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

Rosenbloom v. New York State Tax Commission

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

Craftmatic Comfort Manufacturing Corp. v. New York State Tax Commission

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

Psaty & Fuhrman, Inc. v. New York State Tax Commission

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

Cohen v. Chu

This CPLR article 78 proceeding involved a petitioner, an insurance agent, challenging a determination by the State Tax Commission that he was liable for unincorporated business taxes for 1979 and 1980. The central issue was whether the petitioner functioned as an employee or an independent contractor for Provident Mutual Life Insurance Company. The court considered various factors, including the contract, company-provided resources, benefits, and the petitioner's ability to broker insurance with other companies. The decision emphasized the petitioner's ability to earn a significant portion of his income from other companies as substantial evidence supporting the determination that he was an independent contractor. Consequently, the court confirmed the determination of the State Tax Commission and dismissed the petition.

Independent ContractorTax AssessmentUnincorporated Business TaxInsurance AgentEmployer-Employee RelationshipState Tax CommissionJudicial ReviewSubstantial EvidenceProvident Mutual Life Insurance CompanyTax Law
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wortman v. State Tax Commission

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

Pochter v. State Tax Commission

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

Pearl v. State Tax Commission

This proceeding reviewed a determination by the State Tax Commission that a sales representative for Gravely Furniture Company, Inc. was subject to unincorporated business taxes for multiple years (1967-1973). The Commission found no employer-employee relationship due to insufficient direction and control by Gravely over the petitioner's activities. The court affirmed this determination, concluding there was substantial evidence, noting the petitioner was compensated on commission, not covered by workers' compensation or company pension, filed Federal Schedule 'C', paid self-employment taxes, and hired another sales representative. The determination was confirmed, and the petition dismissed.

Unincorporated Business TaxTax LawSales RepresentativeEmployer-Employee RelationshipIndependent ContractorState Tax CommissionCPLR Article 78Judicial ReviewSubstantial EvidenceCommission-based Compensation
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ormsby Haulers, Inc. v. Tully

The case involves Ormsby Haulers, Inc., Kenneth Ormsby, and Raymond Ormsby challenging a sales and use tax assessment imposed by the State Tax Commission. The Sales Tax Bureau determined that the use of the Ormsby brothers’ personally owned tractors for corporate purposes constituted a taxable rental to the corporation. Petitioners argued that possession of the tractors was not transferred, as each vehicle remained under the individual owner's complete control. However, the commission's construction of 'rental' was deemed reasonable, and the court found a rational basis to conclude that a 'transfer of possession' took place due to the brothers' integral roles and the tractors' use for corporate purposes. Consequently, the determination to uphold the sales tax assessment was confirmed, and the petition dismissed.

Sales Tax AssessmentUse TaxCorporate StructureTractor RentalConstructive PossessionTax Law InterpretationArticle 78 ProceedingJudicial Review of Agency DeterminationBusiness Entity TaxationTransfer of Possession
References
2
Case No. CV-24-1494
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 15, 2026

Matter of Beeline.Com, Inc. v. State of N.Y. Tax Appeals Trib.

Petitioner, Beeline.Com, Inc., a Florida company, initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge a determination by the New York Tax Appeals Tribunal. The Tribunal upheld a sales tax assessment imposed by the Department of Taxation and Finance on Beeline.Com's vendor management system (VMS), deeming it a sale of licenses to use prewritten computer software under Tax Law article 28. Beeline.Com argued it primarily provided nontaxable services and its software was customized, not prewritten. The Appellate Division, Third Department, confirmed the Tribunal's determination, finding that the VMS license constituted a sale of tangible personal property, was prewritten software despite minor reconfigurations, and was the core element of Beeline.Com's transactions, not incidental to services.

Sales TaxComputer Software LicensePrewritten SoftwareTax Appeals TribunalCPLR Article 78Vendor Management System (VMS)Tangible Personal PropertyTrue Object TestPrimary Function TestTax Law Article 28
References
15
Case No. 14-07-01042-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 13, 2008

Tenaska Frontier Partners, LTD v. Bill Sullivan, in His Official Capacity as Tax Collector for Grimes County, Anderson-Shiro Consolidated Independent School District and Grimes County

Tenaska Frontier Partners, Ltd. attempted to pay its ad valorem taxes by mail, but the payment was returned due to insufficient postage. The tax collector, Bill Sullivan, then marked the payment as delinquent and assessed penalties and interest amounting to $159,158.66. Tenaska paid under protest and sought a refund, which was denied. The company subsequently filed suit, and the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the appellees. This court affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that insufficient postage does not constitute "postage prepaid" under section 1.08 of the Tax Code, thus making the initial payment untimely. The court emphasized that an unambiguous statute should be construed according to its plain language and that a liberal construction does not permit altering statutory language.

Taxation LawAd Valorem TaxesProperty TaxDelinquent PaymentInsufficient PostageStatutory InterpretationSummary JudgmentTax Code Section 1.08Mailbox RuleAppellate Review
References
30
Showing 1-10 of 9,283 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