CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

Petitioner, a Pennsylvania corporation selling adjustable beds, challenged a sales and use tax assessment for the period of March 1978 to February 1981. The corporation argued that sales of its beds, when prescribed by a physician, should be exempt as medical equipment under Tax Law § 1115 (a) (3). The respondent's determination disallowed this exemption, claiming the beds were not primarily used for medical purposes. The court, however, found the respondent's decision lacked substantial evidence, citing approvals from the Workers’ Compensation Board, Medicare, and the FDA, all of which classified the beds as medical devices or hospital beds. Consequently, the court annulled the portion of the determination denying the exemption for prescription sales and remitted the case for further proceedings.

Sales TaxUse TaxMedical Equipment ExemptionHospital BedsPhysician's PrescriptionSubstantial EvidenceTax LawCPLR Article 78Administrative ReviewTax Assessment
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

How Did the WCAB Rule in Hardgrove vs. Intercon Security?

The petitioner, a real estate appraiser, challenged an unincorporated business tax assessment imposed by the State Tax Commission for the years 1967-1973. The court referenced a prior ruling (Matter of Rosenbloom v State Tax Comm.) which established that the petitioner's activities did not constitute a profession, thus not exempting him from the tax. Finding no new evidence to warrant a change in position, the court upheld the commission's determination regarding the professional exemption. Furthermore, the petitioner's attempt to deduct the fair value of his wife's uncompensated services was denied, as the expense was neither paid nor incurred during the taxable year, failing to meet the criteria for ordinary and necessary business deductions. Consequently, the determination was confirmed, and the petition was dismissed.

real estate appraiserunincorporated business taxtax assessmentprofessional exemptionbusiness expenseCPLR Article 78State Tax CommissionAlbany Countyprior precedentdeduction denial
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Did the WCAB Decide in Cuadra vs. Community Home Care?

The case concerns Leonard Pochter, an outside commission salesman, challenging a State Tax Commission determination classifying him as an independent contractor, thus subjecting him to unincorporated business tax for 1966-1972. Pochter contended he was an employee of two wholesale apparel firms, which would exempt him from the tax. Despite some company restrictions and requirements, the Commission found a lack of substantial control over his sales methods. The court affirmed the Commission's decision, citing insufficient evidence of employer supervision to establish an employee relationship, thereby dismissing Pochter's petition.

unincorporated business taxindependent contractor statusemployee statuscommission salesmantax assessmentCPLR Article 78State Tax Commissionapparel industryemployer control testtax law interpretation
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

How Were Death Benefits Handled in Bocanegra vs. Sun-Gro Commodities?

Petitioner, a general contracting firm involved in the construction of the Nelson A. Rockefeller Empire State Plaza, faced a personal income tax assessment for additional payments made to 16 employees. These payments, characterized as per diem living and travel allowances, did not have New York State income taxes withheld. The State Tax Commission, after an audit and hearing, ruled these were supplemental wages subject to withholding tax, not reimbursements. Petitioner initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding, bearing the burden of proof, to challenge this determination. The court, noting the payments lacked a fixed formula and some recipients lived locally, found the respondent acted reasonably. The determination was confirmed, and the petition dismissed.

Personal Income TaxWithholding TaxSupplemental WagesPer Diem PaymentsTravel AllowanceLodging AllowanceCPLR Article 78Burden of ProofTax DeficiencyState Tax Commission
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

Reuters America, Inc. challenged the constitutionality of a Texas state tax scheme that imposes taxes on information services while exempting newspapers. Reuters, an electronic news service provider, argued that this tax scheme violated the free speech and equal protection clauses of both the federal and state constitutions. The Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts had audited Reuters and assessed additional taxes for its services, which Reuters paid under protest before filing a lawsuit. The district court ruled in favor of the State, a decision which was subsequently affirmed by the Chief Justice. The court held that the tax scheme was constitutionally applied to Reuters, stating it did not suppress ideas or viewpoints, was a generally applicable sales tax, and did not unfairly target a small group of the press. Furthermore, the court determined that the newspaper exemption was based on format distinctions, not content, and was rationally related to the legitimate state interests of promoting literacy and administrative convenience.

