#realestate, #cre, #commercialappraiser FW: Tax Law Summaries Distributed January 31, 2014

#realestate, #cre, #commercialappraiser Thanks!
Curtis D. Harris, BS, CGREA, REB
Bachelor of Science in Real Estate, CSULA
State Certified General Appraiser
Real Estate Broker
ASTM E-2018 Commercial Real Estate Inspector
HUD 203k Consultant
HUD/FHA Real Estate Appraiser/Reviewer
FannieMae REO ConsultantCTAC LEED CertificationThe Harris Company, Forensic Appraisers and Real Estate Consultants
*PIRS/Harris Company and the Science of Real Estate-Partners*630 North Sepulveda Boulevard, Suite 9A, Number 702
El Segundo, CA. 90245
310-337-1973 Office
310-251-3959 Cell424-218-9580 Skype WebSite: http://www.harriscompanyrec.com ;Resume: http://www.harriscompanyrec.com/commercialappraiserresume2013locked.pdf ;Commercial Appraiser Blog: http://commercialappraiser.typepad.com/blog/ ; http://harriscompanyrec.com/blog/ ;The LOoP! a Google CSE: http://www.google.com/cse/home?cx=000747579154309164948%3Annakvu69iqy ; We Make a Simple Pledge to

Communicate, in a timely fashion, each appraisal, analysis, and opinion without bias or partiality

Abstain from behavior that is deleterious to our clients, the appraisal profession, and the public

Hold paramount the confidential nature of the appraiser/consultant - client relationship

and

Comply with the requirements of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice and the
Code of Professional Ethics of the National Society of Real Estate Appraisers
IT'S THE LAW- Statement 7: Prohibition Against Discrimination
State agencies should be aware that Title XI and the Agencies' regulations prohibit federally regulated financial institutions from excluding appraisers from consideration for an assignment by virtue of their membership, or lack of membership, in any appraisal organization. Federally regulated financial institutions should review the qualifications of appraisers to ensure that they are qualified for the assignment for which they are being considered. It is unacceptable to assume that an appraiser is qualified solely due to membership in, or designation from, an appraisal organization, or the lack thereof. The Agencies have determined that financial institutions' appraisal policies should not favor appraisers from one or more organizations or exclude individuals based on their lack of such membership. If a State agency learns that a certified or licensed appraiser allegedly has been a victim of such discrimination, the State agency should inform the Agency which has regulatory authority over the involved financial institution. INCLUDING THE APPRAISAL INSTITUTE-MAICONFIDENTIALITY/PRIVILEGE NOTICE: This transmission and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee. The information contained in this transmission is confidential in nature and protected from further use or disclosure under U.S. Pub. L. 106-102, 113 U.S. Stat. 1338 (1999), and may be subject to consultant/appraiser-client or other legal privilege. Your use or disclosure of this information for any purpose other than that intended by its transmittal is strictly prohibited and may subject you to fines and/or penalties under federal and state law. If you are not the intended recipient of this transmission, please destroy all copies received and confirm destruction to the sender via return transmittal From: Justia Practice Area Opinion Summaries [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Justia Practice Area Opinion Summaries
Sent: Friday, January 31, 2014 6:14 AM
To: Commercial Appraiser
Subject: Tax Law Summaries Distributed January 31, 2014 If you are unable to see this message, click here to view it in a web browser.
To ensure delivery to your inbox, please add [email protected] to your address book.

Justia Daily Opinion Summaries is a FREE service.

Subscribe to summaries of US appellate court opinions at Daily.Justia.com

Practice area emails with summaries from all reviewed courts are sent weekly.

You May FREELY Redistribute This E-Mail in Whole.
Today on Verdict

The Ninth Circuit, in SmithKline v. Abbott Labs, Bars Lawyers From Removing Gay/Lesbian Jurors
Vikram David Amar & Alan E. Brownstein
In Part One of this two-part series of columns, Justia columnist Vikram David Amar and Justia guest columnist Alan Brownstein, both U.C., Davis law professors, discuss whether it violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause for a lawyer to “strike” (that is, remove) individuals from a jury panel on account of their sexual orientation. Read Article

