Appellate Court Wins
| The Issue | Could NJ tax 100% of J&J’s self-insurance premiums, as was federally authorized by Congress? J&J engaged Wilson Law Group after losing this $54M premium tax refund claim at the NJ Tax Court with another firm. |
| The Outcome | Even though an amended federal law authorized NJ to tax a home state insurer’s premiums for risks outside New Jersey, the subsequent amendments to NJ statutes could not be construed to reach that far for J&J’s captive insurance company. |
| How We Won | Explaining to the court NJ’s entire statutory scheme of insurance taxation (including admitted, surplus lines and self-procured), then drilling down to this specific aspect to rationalize J&J’s statutory construction. The “before and after” of the NJ statutes compelled 5 of the 6 justices to find for J&J. |
| The Issue | Was a statutory amendment a matter of procedural law, and not substantive law, such that it could be applied retroactively? And was the Department’s construction of its own separate regulation contrary to the statute or unreasonable? |
| The Outcome | Wilson Law Group procured two successive 9-0 victories at the GA Supreme Court, each reversing the appellate court below. The first held that “the construction offered by the Department in this case would upend this orderly and logical refund process and is, in fact, unreasonable.” The second, on remand, found AT&T could retroactively rely on a procedural amendment to the refund statute. |
| How We Won | Carefully distinguishing between the substantive right to a refund of tax and the procedural question of which party properly has standing to pursue a refund, the Court concluded that AT&T’s standing to pursue a refund was effective for periods that predated the amendment creating that standing. |
| The Issue | Could the Commissioner disregard the Internet Tax Freedom Act’s prohibition against taxing Internet access based on an allegation that the provider did not satisfy the ITFA's requirement of offering screening software designed to protect minors from harmful content? |
| The Outcome | New Cingular Wireless met its burden to show it offered screening software. The Appeals Court rejected the Commissioner’s contention that the provider had to expressly offer the software on every transaction or make available software that worked on every device. Instead, the ITFA’s use of the word “offer” was satisfied through generally advertising and making screening software available as an option on some devices. |
| How We Won | The Appeals Court was persuaded by the better fitting definition of “offer” put forward by New Cingular Wireless. We highlighted how that definition also achieved the policy goals behind the ITFA screening software requirement, but in a reasonable way. |
| The Issue | Can NYS DTF demand that a vendor advance a sales tax refund to its customers before knowing whether NYS DTF will approve and pay any tax refund to the vendor? |
| The Outcome | In a 5-0 decision, the New York Appellate Division reversed the Tax Appeals Tribunal and reinstated a $106 million sales tax refund claim submitted by AT&T affiliate New Cingular Wireless. The Appellate Division (New York’s second highest court) found that the trial judge and the Tribunal committed an abuse of discretion in refusing to accept that an escrow deposit would satisfy customer repayment. |
| How We Won | We highlighted the inequity in the Division’s strained assertion of a procedural bar to a refund that was owed as a matter of substance. Coupled with our careful analysis of the statutes and regulations, the court was able to narrow the Division’s reading and approve this refund while still maintaining a rule that would prevent unjust enrichment of vendors seeking refunds for customers. The Appellate Division sent the case back to the Tribunal, noting that future proceedings should seek to avoid a “windfall to the Division or further (and unnecessary) delay in tendering the long overdue refund.” |
| The Issue | Was AT&T authorized to seek an Alabama sales tax refund on behalf of a certified class of customers? |
| The Outcome | The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals rejected (5-0) the Department’s multiple legal defenses, finding that AT&T Mobility’s customers had, through a court-approved agreement, authorized AT&T Mobility to file and sign a joint refund claim on their behalf. The Court distinguished authority from the Texas Court of Appeals (Best Buy v. Combs) and the U.S. District Court of S.D.N.Y. (Estler v. Dunkin’ Brands). |
| How We Won | We carefully distinguished a federal court that authorizes a vendor to act on behalf of customers from a federal court that attempts to determine matters of state law. Here, the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals was satisfied that the agreement approved by the federal District Court had authorized class counsel and AT&T to pursue state tax refund claims on behalf of the class of customers, but the federal court (properly) did not construe state laws or determine state refund claims. |