Constitutional LawTax LawFirst AmendmentEqual ProtectionFree SpeechPress FreedomInformation ServicesNewspaper ExemptionSales TaxTexas Law
References
31
Case No. 05-91224
Regular Panel Decision

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

This Memorandum Opinion addresses a Chapter 7 bankruptcy case where debtor Diane McBride claimed her ExxonMobil Savings Plan as exempt under Texas state law. The Trustee objected to the exemption of her after-tax contributions, amounting to $4,840.00. The Court analyzed whether ERISA-qualified savings plans, including after-tax contributions, are 'excluded' from the bankruptcy estate under 11 U.S.C. § 541(c)(2) due to an anti-alienation provision, or merely 'exempt' under state law. Citing Patterson v. Shumate, the Court concluded that the presence of an anti-alienation clause in an ERISA-qualified plan means the funds are excluded from the bankruptcy estate. Therefore, the Court overruled the Trustee's objection.

BankruptcyERISARetirement PlanAfter-Tax ContributionsExemptionExclusionAnti-alienation ProvisionSpendthrift TrustTexas Property CodeChapter 7
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Removal Denied in Rush vs. California Correctional Institution?

HSBC Bank USA objected to Joel M. Handel's exemptions of his interest in a profit-sharing plan and three life insurance policies in his Chapter 7 bankruptcy. HSBC argued that Handel's actions, including unauthorized withdrawals and false representations as a trustee, violated the plan's terms, ERISA, and IRC Section 401(a), thereby rendering his interest non-exempt. The court acknowledged Handel's violations but, citing Patterson v. Shumate, ruled that an anti-alienation provision enforceable under ERISA excludes the plan interest from the bankruptcy estate, irrespective of operational compliance or tax-qualified status. Additionally, the court found Handel adequately identified the life insurance policies. Consequently, HSBC's motion was denied, preserving Handel's exemptions.

BankruptcyERISAPension PlanExemptionAnti-alienationDebtor's EstateIRC 401(a)Life InsuranceDebtor's ConductFiduciary Duty
References
48
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Did the WCAB Clarify in Ontiveros vs. Savers Stores?

The petitioner, a salesman for Madison Sportswear and Wardrobe Makers, was assessed unincorporated business taxes for the years 1971-1974 by the State Tax Commission. He worked on a straight commission, maintained a home office, and received no employee benefits. Despite some evidence suggesting an employer-employee relationship, the Commission determined his activities constituted an unincorporated business, making his earnings subject to the tax. The court, in a CPLR article 78 proceeding, confirmed the Commission's determination, dismissing the petition.

Unincorporated Business TaxSalesmanCommission-basedEmployer-Employee RelationshipTax LawState Tax CommissionCPLR Article 78Tax LiabilityBusiness Expenses
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 03, 1966

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

The appellant, an unnamed religious corporation, sought tax exemption for its real property in the Town of New Lebanon under Real Property Tax Law section 420. The property, known as 'Lebanon Boys’ Village,' was used for various religious activities, an unlicensed school, and an orphanage. The Referee dismissed the complaint, finding that the corporation's certificate did not authorize operating a school and failed to obtain necessary consents from the Commissioner of Education and the State Board of Social Welfare. The court affirmed the Referee's decision, ruling that the property was not primarily used for statutorily authorized activities. The court concluded that granting the exemption would subsidize improper corporate functions and lacked the public benefit contemplated by the statute.

Real Property Tax Law § 420Tax ExemptionReligious CorporationMembership Corporations LawDeclaratory JudgmentProperty UseUnlicensed SchoolOrphanage ActivitiesCorporate AuthorizationConsent Requirements
References
2
Case No. 03-02-00747-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 06, 2003

Why Was Reconsideration Dismissed in Sabino vs. Johnson Pump Company?

This appeal addresses a tax refund claim by United Services Automobile Association (USAA) against the Comptroller of Public Accounts of Texas, asserting exemption from sales and use taxes based on repealed sections of the Texas Insurance Code (former articles 4.10 and 4.11). USAA contended that these provisions, which specified 'no other tax' than a gross receipts tax, exempted them from all other state taxes not expressly provided for in the insurance code. The district court denied USAA's motion for summary judgment and granted the Comptroller's, ruling that the insurance code provisions did not exempt USAA from sales and use taxes. On appeal, the Court of Appeals of Texas, Austin, affirmed the lower court's judgment. The court concluded that the tax exemption language in the former articles 4.10 and 4.11 was narrowly intended to replace general occupation and franchise taxes, and did not apply to later-enacted taxes of general applicability like sales and use taxes, which did not exist when the original exemptions were created.

Insurance TaxSales and Use TaxTax ExemptionStatutory ConstructionLegislative IntentTexas Insurance CodeGross Receipts TaxOccupation TaxFranchise TaxAppellate Review
References
38
Showing 1-10 of 1,274 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational