INCOME IN 2005 WAS COMMISSION AND SALARY INCOME WHICH HE RECEIVED FOR WORK AS AN EMPLOYEE AND WAS NOT SUBJECT TO THE UNINCORPORATED BUSINESS TAX.
2/4/15
In the Matter of ASTORIA FINANCIAL CORPORATION & AFFILIATES
TAT(H)10-35 (BT) ET AL. - DETERMINATION
NEW YORK CITY TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DIVISION
BANKING CORPORATION TAX - PETITIONER IS NOT REQUIRED TO INCLUDE ONE OF ITS WHOLLY-OWNED SUBSIDIARIES IN ITS COMBINED CITY BANK TAX RETURN FOR THE TAX YEARS. THE SUBSIDIARY WAS FORMED FOR LEGITIMATE BUSINESS PURPOSES AND HAS ECONOMIC SUBSTANCE. ALTHOUGH THERE WERE SUBSTANTIAL INTERCORPORATE TRANSACTIONS, THOSE TRANSACTIONS WERE AT ARM'S LENGTH AND INCOME AND EXPENSES WERE NOT MISMATCHED.
10/29/14
In the Matter of AETNA, INC.
TAT(H)12-3(GC) - DETERMINATION
TAT(H)12-4(GC)
NEW YORK CITY TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DIVISION
GENERAL CORPORATION TAX – PETITIONER'S HMOs WERE DOING AN INSURANCE BUSINESS IN NEW YORK STATE AND THEREFORE ARE NOT SUBJECT TO GCT AND NOT PROPERLY INCLUDABLE IN PETITIONER'S GCT COMBINED REPORT FOR THE PERIOD IN ISSUE.
JULY 22, 2014
In the Matter of MEHRAB RASUL
TAT(H)12-2(CT) - DETERMINATION
NEW YORK CITY TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DIVISION
CIGARETTE TAX – PETITIONER WAS NOT IN POSSESSION OR CONTROL OF UNTAXED CIGARETTES FOR THE PURPOSE OF EITHER ADMINISTRATIVE CODE § 11-1302 OR ADMINISTRATIVE CODE § 11-1317 AND IS NOT LIABLE FOR THE CIGARETTE TAX OR THE PENALTIES ASSERTED BY RESPONDENT.
JUNE 27, 2014
In the Matter of TOCQUEVILLE ASSET MANAGEMENT L.P.
TAT(H)10-37(UB) - DETERMINATION
NEW YORK CITY TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DIVISION
UNINCORPORATED BUSINESS TAX – THE PORTION OF THE MANAGEMENT FEE PETITIONER PAID TO ITS CORPORATE GENERAL PARTNER THAT REPRESENTS COMPENSATION FOR SERVICES RENDERED TO PETITIONER BY EMPLOYEES OF THE CORPORATE GENERAL PARTNER WHO ARE ALSO PETITIONER'S PARTNERS IS NOT DEDUCTIBLE BY PETITIONER FOR PURPOSES OF THE UNINCORPORATED BUSINESS TAX.
JUNE 17, 2014
In the Matter of SECURITIES INDUSTRY AUTOMATION CORP.
TAT(H)12-9(UT) - DETERMINATION
NEW YORK CITY TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DIVISION
UTILITY TAX – PETITIONER FAILED TO ESTABLISH THAT ITS REVENUES FROM PER END USER FEES WERE FROM SALES FOR RESALE OF TELECOMMUNICATION SERVICES. PETITIONER'S COLLOCATION SERVICES ARE USED FOR THE EXPRESS PURPOSE OF FACILITATING CONNECTIVITY TO PETITIONER'S TELECOMMUNICATIONS NETWORK AND ARE SUBJECT TO UTILITY TAX.
JUNE 17, 2014
In the Matter of YORK AVENUE TENNIS, LLC.
TAT(H)11-20(CR) - DETERMINATION
NEW YORK CITY TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DIVISION
COMMERCIAL RENT TAX – WHERE PETITIONER'S RENT WAS THE GREATER OF A FIXED ANNUAL MINIMUM OR A PERCENTAGE OF GROSS RECEIPTS AND IT PAID THE FIXED ANNUAL MINIMUM, BASE RENT WAS THE FIXED ANNUAL MINIMUM RATHER THAN 15% OF GROSS RECEIPTS. PENALTIES WERE ABATED BECAUSE PETITIONER ACTED REASONABLY AND IN GOOD FAITH.
JUNE 3, 2014
In the Matter of KEYPORT, INC.
TAT(H)13-28 (RP) - DETERMINATION
NEW YORK CITY TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DIVISION
REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX - THE PETITION WAS DISMISSED AS IT WAS FILED MORE THAN 90 DAYS AFTER THE MAILING OF THE CONCILIATION DECISION.
APRIL 17, 2014
In the Matter of THE MCGRAW-HILL COMPANIES, INC.
