It seems like the DTA has been doing a bit of end-of-the-summer cleaning as we careen back into school-days mode. Most of the determinations posted over the last two weeks were summary dismissals of cases in which the petitions were deficient for a number of reasons. These determinations are very short, and our TiNY summaries are similarly brief. But there are a couple of cases that merited a more thorough analysis. So, enjoy!
The Kids are back to school and the DTA is back to issuing determinations and decisions that are mostly timies and dismissals for lack of jurisdiction. Matter of Bryant is of some interest in that the credit denial in that case was based on a lack of information from an agency that was not the NYS Tax Department. The taxpayer’s inability to get information from the other state agency was the reason he could not satisfy his burden of proving entitlement to the credit. It sounds like Petitioner made many attempts to get the information but was stymied. Did the information exist? Was the inability to retrieve the information due to some failure on the part of the other administrative agency? We’ll probably never know.
There were three determinations to report on this week, and a majority of them are not Timies! The two substantive cases address how to properly source income from a trade, business, or profession carried on, or previously carried on, in New York under Tax Law § 631. And in both cases, the Judges found that such sourcing needed to follow the path set forth in applicable regulations as required by the statute.
I didn’t watch any of the Olympics other than the part of the closing ceremonies when they cut from Paris to LA. But I heard that break dancing was an Olympic event in Paris for the first time – but it’s already been axed for the next Summer Games. Wow. Since the Summer Olympics are going to LA in 2028, maybe they can have an Olympic event like the contest at the end of “Eight Mile” when B-Rabbit resorts to a self-deprecating rap to dispatch Papa Doc. I liked that, so I’d probably watch something like that again. And like in Eight Mile, shouldn’t the audience (maybe the TV audience to avoid host-country bias) participate in the judging of certain Olympic events?
The IOC knows where to find me if it needs more suggestions.
The mental conversation I just conducted with myself:
“What should I write today about this TiNY Report being late again?”
“How about the truth? You have been diverting your non-billable attentions to the summer because ‘summertime is running out’ and ‘supplies are limited.’”
“No one cares about your personal life. How about ‘no excuses” since you have no excuses.”
“The Alice in Chains song ‘No Excuses?’ That’s a good one. For some reason that song reminds me of the Blues Traveler tune ‘The Mountains Win Again.’"
“Wow. 90s much?”
“Shut up.”
“No, you shut up.”
(nothingness)
We present a bunch of pent-up case summaries today, only a few of which have a worthwhile tale to tell. For my money (ed.: there’s actually no money involved) I recommend Saslaw, in which a pro se petitioner won a difficult responsible officer case; Rockaway Realty Associates, involving a local mortgage recording tax refund claim (a unicorn of a case if ever there was); and Lynch, discussing the limitation in the “548-day rule” prohibiting spouses from remaining in New York during the relevant period.
“It’s quiet. Too quiet.” This adage was first attributed to “The Lucky Texan” (1934), a western starring John Wayne, Barbara Sheldon, and Gabby Hayes. It is oft-repeated in movies (e.g., Shrek 2, Galaxy Quest, Sleepy Hollow) and television (Band of Brothers, Better Call Saul, The Wire).
It appears frequently. But the bit of dialogue including the trope that is most in-line with the ethos here at TiNY is:
“It sure is quiet out there.” “Yeah, too quiet.” “Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit sniffing glue.” (Airplane, 1980 – link here.)
Anyway, I was in the TiNY editorial offices on July 5, and it was quiet, too quiet. But quiet can be good, and in this case, it gave me some uninterrupted time to get caught up on a bunch of cases that were posted in June and were awaiting TiNY consideration.
There are five cases to summarize this week. Most address issues you’ve seen before. But, Matter of Vance touches on New York’s temporary de-coupling from the CARES Act and other post-March 1, 2020, Internal Revenue Code Amendments. I expect we’re going to see many cases in the future that discuss de-coupling issues since they are numerous, complex, and may produce anomalous results.