Weekly Opinion SummariesTax Law
Weekly Summaries Distributed January 31, 2014 · Montgomery County, Maryland v. Federal National Mortgage Assoc.
Constitutional Law, Government & Administrative Law, Tax Law
U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals· Shami, et al. v. CIR
Tax Law
U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals· NPR Investments, L.L.C. v. United States
Tax Law
U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals· Jackson v. City of New Orleans
Constitutional Law, Government & Administrative Law, Real Estate & Property Law, Tax Law
Louisiana Supreme Court· Lathrop v. Town of Monkton
Government & Administrative Law, Tax Law, Zoning, Planning & Land Use
Vermont Supreme Court

Receive this and other FREE daily opinion summaries from Justia

Montgomery County, Maryland v. Federal National Mortgage Assoc.Court: U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals Docket: 13-1752, 13-1691Opinion Date: January 27, 2014Judge: Niemeyer Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Government & Administrative Law, Tax Law These appeals concerned whether Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were exempt from the payment of state and local taxes imposed on the transfer of real property in Maryland and South Carolina. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac claimed that they were exempt from such transfer taxes under 12 U.S.C. 1723a(c)(2) and 1452(e) respectively. The district courts in Maryland and South Carolina rejected the Counties' claims, concluding that the general tax exemptions applicable to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, while not applicable to real property taxes, did cover real property transfer taxes, thus making a distinction between property and transfer taxes. The district courts also concluded that Congress acted within its Commerce Clause power. The court held that the real property exclusions from the general tax exemptions of section 1723a(c)(2) and 1452(e) did not include transfer and recordation taxes; in the absence of a particular constitutional right that would trigger heightened scrutiny, the court held that a congressional exemption from state taxation under the Commerce Clause was subject to rational-basis review; Congress could exempt Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from state and local transfer taxes, even though they were collected in the context of interstate transactions, because the taxes could substantially interfere with or obstruct the constitutionally justified missions of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in bolstering the secondary mortgage market; and the Counties' remaining arguments for finding the statutory tax exemptions unconstitutional were rejected. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district courts. http://j.st/vPw View Case on: Justia Google Scholar
Shami, et al. v. CIRCourt: U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals Docket: 12-60727Opinion Date: January 23, 2014Judge: Owen Areas of Law: Tax Law Petitioners appealed the Tax Court's judgments upholding in part the deficiency asserted by the Commissioner related to research and development tax credits claimed by Farouk Systems, a company which petitioners were investors. The court concluded that the Tax Court did not abuse its discretion by limiting petitioners to the introduction of dozens of sample records of its laboratory tests as opposed to the over 4,500 pages that petitioners sought to admit where introduction of all the records would have resulted in needless delay, wasted time, and unnecessary cumulative evidence, which substantially outweighed the minimal probative value of the additional records; the court rejected petitioners' argument that the Tax Court's conclusion that they had not proven their case amounted to acceptance of a reversal of an unrecorded concession that the Commissioner would not "challenge the sufficiency of available documentary substantiation;" petitioners' argument that the Tax Court imposed an inappropriate "standard of exactitude" that required them to produce specific documentation was unsupported by the record; the Tax Court did not err in refusing to estimate the amount of credit due petitioners for the qualified services performed; the Tax Court's implicit inclusion that petitioners had not proven that Defendant Shami engaged in direct supervision was not clearly erroneous; the Tax Court did not clearly err in finding that petitioners had not proven whether Defendants Shami and McCall had engaged in qualified research and, if so, how much of their time was spent on such activities; petitioners waived their argument alleging that the Tax Court's findings was clearly erroneous because it ignored the fact that Shami was credited as an inventor on certain patents; and the Tax Court's failure to include the supply costs as proper qualified research expenses when calculating each petitioner's deficiency was clearly erroneous. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded. http://j.st/vgT View Case on: Justia Google Scholar