TAT(H)10-19(GC)ET AL. - DETERMINATION
NEW YORK CITY TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DIVISION
GENERAL CORPORATION TAX - PETITIONER, IN COMPUTING ITS BUSINESS ALLOCATION PERCENTAGE FOR THE 2003-2008 TAX YEARS, MAY ALLOCATE RECEIPTS FROM THE PUBLIC CREDIT RATINGS OF ITS STANDARD & POOR'S DIVISION ACCORDING TO AN AUDIENCE-BASED OR CIRCULATION-BASED METHODOLOGY. FOR THE 2006 TAX YEAR, PETITIONER CANNOT ELECT TO USE A DOUBLE-WEIGHTED RECEIPTS FACTOR IN COMPUTING ITS BUSINESS ALLOCATION PERCENTAGE BECAUSE LESS THAN FIFTY PERCENT OF PETITIONER'S INCOME CAN BE ATTRIBUTED TO MANUFACTURING ACTIVITIES.
FEBRUARY 24, 2014
In the Matter of TRUMP VILLAGE SECTION 4, INC.
TAT(H)10-34(RP) - DETERMINATION
NEW YORK CITY TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DIVISION
REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX – THE DISSOLUTION OF A MITCHELL-LAMA HOUSING CORPORATION PURSUANT TO THE PRIVATE HOUSING FINANCE LAW AND ITS RECONSTITUTION BY MEANS OF AN AMENDED CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION AS A COOPERATIVE HOUSING CORPORATION UNDER THE BUSINESS CORPORATION LAW IS NOT SUBJECT TO REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX BECAUSE SUCH DISSOLUTION-RECONSTITUTION INVOLVES NEITHER A CONVEYANCE BY DEED NOR A TAXABLE TRANSFER OF ECONOMIC INTERESTS IN REAL PROPERTY.
JULY 11, 2013
In the Matter of DOROS RESTAURANT, INC.
TAT(H)13-3(GC) - DETERMINATION
NEW YORK CITY TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DIVISION
GENERAL CORPORATION TAX – THE TRIBUNAL LACKED JURISDICTION TO CONSIDER A PETITION THAT PROTESTED PENALTIES AND INTEREST ASSERTED IN A NOTICE OF TAX DUE BECAUSE SUCH NOTICE IS NOT A STATUTORY NOTICE THAT GIVES THE TAXPAYER A RIGHT TO A HEARING.
JUNE 28, 2013
In the Matter of SEBCO LAUNDRY SYSTEMS, INC.
TAT(H)11-8(GC) - DETERMINATION
NEW YORK CITY TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DIVISION
GENERAL CORPORATION TAX – THE PETITION WAS DISMISSED AS IT WAS FILED MORE THAN NINETY DAYS AFTER THE MAILING OF THE CONCILIATION DECISION.
JUNE 28, 2013
In the Matter of STEPHEN O. HURLEY
TAT(H)12-14(RP) - DETERMINATION
NEW YORK CITY TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DIVISION
REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX – NEW YORK CITY ADMINISTRATIVE CODE § 11-2116.f.1 TREATS THE DATE OF DELIVERY BY A DESIGNATED PRIVATE DELIVERY SERVICE AS THE DATE RECORDED OR MARKED BY SUCH DELIVERY SERVICE IN THE MANNER DESCRIBED IN 26 USCA § 7502. BECAUSE THE DATE APPEARING ON THE DESIGNATED PRIVATE DELIVERY SERVICE'S LABEL WAS MORE THAN 90 DAYS AFTER THE ISSUANCE OF THE NOTICE OF DETERMINATION, THE PETITION WAS DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION.
JUNE 11, 2013
In the Matter of GEORGE S. WIGGAN
TAT(H)10-14 (RP) - DETERMINATION
NEW YORK CITY TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DIVISION
REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX – A TRANSFER OF A FOUR-FAMILY DWELLING FROM PETITIONER'S WIFE TO PETITIONER AND HIS WIFE WAS SUBJECT TO REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX WHERE PETITIONER WAS UNABLE TO ESTABLISH EITHER THAT: (1) HE HAD A LEGAL OR BENEFICIAL INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY, OR (2) HIS WIFE ACTED AS AGENT FOR HERSELF AND PETITIONER IN CONNECTION WITH THE ACQUISITION OF THE PROPERTY.
MAY 20, 2013
In the Matter of RONALD MAGRO, LLC AND VIVCO EQUITIES, LLC
TAT(H)10-24 (RP) - DETERMINATION
NEW YORK CITY TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DIVISION
REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX – WHERE LOT ENCUMBERED BY MORTGAGE WAS DIVIDED INTO TWO LOTS PRIOR TO TRANSFER, CONTINUING LIEN EXCLUSION DID NOT APPLY BECAUSE ONLY ONE OF THE NEW LOTS TRANSFERRED CONTAINED A ONE, TWO OR THREE-FAMILY HOUSE AND THE MORTGAGE REMAINED A LIEN ON BOTH LOTS. THE GRANTEE IS LIABLE FOR UNPAID REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX IF THE GRANTOR FAILS TO PAY THE TAX, EVEN IF THE GRANTOR HAS A CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION TO PAY THE TAX.
