$2.5 Million Property Tax Refund
At trial in the Tax Court, Judge Kuskin held that the DSM Nutritional expert’s sole reliance on the cost approach was appropriate due to the fact that “other market data,” such as “comparable sales or leases, [were] scarce or nonexistent.” In addition, at trial, the question of depreciation became a major issue. Addressing this issue, Judge Kuskin noted that “the analysis by plaintiff’s appraiser was not error free” but that “defendant presented no depreciation analysis,” or other proofs to challenge the conclusions or adjustments of plaintiff’s appraiser. As such, Judge Kuskin evaluated in detail DSM Nutritional expert’s testimony and after noting the need to make corrections and adjustments, Judge Kuskin concluded that the “original assessment [was] unreliable,” and therefore not entitled to “its presumptive correctness.” In so doing, Judge Kuskin ruled that DSM Nutritional overcame the presumption of correctness that normally attaches to a municipality’s assessment. Since the presumption of correctness of the assessment no longer attached to DSM Nutritional’s assessment, Judge Kuskin was under a duty to find the true value of the property. In so doing, Judge Kuskin lowered the assessment of the property by $77 million for the 2004 tax year and by $74 million for the 2005 tax year.
The Appellate Division affirmed Judge Kuskin’s decision. Some sources say that this case will be appealed to the New Jersey Supreme Court.
As it stands now, in order to refund the $2.5 million dollars to DSM Nutritional, the property taxes in White Township are going to be raised by 5 cents per 100 dollars in assessed valuation.
To read about this decision from LehighValleyLive.com, click Property Tax.
To read about this decision from the NJ.com, click Property Tax.
This Blog/Web Site is made available for educational purposes only general understanding of the law, not to provide specific legal advice. By using this blog site you understand that there is no attorney client relationship between you and the Blog/Web Site publisher.
Maine: Any Tax is a Bad Tax?
A few years ago, Maine had grand visions of providing affordable health insurance for all its uninsured residents by 2009. But five years after the creation of its Dirigo health care program, funding remains so low that even the first year’s goal of providing insurance for roughly a quarter of uninsured Mainers is very far off. The program is quite popular, especially among small businesses, but Maine simply refuses to raise taxes broadly in order to pay for it. Instead, enrollment has been capped in order to keep costs down while thousands of uninsured Mainers on the waiting list hope for an acceptable source of funding to be found.
Faced with the self-conflicting demand for better health coverage without significant tax hikes, Maine legislators earlier this year considered a fifty cent cigarette tax increase as a way to modestly expand its health program. Broad, progressive, and sustainable tax increases were still out of the question given the political climate in the state, but legislators realized they may be able to raise a smaller and less important tax. Despite being starkly regressive, cigarette taxes have become an extremely popular revenue source among states since they tend to be less controversial than hikes in income, property, or general sales taxes. But having already doubled its cigarette tax in 2005, Maine policymakers soon had to back down from this idea.
The legislature, to its credit, didn’t give up completely in its effort to find funding with which to expand health care coverage. The debate then turned toward another relatively minor tax – alcohol and soda taxes. The argument was made that these products should be taxed more heavily because of their link to higher health care costs, but the more salient reason for the proposal was undoubtedly its perceived political feasibility. Rather than making the hard decision to raise taxes broadly in order to meet the goal it set for itself five years ago, the legislature tried to take the easy way out.
But in Maine, apparently any tax increase isn’t so easy. In response to the tax hike, the “Fed Up With Taxes” coalition was formed, consisting largely of restaurant owners and other related business interests. The coalition is already collecting signatures at restaurants across the state in hopes of getting a repeal of the tax on the ballot.
Despite proceeding so cautiously in search of a revenue source that wouldn’t get them into too much trouble with the voters, the end result of this legislative session may ultimately be a failure to find any way to secure additional funding for the uninsured.
This sudden challenge to the beverage tax suggests that the blame for the lack of funding for the Dirigo health plan should not be placed on legislators – but that the root cause of this embarrassment is instead a refusal on the part of voters to take responsibility for paying for programs they believe to be worthwhile. Across the country the clear preference has been for lower taxes and better government services. These two demands cannot be reconciled, and their interaction has helped contribute to both the national debt and to the avalanche of fiscal problems at the state level.
Too often, voters unwilling to accept higher taxes point to cutting “wasteful spending” as the source of revenues from which favored programs should be enacted or expanded. While wasteful spending certainly does occur, it’s likely not of the magnitude most believe it to be, and identifying it accurately is not a simple, uncontroversial, or inexpensive process. It’s easy to blame whatever one believes to be “wasteful spending” when revenues start to fall short, but the reality is that there’s no easy solution to funding more government services.
Taxpayers either need to learn to expect less from their government, or they need to take responsibility for chipping in to pay for government services. A failure to do these things is what led to the current situation in Maine where a heated battle appears imminent over a tax hike that in the grand scheme of things is too small to substantially improve upon the health care situation in the state. If voters ever decide that they are willing to pay what is needed for government services, the result will be a climate of debate in which sensible reform of the tax system can be enacted. That situation would certainly be preferable to the current one where minor, disjointed, and often regressive tax increases at the margin have the best chance of gaining approval.
Connecticut Gas Taxes: Playing Politics with a Serious Crisis
The Connecticut House and Senate each approved a bill early Thursday morning that adds to the state’s existing $150 million deficit by cancelling a scheduled increase in the state’s tax on wholesale earnings from gasoline sales. Governor Rell is expected to sign the measure. The bill prevents what would have been a 0.5% increase in the petroleum wholesale earnings tax, which industry lobbyists are claiming would have increased prices at the pump by about 5 cents.
The estimated cost of this bill has been pegged at $25 million. It may at first seem odd that Connecticut lawmakers have decided to make cutting taxes a top priority when the state is facing a budget deficit and numerous counties have been forced to scale back vital public services whose benefits almost certainly outweigh their costs. Even in the face of these serious budgetary issues, one of the first reactions from Democratic House Speaker James A. Amann was that “We didn’t raise taxes, so we’re pretty proud of what we’ve done.”
What’s going on here? Why is restricting revenues such a priority when it couldn’t be more obvious that state and local governments need more funds to provide the services Connecticut families have come to expect?
The answer: It’s an election year! Republican legislators, outnumbered 44 to 107 in the House and 13 to 23 in the Senate, have opted for a strategy of supporting viscerally appealing, though often fiscally irresponsible plans designed to gain some positive publicity and win votes in November. The majority of those plans have been ignored by the Democrats in power (for the most part with good reason), though with gas prices as high as they are, the Democrats decided not to take the political risk associated with appearing uninterested in the effects of high fuel costs on Connecticut families.
This isn’t at all surprising. Many state lawmakers across the nation have latched on to the headlines being generated by high fuel prices by proposing gas tax reductions much better suited for winning votes than for actually helping anybody in need. This plan in Connecticut is no different.
Even if we put aside our skepticism of the petroleum industry’s figures and accept their estimate that this bill will prevent a 5 cent increase in the price of gas, few observers could seriously suggest that avoiding this increase will do anything to improve the financial situation of Connecticut families. During the brief debate that occurred earlier this year over a proposed suspension of the 18.4 cent federal gas tax, that plan was heavily criticized for only providing the average driver with a $30 tax cut. The Connecticut bill would save drivers less than a third of that amount, though it would play a noticeable role in driving the state government millions deeper into debt.
Well aware that this bill would only provide a negligible tax cut for the average family, one legislator insisted, in typical election-year fashion, that it is important to “let our citizens know that we are very concerned about what they’re up against”.
That’s what makes this whole debate so discouraging. The problem is not just that Connecticut lawmakers are shamelessly hunting for votes – it’s that in the face of a serious crisis for lower-income families, lawmakers have decided that “letting our citizens know we’re concerned” is more important than actually doing something meaningful to help them.
