I attended the Paul J. Hartman State and Local Tax Forum this week. It was the 30th anniversary of the Forum. I’ve attended the conference over the years multiple times. Good conference. Knowledgeable, esteemed and respected speakers (lawyers). These lawyers handle some of the top state and local tax cases and litigation around the country. They also seem to be the same lawyers that speak at ALL of the conferences, so you’ve probably heard of them or met them.
As I was sitting in one of the sessions, the panel of speakers was going back and forth talking about court cases. One of the attorneys was explaining a specific case that the tax practitioner community was looking to as having broad applicability and authority to not only the state and taxpayer involved in the case, but every taxpayer and every state. He explained the facts and issues in the case and did confirm the ruling’s final decision and applicability, etc. However, he also said he disagreed with the ruling and mentioned the dissenting opinion. He thought the reasoning in the case was incorrect and thus, the conclusion was wrong and should be challenged.
Other speakers (attorneys) on the panel mentioned how the case was precedential and should be considered authoritative and reliable for taxpayers. The first attorney still disagreed with the conclusion and seemed to infer that taxpayers should not follow the court case.
That’s when it hit me, a strange epiphany - should taxpayers follow court case rulings?
Can taxpayers follow court case rulings? Yes, the facts matter. Yes, the states involved matter. But if a taxpayer’s facts line up with the facts in a ruling, shouldn’t the taxpayer be able to follow the case’s decision? Or should every taxpayer have to determine on their own, or make another judgement call regarding whether the case was decided correctly?
When does a taxpayer get a clear roadmap?
When does a taxpayer get certainty when the path always seems to be grey?
Taxpayers and state tax practitioners deal with vague statutes and regulations. State notices, publications, letter rulings, and court case decisions are supposed to provide clarity (which they generally do), but if taxpayers can’t follow court case decisions, then what good is a court case decision?
I know, I know, court case decisions are often appealed and I am not talking about those. I’m talking about court case decisions that are final (no appeal) and appear to be settled (until the next challenge). Can taxpayers rely on those decisions?
I also know that states often change their statutes or regulations after a court case if the state disagrees with the ruling or wants to limit its applicability (let’s not even talk about retroactive legislation - which I’ve done in the past).
Every question in the state tax profession is a research question due to the number of jurisdictions, the lack of uniformity and unique client fact patterns. The search to find answers and provide certainty is a daily challenge. If taxpayers and tax practitioners can’t rely on court case decisions, then what can we rely on?