MAY 20, 2013
In the Matter of DEUTSCHE BANK AG
TAT(H)10-7 (BT) - DETERMINATION
NEW YORK CITY TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DIVISION
BANK TAX - WHERE TAXPAYER CLAIMS THAT IT DID NOT RECEIVE ORIGINAL REFUND CHECK IN 2005 AND THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE ISSUED A REPLACEMENT CHECK IN 2008 (APPROXIMATELY THREE AND A HALF YEARS LATER) THE TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL DOES NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO CONSIDER PETITION SEEKING INTEREST ON AN OVERPAYMENT OF TAX UNDER ADMINISTRATIVE CODE SECTION 11-679 AS NEITHER THE CITY CHARTER NOR THE ADMINISTRATIVE CODE GIVES THE TRIBUNAL THE AUTHORITY TO CONSIDER SUCH PETITIONS.
FEBRUARY 19, 2013
In the Matter of MASSEY KNAKAL REALTY SERVICES OF MANHATTAN, LLC, ET AL.
TAT(H)09-37(UB) - DETERMINATION
NEW YORK CITY TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DIVISION
UNINCORPORATED BUSINESS TAX – PAYMENTS TO MEMBERS OF LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANIES (LLCS) FOR BROKERAGE SERVICES THAT THE MEMBERS PERFORMED FOR THE LLCS UNDER INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR AGREEMENTS ARE PAYMENTS TO PARTNERS FOR SERVICES OR FOR THE USE OF CAPITAL UNDER CITY ADMINISTRATIVE CODE §11-507(3) AND ARE NOT ALLOWED AS DEDUCTIONS FOR UNINCORPORATED BUSINESS TAX (UBT) PURPOSES. IN ADDITION, AN LLC IS NOT ALLOWED A CREDIT FOR UBT PAID BY ONE OF ITS MEMBERS AS AN INDIVIDUAL.
OCTOBER 25, 2012.
In the Matter of ALANTE SECURITY GROUP, INC.
TAT(H)09-40(GC) - DETERMINATION
NEW YORK CITY TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DIVISION
GENERAL CORPORATION TAX – INCOME RECEIVED BY A PRIVATE NON-GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY FROM PROVIDING SECURITY GUARD SERVICES TO FEDERAL AGENCIES IS NOT EXEMPT FROM GENERAL CORPORATION TAX. PETITIONER'S GENERAL CORPORATION TAX LIABILITY IS DETERMINED BY APPLYING A CITY BUSINESS ALLOCATION PERCENTAGE TO PETITIONER'S ENTIRE NET INCOME.
FEBRUARY 10, 2012.
In the Matter of SPIRIT CRUISES, INC.
TAT(H)09-18(CR) - DETERMINATION
NEW YORK CITY TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DIVISION
COMMERCIAL RENT TAX – PAYMENTS OF DOCK RENT WERE NOT FOR WATER AREAS BUT WERE FOR LAND, IMPROVEMENTS AND AN APPURTENANT RIGHT OF ACCESS, WHICH ARE TAXABLE PREMISES SUBJECT TO THE COMMERCIAL RENT TAX. THE RESULTS OF PRIOR AUDITS ALONE DO NOT FORM THE BASIS FOR COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL AGAINST THE CITY. PENALTIES ASSERTED AGAINST THE PETITIONER WERE ABATED.
JUNE 2, 2011
In the Matter of JUAN ABREU
TAT(H)09-10(CT) - DETERMINATION
NEW YORK CITY TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DIVISION
CIGARETTE TAX - A NEWLY-HIRED, PART-TIME SALES CLERK WHO DID NOT POSSESS UNSTAMPED OR UNLAWFULLY STAMPED CIGARETTES THAT WERE SEIZED AT HIS EMPLOYER'S PREMISES WAS NOT LIABLE FOR CITY CIGARETTE TAX PENALTIES.
APRIL 13, 2011
In the Matter of VINCENT G. PIAZZA
TAT(H)10-10(RP) - DETERMINATION
NEW YORK CITY TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DIVISION
REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX - A CLAIM FOR REFUND OF REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX THAT WAS MADE MORE THAN ONE YEAR AFTER THE DATE THAT THE TAX WAS PAID WAS PROPERLY DENIED BECAUSE THE CLAIM FOR REFUND WAS NOT TIMELY FILED.
APRIL 5, 2011
In the Matter of H-RUN REALTY CORP.
TAT(H)09-6 (RP) - DETERMINATION
NEW YORK CITY TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DIVISION
REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX - THE GRANTOR IS LIABLE FOR THE REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX ON THE TRANSFER OF REAL PROPERTY. A PROVISION IN THE CONTRACT OF SALE REQUIRING THE GRANTEE TO PAY ANY TRANSFER TAX THAT IS DUE AS A RESULT OF THE SALE IS NOT BINDING ON RESPONDENT.
MARCH 17, 2011
In the Matter of E-LO SPORTSWEAR, LLC
TAT(H)09-23(UB) – DETERMINATION/ORDER
NEW YORK CITY TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DIVISION
UNINCORPORATED BUSINESS TAX – THE PETITION WAS DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION AS IT WAS FILED MORE THAN NINETY DAYS AFTER THE MAILING OF THE CONCILIATION BUREAU DECISION.
