Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: Petition of UNITED FEATURE SYNDICATE, INC., Petitioner, v. TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL OF the CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Respondents. For Review and Annulment, etc.
Determination of respondent New York City Tax Appeals Tribunal dated August 4, 1997, which sustained a General Corporation Tax (“GCT”) deficiency assessment against petitioner for 1981 and the period January 1, 1982 through June 2, 1982, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied, and the proceeding, brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, dismissed, without costs.
The letters sent to petitioner by the City Department of Finance and the statements on the GCT returns for 1981 and 1982, permitting petitioner to file combined GCT returns with another corporation, did not preclude the Department from subsequently auditing those returns and, upon doing so, determining that the tax should not be computed on a combined basis, but rather separately. The Department had at all relevant times distinguished between “filing” and “audit” (see, former Administrative Code of City of N.Y. § R46-62.0[7]; former GCT Tax Reg. § 5-25[b] ), and thereby gave notice that it was retaining the power to de-combine filings upon audit. That the revised 1983 regulation (19 RCNY 11-91[g] [former (3)] ) was clearer in expressing the tentative nature of a combined filing does not indicate a new rule. There is no support for petitioner's argument that the City cannot audit the propriety of combining returns unless the State first de-combines them.
On the merits, the record shows ample reason for the finding that petitioner and the other company were not a unitary business entitled to a computation of their GCT tax liabilities on a combined basis. At best, the two companies had only a scant overlap of centralized management; there was no functional integration, where petitioner and the other company maintained separate offices and staffs and provided their customers with different services; and there were no significant economies of scale, where the commissions and fees that petitioner paid the other company for various services were not at bargain prices and accounted for minimal percentages of the two companies' expenditures and receipts.
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: January 21, 1999
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)