Even if Connecticut legislators wished to avoid a needed restructuring of their state’s regressive tax system, this does not change the fact that much better options exist for providing real assistance to families hurt by high fuel costs. Instead of offering across-the-board tax relief that benefits both Connecticut’s wealthiest, as well as its poorest families, a targeted low-income gas tax credit of the type enacted in Minnesota could have distributed more gas tax relief to lower-income families at a similar cost. Alternatively, Connecticut could have given consideration to enacting a modest Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) or a meaningful low-income, refundable property tax circuit-breaker. Admittedly, an EITC or circuit-breaker would cost more than a gas tax cut or gas tax credit, but if legislators are genuinely “concerned”, wouldn’t it be worth it to find the money somehow? Until legislators readjust their priorities from winning votes to improving the lives of those struggling to make ends meet, Americans shouldn’t expect any relief beyond the kind of poorly targeted and gimmicky tax cut passed in Connecticut.
Why Virginia Won’t Hike Its CIg Tax
Earlier this week, Virginia Governor Tim Kaine proposed doubling the state’s cigarette tax from 30 to 60 cents per pack. Once upon a time, this would have been a pretty substantial hike. But with the wave of cigarette tax hikes nationwide over the past decade, this proposal would best be described as bringing Virginia’s tax more in line with what the rest of the states currently do. As the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids reports, the nationwide average cig tax is now $1.19 per pack.
The Republican-led House quickly announced that it was having none of this. Their reason? Economic development:
[Virginia House Speaker William] Howell and [U.S. House member Eric] Cantor argued that a cigarette tax hike would send the wrong signal to other states, which might be more inclined to raise their cigarette taxes. That could lead to job losses in the tobacco industry, especially in Virginia.
The most obvious response to this rationale is that they’re trying to close the barn door after the horses have gotten out. State lawmakers have looked–and continue to look, right now– to cigarette taxes as their favorite source of new tax revenue for years now. The idea that other states are waiting for the official sanction of tobacco-producing states before further jacking up their cig taxes is pretty far-fetched.
But the more interesting question is why Howell views the tobacco industry as the most vital component of Virginia’s economic development strategy going forward. (To say nothing of why Cantor, who after all is a member of the US Congress, not Virginia’s legislature, is weighing in on this point.) Tobacco consumption has been falling for decades nationwide. Not just on a per capita basis either– we’re just collectively purchasing fewer and fewer smokes every year, as public knowledge of the immense healthcare costs associated with smoking increases.
It’s a dying industry, a relic of the past. So why should Virginia, a state that has enjoyed a real technology boom over the past decade, want to reinforce the role of this industry in its economy? The Washington Post’s Pete Earley has a disheartening, but probably apt, answer: because Virginia lawmakers got paid to think this way. As Earley notes, virtually every member of Virginia’s tax writing committees in the House and Senate regularly take campaign contributions from the tobacco industry. You don’t have to be a Rod Blagojevich for these contributions to have a subtle influence on how you think and vote on economic policy issues.
At a time when we’re contemplating spending billions of dollars to prop up the US auto industry, it’s hard to get too sniffy about efforts to keep the Virginia tobacco industry going. But as Virginia confronts a major budget deficit, every dollar of tax revenue not collected from the tobacco industry is coming from somewhere else. And by refusing to consider hiking the cigarette tax on economic development grounds, Virginia lawmakers are basically asserting that any other interest that could be taxed– whether it’s manufacturers, small retail businesses, or individual wage-earners and consumers– are less vital to Virginia’s long-term economic growth than are tobacco farmers. And it’s hard to see any other explanation for this backwards approach to economic development than campaign contributions. As the late, great Mark Felt apparently never really said, “follow the money.”
Gas Taxes: When Is An ‘Increase’ Not An ‘Increase’?
Facing the clashing realities of rising transportation costs and widespread opposition to tax increases, state governments are turning to tolls, fees, and less visible local sales taxes wherever possible. But though increasing the gas tax has been perceived as political suicide by many politicians, tinkering with this traditional centerpiece of transportation funding is worth a second look. Gas taxes are intended to charge drivers for their use of public roads, and when gas tax revenues consistently fall short of the amounts needed to maintain those roadways, increasing that tax makes great intuitive sense.