DECEMBER 13, 2010
In the Matter of JONIS REALTY/E. 29TH STREET, LLC
TAT(H)09-9 (RP) - DETERMINATION
NEW YORK CITY TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DIVISION
REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX - PETITION SIGNED BY AN ATTORNEY WITHOUT A PROPERLY EXECUTED POWER OF ATTORNEY WAS DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION.
JULY 21, 2010
In the Matter of MURPHY & O'CONNELL
TAT(H)06-18(UB) - DETERMINATION
NEW YORK CITY TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DIVISION
UNINCORPORATED BUSINESS TAX – PETITIONER'S PAYMENT TO A PENSION PLAN ON BEHALF OF A PARTNER OR PARTNERS IS AN AMOUNT "PAID OR INCURRED TO A PROPRIETOR OR PARTNER FOR SERVICES OR FOR USE OF CAPITAL" WHICH MUST BE ADDED BACK TO UNINCORPORATED BUSINESS TAXABLE INCOME UNDER CODE §11-507(3).
MAY 10, 2010
In the Matter of MOHAMMED F. FOKHOR
TAT(H)08-14 (RP) - DETERMINATION
NEW YORK CITY TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DIVISION
REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX - THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY CLASSIFIED AS A FOUR-FAMILY DWELLING FOR REAL PROPERTY TAX PURPOSES WAS PROPERLY TAXED AT THE 2.625% RATE FOR REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX PURPOSES SINCE PETITIONER FAILED TO ESTABLISH THAT THE PROPERTY WAS A THREE-FAMILY DWELLING TAXABLE AT THE 1.425% RATE.
APRIL 27, 2010
In the Matter of CIRCLE LINE STATUE OF LIBERTY FERRY, INC.
TAT(H)08-82 (CR) - DETERMINATION
NEW YORK CITY TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DIVISION
COMMERCIAL RENT TAX - LESSEE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO DEDUCT FROM BASE RENT AMOUNTS ATTRIBUTABLE TO ITS OWN USE OF PREMISES AS "PIERS" IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE SINCE THE LANDING SLIPS IT LEASED WERE NOT STRUCTURES THAT EXTENDED FROM THE SHORE LINE WITH WATER ON BOTH SIDES AND THUS WERE NOT "PIERS" UNDER THE STATUTORY DEDUCTION.
APRIL 27, 2010
In the Matter of 1 WORLD TRADE CENTER LLC, ET AL.
TAT(H)07-34 (CR), ET AL. - DETERMINATION
NEW YORK CITY TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DIVISION
COMMERCIAL RENT TAX – THE LESSEES' PAYMENTS TO THE PORT AUTHORITY AFTER SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 DID NOT CONSTITUTE BASE RENT PAID FOR TAXABLE PREMISES BECAUSE THE LESSEES NO LONGER HAD THE RIGHT TO OCCUPY SPECIFIC SPACE AFTER THE GOVERNMENT TAKEOVER OF THE WORLD TRADE CENTER SITE ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2001. THUS, THE COMMERCIAL RENT TAX DOES NOT APPLY TO THOSE PAYMENTS.
DECEMBER 3, 2009
In the Matter of ISLAND EQUITIES REALTY & ASSET MANAGEMENT, LLC
TAT(H) 06-27(RP)- DETERMINATION
NEW YORK CITY TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DIVISION
REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX - THE TRANSFER OF A FOUR-FAMILY DWELLING WAS SUBJECT TO THE REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX AS A TRANSFER OF REAL PROPERTY BY A DEED FOR CONSIDERATION SINCE PETITIONER FAILED TO ESTABLISH THAT THE GRANTOR WAS AN AGENT, STRAW MAN, DUMMY OR CONDUIT OF THE GRANTEE. THE EXCLUDIBLE LIEN PROVISION DOES NOT APPLY TO THE TRANSFER OF A FOUR-FAMILY DWELLING.
AUGUST 19, 2009
In the Matter of WM. E. MARTIN & SONS CO., INC.
TAT(H) 07-16(GC)- DETERMINATION
NEW YORK CITY TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DIVISION
GENERAL CORPORATION TAX - THE TRUST THAT PETITIONER'S PRESIDENT ESTABLISHED WAS BOTH THE BENEFICIAL OWNER AND RECORD HOLDER OF SHARES OF PETITIONER AND, THEREFORE, PETITIONER'S PRESIDENT'S COMPENSATION IS NOT INCLUDABLE IN THE ALTERNATIVE TAX BASE. PETITIONER'S BUSINESS ALLOCATION PERCENTAGE FOR EACH OF THE TAX YEARS IS ACCEPTED AS FILED SINCE PETITIONER ESTABLISHED THAT IT HAD INVENTORY OUTSIDE OF THE CITY IN THE AMOUNTS CLAIMED. THE ISSUE OF WHETHER A SPECIFIED AMOUNT OF THE COMPENSATION PAID TO PETITIONER'S PRESIDENT WAS REASONABLE WAS A NEW FACTUAL ISSUE WHICH MAY NOT BE RAISED AFTER THE RECORD WAS CLOSED AS IT WOULD PREJUDICE PETITIONER.