Next week we have a taxpayer victory on a sales tax issue to report. We know about it now because it was one of our cases. But, unfortunately, TiNY’s 13 or so loyal readers will need to wait until the next edition of TiNY.
We’ve enjoyed the steady flow of cases from the DTA of late. One of the reasons we write TiNY is that we are interested in how the judges and the Commissioners on the Tribunal view the cases. We have the most fun when we posit alternative views to get our readers to think critically about the cases and not simply accept them because the judges say this is how the law is supposed to work. It is less fun for us when we agree with the Judges since we don’t think we are bringing value to our twelve or so loyal readers to just report the news without providing insightful commentary. “We agree” is not insightful.
The decision and determination this week are not fun (for us, anyway). The order has a little entertainment value.
Your TiNY editor-in-chief took some time away over the long weekend and that led to the late posting of this week’s TiNY Report. The delay gave us some time to reflect on Hodgson Russ’s slick replacement website. When we commented favorably on the new site to our marketing personnel, we were told this interesting tidbit: When the old site was converted to the new site, spell check was automatically run. And 99% of the flagged words were found in the TiNY blog. Further investigation disclosed that sometimes the authors of TiNY make up words (The shock! The horror!). And I was reminded (not for the first time) that Hodgson Russ blogs are informational and need to accurately recount legal developments without the use of humor, sarcasm, or hyperbole. Hodgson Russ blogs are not to entertain, they are to inform. They are not a linguistic playground on which the authors might vent pent-up frustrations brought about by years of straight-jacketed legal writing. And they should never besmirch the language of Shakespeare by creating words.
Right. If you feel that way, perhaps you should read TiNY’s disclaimer.
This week we’re covering four determinations for your consideration. Two of them—Maragh and Somers—are worth a listen-to. The other two are songs that you liked a little when they first came out but now detest because they have been overplayed on your favorite radio station.
Those of us on the West Coast of New York are enjoying summerlike conditions this week. We rarely get temperatures in the 80s consistently in May because the prevailing southwesterly winds blow across 250 miles of 50-degree Lake Erie water before reaching our editorial offices. Usually that results in a chill. But this week we have been treated to several days of unseasonable warmth as we roll into the holiday weekend. It would be perfect weather to stand outside of Key Bank Center and watch the Sabres play in the Eastern Conference Finals on a portable Jumbotron. But they would need to make the playoffs first. Maybe next year?
And as I wrote the revised version of the second-to-last sentence in the above paragraph, I paused to consider whether it was most appropriate to use the plural or singular verb form when referring to the Sabres hockey team. The same goes for the Bills, Giants, Jets, etc. When one uses a team name that ends in “s” to refer to the team (and not the individuals making up the team), isn’t the team name a singular proper noun? Shouldn’t it be “The Sabres was victorious in its last game” and not “The Sabres were victorious in their last game?” I notice that every journalist I read treats team names ending in “s” as plural. In fact, it seems like team names are always treated as plural (e.g., “The Minnesota Wild are on a losing streak.”). But that doesn’t make sense to me. “Team” is a single noun, right?
And this grammar conundrum, constant readers, is an indication of the lengths one will go to avoid entering one’s time charges and editing TiNY.
To our three Canadian subscribers: The TiNY editorial staff hopes you enjoyed your Victoria Day long weekend and expressed appropriate homage to the long-reigning (63-plus years, second only to Queen Elizabeth!) and now long-departed Queen. As per Ray Davies: “Canada to India, Australia to Cornwall, Singapore to Hong Kong, From the West to the East, From the rich to the poor, Victoria loved them all.”
There are three determinations to report on this week.
Wow, wow, WOW! Some meaty, substantive tax law issues are addressed in this week’s DTA output of two Tribunal decisions, two ALJ determinations, and one ALJ order. PALs, and successors, and SaaS, oh my. And ALJ Law establishes (chronological) order in his court. Enjoy.