Aside from all this, in most cases raising the per-gallon gas tax can boost revenues without actually “increasing” taxes in the traditional sense. This paradox, where a “tax increase” may not actually be a “tax increase” at all, arises primarily from the odd structure of the gasoline tax. Unlike traditional percentage-based sales taxes where the tax you pay is a fixed amount of every dollar you spend (typically 5-7 cents per dollar), gas taxes are levied as a fixed amount per gallon (typically 15-35 cents per gallon at the state level).
Under a traditional sales tax, as the price of goods increase, tax revenues increase accordingly. With a 5% sales tax rate, for example, the tax owed on a $3 gallon of milk is 15 cents. If after a few years milk has increased in price to $4 as a result of inflation, the tax per gallon will rise to 20 cents. This increase in taxes paid is in essence identical to what occurs when the legislature decides to increase the per-gallon tax on gasoline, but it receives none of the negative publicity. Additionally, given that inflation increases the cost of providing public services, such tax increases are in fact a necessary component of any sustainable method of financing government.
Though this problem plagues every government relying on per-gallons gas taxes, taking a look specifically at Minnesota’s recent gas tax increase is particularly illuminating. Legislators in Minnesota who were involved in the tax increase are currently taking a lot of criticism for being “tax-first liberals” unconcerned with perceived out-of-control government spending.
Using data released by the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the 2 cent gasoline tax enacted in Minnesota in 1925 was at the time equivalent to a 9% tax (when gasoline cost 22 cents per gallon). Where does Minnesota stand today now that their tax was recently increased from 20 to 28.5 cents? This may come as a shock to some, but today’s 28.5 cent tax is still the same as a 9% rate (assuming, conservatively, that gas costs $3.07 per gallon). Without the 8.5 cent hike, the effective gas tax rate would have been only 6.5%. For some perspective, Minnesota gas taxes have been levied at effective rates of 20% or more for 13 of the past 83 years, most recently in 1988 and 1989.
A similar result can be shown by examining the effects of inflation over this time period, using data from the Consumer Price Index (CPI). Adjusted for inflation, the 2 cents collected on each gallon of gas in 1925 was the equivalent of what would be a 24.4 cent tax today. By setting the rate at 28.5 cents, what the legislature has done is little different from what inflation does to percentage-based sales taxes, though inflation of course does not have to face any of the harsh criticisms currently directed at Minnesota legislators.
Data released by the U.S. Census Bureau also suggests that Minnesota’s 8.5 cent hike may not really be a tax increase by yet another measure: as a share of consumer income. While many meaningful measures exist for measuring tax changes, what has the most meaning for consumers is tax as a percentage of personal income. Data on this measure do not extend as far back, but what is clear is that a smaller portion of Minnesotans’ budgets is going to paying the gas tax than at almost any time in the last 30 years. In 1977, 0.7% of income earned by Minnesotans went to paying the gas tax. The trend since then has been steadily downward, reaching a low of 0.3% of income in 2005. The 8.5 cent hike will certainly change this figure, though not by enough to negate the overall trend. This trend can be observed in nearly every state, and it demonstrates plainly that despite numerous per-gallon tax increases across the nation over the past few decades, gas taxes have become a less important component of taxpayers’ daily budgets and daily lives. If transportation is to continue to be adequately funded, the portion of taxpayers’ budgets devoted to its funding it will have to rise.
Summing up, it should be clear that states are justified in regularly increasing their per-gallon gas tax rates. Doing so is necessary for maintaining transportation infrastructure, and doing so should, in reality, be relatively painless since inflation is always hard at work minimizing and eventually negating the impact of such increases.
WHAT’S THE BUZZ? TELL ME WHAT’S A HAPPENNIN’ –
* Kay Bell reports in her post “
California Tax Refunds on Hold” at DON’T MESS WITH TAXES that “the state’s controller says that if lawmakers don’t come up with a way to cover California’s $42 billion budget deficit, on Feb. 1 he will put a 30-day hold on tax refunds and some other payments”.* Another reason not to rely on tax software, such as Turbo Tax, if you don’t know what you are doing. Kay Bell reports in her post “Geithner — and TurboTax — Grilled Again” that “Geithner acknowledged that he had used TurboTax”.
The “Turbo Tax Defense” doesn’t work in Tax Court – but apparently it works in Congress.