JULY 20, 2009
In the Matter of GEORGETTE MOYE
TAT(H) 07-15(RP)– DETERMINATION
NEW YORK CITY TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DIVISION
REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX – PETITIONER IS NOT ENTITLED TO THE EXEMPTION FROM THE REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX FOR TRANSFERS TO OR FROM A MERE AGENT, DUMMY, STRAW MAN OR CONDUIT TO HER PRINCIPAL BECAUSE PETITIONER DID NOT KNOW WHO HER PURPORTED PRINCIPAL WAS BEFORE SHE ACQUIRED THE PROPERTY AND THEREFORE COULD NOT HAVE CONSENTED TO ACT AT HIS DIRECTION AND ON HIS BEHALF AS IS REQUIRED TO ESTABLISH AN AGENCY RELATIONSHIP. THE RECORD ALSO INDICATED THAT PETITIONER SIGNED THE DEED AT ISSUE AND EFFECTUATED A TRANSFER OF THE PROPERTY DESPITE HER CONTRARY ASSERTIONS.
APRIL 14, 2009
In the Matter of IMPERIAL RENTAL INVESTMENTS, INC.
TAT(H) 06-20(GC)- DETERMINATION
NEW YORK CITY TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DIVISION
GENERAL CORPORATION TAX - THE COMMISSIONER MAY NOT CONSTITUTIONALLY REQUIRE PETITIONER'S SHARE OF INCOME FROM THE SALE OF CALIFORNIA REAL PROPERTY OWNED BY A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP IN WHICH IT HAD A 30% INTEREST TO BE INCLUDED IN PETITIONER'S ALLOCATED CITY INCOME SUBJECT TO THE GENERAL CORPORATION TAX, AS THAT WOULD RESULT IN A TAX WHICH IS OUT OF ALL APPROPRIATE PROPORTION TO PETITIONER'S ACTIVITIES IN THE CITY.
APRIL 1, 2009
In the Matter of ISLAND EQUITIES REALTY & ASSET MANAGEMENT, LLC
TAT(H) 07-19(RP)- DETERMINATION
NEW YORK CITY TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DIVISION
REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX - SINCE PETITIONER SERVED A PETITION MORE THAN NINETY DAYS AFTER THE CONCILIATION DECISION WAS MAILED, AND DID NOT TIMELY FILE A PETITION PROTESTING THAT DECISION, THE TRIBUNAL DOES NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO HEAR THE MATTER.
DECEMBER 4, 2008
In the Matter of BANKERS TRUST CORPORATION (f/k/a BANKERS TRUST NEW YORK CORPORATION) AND ITS AFFILIATED ENTITIES
TAT(H) 04-36(BT)– DETERMINATION
NEW YORK CITY TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DIVISION
BANKING CORPORATION TAX – SINCE PETITIONER DID NOT PROVE THAT IT WAS THE TAX BENEFICIAL OWNER OF THE VOTING STOCK OF INDIRECTLY-OWNED, LOWER-TIER SUBSIDIARIES UNDER A SUBSTANCE OVER FORM ANALYSIS, IT DID NOT HAVE ACTUAL BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP OF THAT STOCK. THEREFORE, THE INDIRECTLY-OWNED SUBSIDIARIES WERE NOT PETITIONER'S SUBSIDIARIES AND PETITIONER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO EXCLUDE 17% OF THE INTEREST PAID TO IT BY THOSE CORPORATIONS UNDER ADMINISTRATIVE CODE SECTION 11-641(e)(11)(i).
DECEMBER 23, 2008
In the Matter of THE WEEKS-LERMAN GROUP, LLC
TAT(H) 05-54(UB)- DETERMINATION
NEW YORK CITY TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DIVISION
UNINCORPORATED BUSINESS TAX â€" COMPENSATION PAID TO A MANAGER OF A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY WHO WAS NOT A PARTNER OR MEMBER OF THE COMPANY, BUT WAS A CONTINGENT BENEFICIARY OF A TRUST THAT OWNED A FIFTY PER CENT INTEREST IN THE COMPANY, WAS A DEDUCTIBLE BUSINESS EXPENSE NOT REQUIRED TO BE ADDED BACK TO THE COMPANY'S UNINCORPORATED BUSINESS INCOME UNDER CODE §11-507(3) WHICH DISALLOWS DEDUCTIONS FOR PAYMENTS TO PARTNERS OR PROPRIETORS.
JUNE 10, 2008
In the Matter of AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC.
TAT(H) 05-29(HO)- DETERMINATION
NEW YORK CITY TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DIVISION
HOTEL ROOM OCCUPANCY TAX - AN OCCUPANT OF AT LEAST ONE ROOM IN A HOTEL FOR 180 CONSECUTIVE DAYS OR MORE IS A PERMANENT RESIDENT OF THAT HOTEL AND IS EXEMPT FROM THE HOTEL ROOM OCCUPANCY TAX WITH REGARD TO THE OCCUPANCY OF ANY ROOM IN THAT HOTEL WHILE IT IS A PERMANENT RESIDENT. THE LAST SENTENCE OF PARAGRAPH (2) AND ILLUSTRATION (ii) IN PARAGRAPH (3) OF HOTEL ROOM OCCUPANCY TAX RULE §12-01(c), WHICH LIMIT THE EXEMPTION TO THE MINIMUM NUMBER OF ROOMS OCCUPIED CONTINUOUSLY FOR AT LEAST 180 CONSECUTIVE DAYS, ARE INVALID.