NPR Investments, L.L.C. v. United StatesCourt: U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals Docket: 10-41219Opinion Date: January 23, 2014Judge: Owen Areas of Law: Tax Law The United States appealed the district court's holding in a Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA), 26 U.S.C. 6221-6234, proceeding that valuation misstatement and substantial understatement tax penalties were inapplicable to NPR. The court concluded that, in this partnership-level proceeding, (1) valuation misstatement penalties under section 6662(e) and (h) were applicable; (2) a substantial underpayment penalty under section 6662(d) was applicable because there was no substantial authority for the tax treatment of the transactions at issue; (3) NPR failed to carry its burden of establishing a reasonable-cause defense under section 6664; and (4) the Taxpayers' respective, individual reasonable-cause defenses under section 6664 were partner-level defenses that the district court did not have jurisdiction to consider. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment regarding the finality of the notice of a Final Partnership Administrative Adjustment (FPAA); reversed regarding the valuation misstatement and substantial underpayment penalties; reversed regarding NPR's reasonable-cause defense; and vacated regarding Taxpayers' reasonable-cause defenses. http://j.st/vgc View Case on: Justia Google Scholar
Jackson v. City of New OrleansCourt: Louisiana Supreme Court Docket: 2012-CA-2742Opinion Date: January 28, 2014Judge: Hughes Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Government & Administrative Law, Real Estate & Property Law, Tax Law The plaintiffs in this case, Jimmie Jackson, E. Simms Hardin, and KSD Properties, LLC, untimely paid ad valorem taxes to the City of New Orleans on their respective properties, and were assessed penalties, fees, and interest thereon for various tax years between 2003 and 2009. Plaintiffs filed a class action suit against the City, seeking a declaration that Ordinance Number 22207, and the collection of any penalties, fees, and interest collected thereunder, violated the statutes and constitution of Louisiana, and that the application of Ordinance Number 22207 to this case violated U.S. Constitutional guarantees of due process and equal protection. The district court issued rulings on the City's exceptions and on the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, which: granted the City's exception of no cause of action as to Jackson and Hardin, dismissing these plaintiffs (for failing to comply with the city ordinance requiring payment under protest); denied the City's objections of no cause of action and prescription as to plaintiff KSD; and granted KSD's motion for summary judgment (upon a finding of unconstitutionality as to Ordinance Number 22207). Both plaintiffs and the City filed motions for new trial. The City's motion was granted in part, to dismiss KSD's claims as to its 2008 tax penalty and fees for failure to state a cause of action and to amend the judgment accordingly (for KSD's failure to timely assert a protest as to the penalty and fees assessed for that year's delinquent tax payment); the motions for new trial were denied in all other respects. On appeal to the Supreme Court, the City argued the district court erred in granting summary judgment by declaring Ordinance Number 22207 unconstitutional. After review of the district court record and the applicable law, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. http://j.st/vmh View Case on: Justia Google Scholar
Lathrop v. Town of MonktonCourt: Vermont Supreme Court Docket: 2013-026Opinion Date: January 24, 2014Judge: Crawford Areas of Law: Government & Administrative Law, Tax Law, Zoning, Planning & Land Use The Town of Monkton brought a consolidated appeal from decisions of the state appraiser in three property tax cases challenging the Town's 2011 assessment. At issue was the manner in which the Town assessed land that had the potential for subdivision and further development. The state appraiser ruled that the Town had treated taxpayers inequitably by adding additional "home-site values" to undeveloped parcels that are subject to a permitted and recorded subdivision plan. The Town did not add this additional element of appraised value to other undeveloped parcels that may be eligible for subdivision without a permit due to their history or configuration. The Town argued it acted fairly in applying different valuation methods to properties with different characteristics. From the Town’s perspective, the appraised value of a parcel of land with a permit for more than one home should reflect additional development value, and land that could be subdivided but is not the subject of a permit is not similarly situated for purposes of tax appraisal. After review, the Supreme Court agreed with the Town's arguments and reversed the state appraiser. http://j.st/vgy View Case on: Justia Google Scholar


Forward to a FriendHave friends who like law? Forward this email.

Find Us on FacebookLike Justia and enjoy legal discussions on Facebook.

Follow Us on TwitterFollow Justiacom for news and updates on Twitter.

 Justia.com Free Legal Information Portalwww.Justia.comFederal & State Case Law, Codes & RegsLaw.Justia.comUS Federal Case Filings & DocketsDockets.Justia.comDaily Opinion SummariesDaily.Justia.com
You received this email because you have subscribed to Justia Daily Opinion Summaries. You can subscribe to summaries for US Courts, including the US Supreme Court, all US Courts of Appeals and some US state courts.Visit the Justia Daily Opinion Summaries page to add, edit or remove subscriptions.If you are experiencing problems with this newsletter, please email our tech support team at [email protected] From This Newsletteror unsubscribe [email protected] immediately here."Justia" is a registered trademark of Justia Inc.
Justia • Justia, Inc. 1380 Pear Ave Suite 2B Mountain View, CA 94043 USAHave a Happy Day!Hug the Pug© 2011, Justia Inc.