* Kay Bell also writes on taxes for Bankrate.com. She has begun a daily series of tax tips. Friday’s tip – “Second Chance for Economic Stimulus Check” – included the observations and insights of two of her fellow tax bloggers – Bruce the taxguy and yours truly.
* Fellow twit Cindy Morus gives us “Top 10+ Ways to Jumpstart your New Year’s Finances!” over at MEND YOUR MONEY. The list includes – “Set up an appointment with your tax professional early”. Only not too early – make sure you have all your “stuff” before you see your tax pro!
While it is not on the list, an earlier post from Cindy suggests that you “Update Your Beneficiaries”.
* If you missed the online-radio interview with Kristine McKinley of EBIZ TAX TIPS conducted by the “eBay Selling Coach” you can click here to listen.
Also appearing on an online radio program this week was TAXGIRL Kelly Phillips Erb discussing Small Biz Taxes. Click here to listen.
* Peter Pappas of THE TAX LAWYER’S BLOG suggests that we “Repeal the Corporate Income Tax and Bring Those Jobs Back Home”. Be sure to read my comment.
* June Walker provides an excellent and creative answer to a question from a psychiatrist who was confused by the Turbo Tax software treatment of psychological software he purchased in her also excellently titled post, “
Software Cannot Replace Experience”. The highlights below are mine.“Dear Dr. Mark,
You see, I’ve been feeling really depressed. Suicidal actually. I bought this software program Mind-Mend. Says it has taken 20+years of psychiatric experience and rolled it up into this software program. There are 10 steps to avoiding stress. One step says do 15 minutes of meditation each day. Another step has me stand on my head for 10 minutes so that my circulation increases. My gym instructor says I should not stand on my head because of an old army injury. I am confused, what should I do?
As a doctor you might tell me that stress and suicidal tendencies call for different levels of treatment as well as different levels of urgency and that I should speak with a professional. You might also say that there is no way that 20 years personal experience could be put into a software program and have the same success rate as weekly visits with a therapist when treating something as complex as suicide.
This is my round-about of saying what I have said on this blog many times before: A software program written for the simple world of employees cannot replace a tax pro experienced with indie tax situations.”
* Professor James Maule has some interesting comments on depreciation in his post “Just Because It Didn’t Work the First 50 Times Doesn’t Mean It Will Work Next Time” at MAULED AGAIN.
”The depreciation provisions . . . have contributed to the current economic mess by allowing taxpayers to compute taxable income as though their economic position declined when in fact it remained the same or improved”.
Jim agrees with what I discussed at TWTP in my post “Here is Something to Think About”. He discusses the idea in more detail in “Instead of More Favorable Depreciation Deductions, Eliminate Them?
”.Goose the Tax Dog (I am assuming Goose is the name of the Dog) also adds his 2 cents on the topic in his post “Real Estate Depreciation” at THE TAX STUDENT.
I would be interested to hear your comments on what I propose in this post.
* TAXGIRL Kelly Phillips Erb points out that it seems that somewhere someone from the press is giving out bad information on BO’s stimulus package in her post “Ask the taxgirl: Don’t Look for a Second Rebate Check in the Mail!”.
Read my, and Kelly’s, lips – THERE WILL NOT BE ANOTHER “STIMULUS” REBATE CHECK! While he didn’t take my advice regarding refundable credits, at least BO listened to me about rebates.
* Right on Prof Daniel Shaviro of START MAKING SENSE – “Happiest word in the English language {is} ‘Ex”, when placed with a dash in front of the words ‘President George W. Bush’.”
* A great Q+A post from Gina Gwozdz at TAX TIPS BLOG on “
1099 vs W2?” She makes the excellent point – “Your employer does not get to decide if they can pay you as a W-2 employee or a 1099 contractor. The law determines your classification.”* Trish McIntyre of OUR TAXING TIMES provides the word on the economic “stimulus” rebate you did or didn’t receive last year in her post “Stimulus Rebate-Taxable This Year?”. The answer, of course, is NO – for both federal and state returns.