MAY 29, 2008
In the Matter of LOUIS M. HUBRECHT
TAT(H) 05-10(RP)- DETERMINATION
NEW YORK CITY TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DIVISION
REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX - THE PAYMENT AT COMMENCEMENT OF A LONG-TERM TRIPLE NET LEASE OF THE ENTIRE RENT PAYABLE TO THE LESSOR WAS RENT FOR THE USE OR OCCUPANCY OF THE PREMISES RATHER THAN CONSIDERATION FOR THE GRANT OF A LEASEHOLD AND THUS WAS NOT SUBJECT TO THE REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX.
FEBRUARY 21, 2008
In the Matter of JUNGIL SONG
TAT(H) 06-12(RP)- DETERMINATION
NEW YORK CITY TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DIVISION
REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX - THE TRANSFER OF TITLE IN REAL PROPERTY SUBJECT TO A MORTGAGE FROM A HUSBAND TO HIMSELF AND HIS WIFE FOR NO ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATION IS SUBJECT TO REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX. THE CONSIDERATION IS ONE HALF THE AMOUNT OF THE MORTGAGE DEBT.
JANUARY 15, 2008
In the Matter of AMERICAN BANKNOTE CORPORATION;
AMERICAN BANK NOTE CORP.;
AMERICAN BANK NOTE CO., INC. AND
COMBINED AFFILIATES
TAT(H) 03-31(GC)- DETERMINATION
TAT(H) 03-32(GC)
TAT(H) 03-33(GC)
NEW YORK CITY TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DIVISION
GENERAL CORPORATION TAX - HOLDING COMPANIES AND RELATED OPERATING COMPANIES NOT ENGAGED IN A UNITARY BUSINESS WERE PROPERLY DENIED PERMISSION TO FILE GENERAL CORPORATION TAX RETURNS ON A COMBINED BASIS.
MAY 30, 2007
In the Matter of SADP CORP.
TAT(H) 07-5(GC) - DETERMINATION
NEW YORK CITY TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DIVISION
GENERAL CORPORATION TAX - A PETITION FILED COMTEMPORANEOUSLY WITH A REQUEST FOR CONCILIATION CONFERENCE WAS TREATED AS PREMATURELY FILED AND DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION.
MAY 22, 2007
In the Matter of CASTLE POWER, LLC
TAT(H) 04-32(UT)- DETERMINATION
NEW YORK CITY TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DIVISION
UTILITY TAX - A GAS MARKETER'S SALES OF GAS WERE NOT SUBJECT TO THE UTILITY TAX AS THE SALES TOOK PLACE OUTSIDE THE CITY. THE CONTRACT PROVISIONS DETERMINING WHERE THE SALES OCCURRED COULD NOT BE RECHARACTERIZED UNDER THE "SUBSTANCE OVER FORM" DOCTRINE AS REGULATORY AND BUSINESS CONCERNS DICTATED THE FORM OF THOSE PROVISIONS. PETITIONER COULD NOT RECOVER COSTS BECAUSE TAX LAW §3030 DOES NOT APPLY TO PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE CITY COMMISSIONER OF FINANCE.
OCTOBER 6, 2006
In the Matter of CITRIN COOPERMAN & COMPANY, LLP
TAT(H) 01-17 (UB)- DETERMINATION
NEW YORK CITY TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DIVISION
UNINCORPORATED BUSINESS TAX - A PARTNERSHIP'S PAYMENTS TO RETIRED PARTNERS FOR PRIOR SERVICES AND ITS ADVANCE PAYMENTS TO A PARTNER FOR PRIOR SERVICES WERE PAYMENTS FOR SERVICES WHICH WERE REQUIRED TO BE ADDED BACK TO UNINCORPORATED BUSINESS TAXABLE INCOME UNDER CODE §11-507(3).
JULY 21, 2006
In the Matter of PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
TAT(H) 01-19 (UB), et al.- DETERMINATION
NEW YORK CITY TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DIVISION
UNINCORPORATED BUSINESS TAX - A PARTNERSHIP'S PAYMENTS TO RETIRED PARTNERS AND CONTRIBUTIONS TO QUALIFIED RETIREMENT PLANS FOR THE BENEFIT OF ITS PARTNERS WERE PAYMENTS FOR SERVICES OR FOR THE USE OF CAPITAL, WHICH WERE REQUIRED TO BE ADDED BACK TO UNINCORPORATED BUSINESS TAXABLE INCOME UNDER CODE §11-507(3).
JULY 11, 2006
SAMUEL D. FRIEDMAN - DETERMINATION - 06/08/06
TAT(H) 03-21 (UB), et al.
UNINCORPORATED BUSINESS TAX - AS AN AGENT FOR AN INSURANCE COMPANY, PETITIONER WAS AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR WHOSE INCOME WAS SUBJECT TO THE UNINCORPORATED BUSINESS TAX.
JUNE 8, 2006
NATIONAL BULK CARRIERS, INC. AND AFFILIATES - DETERMINATION - 05/03/06
TAT(H) 04-33(GC) - DETERMINATION
NEW YORK CITY TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DIVISION
GENERAL CORPORATION TAX - FOR PURPOSES OF COMPUTING THE TAX MEASURED BY CAPITAL, UNDER THE AGGREGATE APPROACH TO PARTNERSHIP TAXATION, THE ASSETS TO BE VALUED WITH RESPECT TO PETITIONERS' PARTNERSHIP INTERESTS ARE THEIR RATABLE SHARES OF THE PARTNERSHIPS' REAL PROPERTY.
MAY 3, 2006
RAYMOND AND ALICE MARQUEZ - DETERMINATION - 03/08/06
TAT(H) 97-107(UB)
UNINCORPORATED BUSINESS TAX - ONLY ONE OF THE PETITIONERS WAS A PRINCIPAL IN AN UNINCORPORATED GAMBLING BUSINESS AND THEREFORE LIABLE FOR UNINCORPORATED BUSINESS TAX AND PENALTIES.
MARCH 8, 2006
ALLIED PROPERTIES, LLC - DETERMINATION/ORDER - 01/18/06
TAT(H) 04-42(RP)
REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX - THE PETITION WAS DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION AS IT WAS FILED MORE THAN NINETY DAYS AFTER THE MAILING OF THE CONCILIATION BUREAU DECISION.
JANUARY 18, 2006
ABE BERKOWITZ - ORDER - 01/12/06
TAT(H) 00-8(CR)
REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX - PETITIONER'S REQUEST TO DISMISS THE CITY'S REPLY TO A REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS AND/OR STIPULATED FACTS WAS DENIED AS THE REQUEST SOUGHT THE ADMISSION OF THE UNDERLYING FACTS IN DISPUTE. PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY DETERMINATION WAS DENIED AS MATERIAL ISSUES OF FACT EXISTED.
JANUARY 12, 2006
RHM-88, LLC - DETERMINATION - 01/11/06
TAT(H) 01-23(RP)
REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX - A LUMP SUM PAYMENT MADE IN EXCHANGE FOR AN 82-YEAR "SUBLEASE" WAS NOT RENT BUT CONSIDERATION SUBJECT TO THE REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX. THE ASSESSMENT WAS NOT TIME BARRED AS THE CONSENTS TO EXTEND THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLIED WITH RESPECT TO THE TRANSFER AT ISSUE.
JANUARY 11, 2006
PATTERSON, BELKNAP, WEBB & TYLER LLP - DETERMINATION - 09/13/05
TAT(H) 00-8(CR)
COMMERCIAL RENT TAX - A TENANT MAY NOT REDUCE ITS CURRENT BASE RENT FOR COMMERCIAL RENT TAX ("CRT") PURPOSES BY THE AMOUNT OF ITS PROPORTIONATE SHARE OF A REAL PROPERTY TAX ("RPT") REFUND THAT ITS FORMER LANDLORD RECEIVED FOR AN EARLIER YEAR. ALTHOUGH THE TIME TO FILE A CRT REFUND CLAIM FOR THE EARLIER YEAR HAD RUN, PETITIONER WAS NOT DEPRIVED OF DUE PROCESS SINCE IT COULD HAVE FILED A PROTECTIVE REFUND CLAIM.
SEPTEMBER 13, 2005
ASSOCIATED BUSINESS TELEPHONE SYSTEMS CORPORATION - DETERMINATION - 07/21/05
TAT(H) 93-1053(UT)
UTILITY TAX - PETITIONER IS A VENDOR OF UTILITY SERVICES BECAUSE IT PROVIDED A TELEPHONE SYSTEM AND TELEPHONE SERVICES TO A HOTEL'S GUESTS, WITH THE HOTEL (ACTING AS ITS AGENT) COLLECTING ALL CHARGES IN EXCHANGE FOR A FEE. HOWEVER, SINCE THE COMMISSIONER, PRIOR TO THE END OF THE TAX YEARS, HAD NOT PUBLISHED HER CHANGE OF POLICY TO INCLUDE RECEIPTS FROM SURCHARGES ATTRIBUTABLE TO LONG DISTANCE CALLS IN THE UTILITY TAX BASE, PETITIONER IS LIABLE FOR UTILITY TAX ONLY TO THE EXTENT THAT ITS GROSS OPERATING INCOME IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO SURCHARGES COMPUTED ON LOCAL TELEPHONE CALLS.