Trish points out that you could get an additional rebate added to the refund, or subtracted from the balance due, on your 2008 Form 1040 or 1040A – “For example, the full stimulus rebate a married couple with one child could receive was $1500. A child born in 2008 qualifies the couple for an extra $300.”
The 2008 “stimulus” rebate election year bribe caused tons and tons of confusion last year, completely overwhelming the IRS – and I expect the confusion to continue to apply to 2008 tax returns. As was the case with the last rebate check, there will be millions of errors on 2008 federal returns.
* I came across an interesting bit of information in my “wanderings” on Thursday – “The Association of Chartered Certified Accountants, the global body for professional accountants, views the U.S. tax regime as one of the world’s most complex, according to Chas Roy-Chowdhury, London-based head of taxation.”
* In item from Freep.com (Detroit Free Press) titled “Tax Rebate Impact on Economy is Weak” we learn “Two University of Michigan economics professors have some advice for President Barack Obama about how not to design his economic stimulus package. Their advice: Don’t make tax rebates a big part of it.”
The professors confirm what I have been saying all along – “Onetime payments from the government are a weak economic stimulus”.
Some statistics from the article – ”The U-M economists found that only 20% of U.S. households mostly spent their tax rebates, while about 48% used their rebate mostly to pay debt and roughly 32% mostly saved their rebate checks.”
* Always leave ‘em laughing – you will find some good parenting advice from BUSINESS PUNDIT in the post “
Always Check Your Child’s Homework Before it Gets Turned In”.TTFN
Simple Ways You Could Benefit When Settling Your IRS Debt
Many people simply forget to pay their taxes for a long time or may not find it possible to pay at a given time for various reasons. They wake up to find that they owe a fairly big amount to Internal Revenue Service (IRS) i.e. they are in a tax debt. Opting not to pay the amount is a bigger risk as you stand to lose even more than you owe. Some people think that filing for bankruptcy will pull them through but they are gravely mistaken. The laws are too strict to excuse any tax debt. Rather than running away from IRS one could do better and approach IRS who can offer solutions to the tax debt.
When one intends to settle the tax debt he should have a look at the tax returns to see if any tax waivers have been missed. This would help reduce the tax liability to some extent. There are many schemes available to settle the tax debt. You could approach the local IRS office to start the procedure or consider consulting a tax attorney. Before you decide to go alone and work out on the tax debt settlement, it is advisable to do an in-depth study of the various options available. Taking the help of tax attorneys is a better option. They would be better equipped with the minute details of any tax waiver that may be used and the appropriate settlement method to be used to pay the least.
IRS Tax Debt Settlement is fast becoming the popular form of debt relief. It is well known that by following certain IRS guidelines one can actually pay less than what is owed. An average settlement is of 12 cents on a dollar, though some may have to pay lesser or higher than the average. IRS allows this tax debt relief on the premise that the taxpayer would in future stay in compliance and pay the taxes on time.
This comes out of the consideration that however much the IRS tries they would not be able to collect the entire amount. This type of relief program is called as Offer in Compromise, which can be availed for personal, as well as business tax debt. Depending on the final amount that is reached you may pay the amount as an initial payment and remaining through regular tax payments. You can get the amount reduced which you currently owe and the remaining is paid in the long-term plan.
There are times when you may have lost some records. In such situations the IRS Tax specialists can assist you in making a fairly accurate calculation of back tax returns. There also exists an IRS Installment plan that allows the taxpayer to pay the tax amount over a period of time. The taxpayer has to pay the correct amount at the set date so that no further legal tool remains in the hand of IRS. The only drawback of this scheme is that the future installments also include additional interest and penalty amount, taking the tax liability much higher.
If you or your tax attorney is able to present a fairly neat and clear case of why you have not been able to pay tax, the option of Penalty Abatement can be used. It means that you may not have to pay at least some part of the penalty. The final option is to get placed in the IRS’s Currently Not Collectible status, which stops the IRS from collecting any further. Under this, even if after 10 years the IRS is unable to recover then the debt cannot be recovered after that.
IRS makes sure that they get back whatever tax the person is liable to pay. However, they make all possible efforts through various plans to ensure that people pay.