JULY 21, 2005
ASSOCIATED BUSINESS TELEPHONE SYSTEMS CORPORATION - DETERMINATION/ORDER - 05/31/05
TAT(H) 99-65(UT), TAT(H) 99-66(UT)
UTILITY TAX - THE COMMISSIONER OF FINANCE ESTABLISHED THAT THE PETITIONS FOR HEARING WERE NOT TIMELY FILED BY OFFERING (1) A COMPLETED UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE MAIL MANIFOLD; (2) PROOF OF A STANDARD PROCEDURE USED REGARDING THE ISSUANCE OF NOTICES OF DETERMINATION BY AN INDIVIDUAL WITH KNOWLEDGE OF THAT PROCEDURE; AND (3) PROOF THAT THE STANDARD PROCEDURE WAS FOLLOWED IN THIS INSTANCE.
MAY 31, 2005
DAVID GRUBER - DETERMINATION - 05/05/05
TAT(H) 03-7(RP), TAT(H) 03-8(RP), TAT(H) 03-9(RP)
REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX - THE TRANSFERS OF MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM UNITS BY ONE GRANTOR TO ONE GRANTEE ARE SUBJECT TO THE LOWER TAX RATE ACCORDED THE TRANSFERS OF ONE, TWO AND THREE FAMILY HOUSES AND INDIVIDUAL RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM UNITS (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY), RATHER THAN THE HIGHER TAX RATE THAT APPLIES TO TRANSFERS OF "OTHER" PROPERTY. EVEN IF TRANSFERS OF MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM UNITS BY ONE GRANTOR TO ONE GRANTEE WERE TRANSFERS OF "OTHER" PROPERTY SUBJECT TO THE HIGHER TAX RATE, THE TRANSFERRED UNITS EFFECTIVELY CONSTITUTED A SINGLE RESIDENCE AND, UNDER THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE'S BULK SALE POLICY, WERE SUBJECT TO THE LOWER TAX RATE.
MAY 5, 2005
CREDIT INDUSTRIEL ET COMMERCIAL - DETERMINATION - 04/13/05
TAT(H)02-19(BT)
BANK TAX - PETITIONER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO THE 22.5% DEDUCTION ALLOWED UNDER CODE §11-641(e)(12) WITH RESPECT TO THE INTEREST INCOME EARNED FROM U.S. GOVERNMENT OBLIGATIONS PETITIONER HELD AS A TRADER, EVEN THOUGH PETITIONER HAD NO CUSTOMERS AND WAS NOT A BROKER/DEALER WITH RESPECT TO THOSE SECURITIES.
WHERE DEPOSITS FROM FOREIGN PERSONS WERE RECORDED ON THE BOOKS OF PETITIONER'S INTERNATIONAL BANKING FACILITY AS A LIABILITY, BUT THE PROCEEDS OF WHICH WERE ADVANCED TO PETITIONER'S CITY BRANCH WHICH USED THEM, ON AN INTEREST FREE BASIS, TO PURCHASE U.S. GOVERNMENT OBLIGATIONS WHICH GENERATED CITY INCOME, THOSE DEPOSITS WERE NOT PROPERLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE PRODUCTION OF ELIGIBLE GROSS INCOME, UNDER BOTH THE CODE AND THE COMMISSIONER'S RULES, AND THUS COULD NOT BE EXCLUDED FROM THE NUMERATOR OF PETITIONER'S DEPOSITS FACTOR.
APRIL 13, 2005
THE CHASE MANHATTAN CORPORATION (F/K/A CHEMICAL BANKING CORPORATION) AND SHAREHOLDERS OF THE CHASE MANHATTAN CORPORATION - DETERMINATION - 02/04/05
TAT(H) 99- 99(RP), TAT(H) 99-100(RP)
REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX - THE REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX ("RPTT") APPLIED TO THE STATUTORY MERGER OF A BANK HOLDING COMPANY (WHOSE SUBSIDIARIES OWNED REAL PROPERTY IN NEW YORK CITY) INTO ANOTHER DELAWARE CORPORATION (WHICH WAS THE GRANTEE FOR RPTT PURPOSES) EVEN THOUGH THE MERGER WAS CONSUMMATED IN DELAWARE. A TRANSFER OF A CONTROLLING ECONOMIC INTEREST IN A CORPORATION THAT OWNS AN INTEREST IN REAL PROPERTY OCCURRED BECAUSE THE MERE CHANGE IN FORM EXEMPTION IS APPLIED AFTER DETERMINING WHETHER THERE HAS BEEN A TRANSFER OF A CONTROLLING ECONOMIC INTEREST. IN APPORTIONING THE AMOUNT OF THE CONSIDERATION SUBJECT TO THE RPTT, THE COMMISSIONER WAS REQUIRED TO FOLLOW THE FORMULA IN HER RULES THAT APPORTIONED CONSIDERATION BASED ON A RATIO OF THE VALUE OF REAL PROPERTY REDUCED BY MORTGAGE LIABILITIES TO THE VALUE OF ALL ASSETS REDUCED BY MORTGAGE LIABILITIES ONLY (AND NOT REDUCED BY ALL LIABILITIES BOTH SECURED AND UNSECURED). THE VALUE OF THE REAL PROPERTY COULD NOT BE REDUCED BY THE NEGATIVE VALUE OF A LEASEHOLD.
FEBRUARY 4, 2005