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. NO. 03-98-00566-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 29, 1999

Texas Department of Insurance Jose Montemayor, Commissioner of Insurance John Cornyn, Texas Attorney General Carole Keeton Rylander, Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts And Texas Public Finance Authority v. American Home Assurance Company and the Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania

The Texas Court of Appeals affirmed a district court's judgment in a tax refund case involving workers' compensation insurance. Appellees, two insurance companies, sued the State for a partial refund of taxes paid under protest, contending that a 1993 amendment to the Texas Insurance Code, Article 5.68(b), which expanded the tax base for certain maintenance taxes, did not apply to a separate surcharge tax. The amendment explicitly stated its application to Article 5.68 and Labor Code Section 403.002, but made no mention of the surcharge statute, Article 5.76-5. The appellate court found the language clear and unambiguous, concluding that the legislature's omission of the surcharge statute was deliberate and that the expanded definition of 'gross workers' compensation insurance premiums' applied only to the specified articles. Therefore, the State's assessment of the surcharge based on modified premiums was incorrect, and the district court's order for a refund was upheld.

Workers' CompensationInsurance TaxStatutory InterpretationTax BaseDeductible PlansTexas Insurance CodeTexas Labor CodeSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewGross Premiums
References
28
Case No. 03-03-00643-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 15, 2004

Alpine Industries, Inc. v. Carole Keeton Strayhorn, Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas And Greg Abbott, Attorney General for the State of Texas

Alpine Industries, Inc. appealed a district court's summary judgment that held it responsible for collecting Texas sales taxes as a direct sales organization. The Comptroller of Public Accounts determined Alpine, which utilizes independent salespersons to sell air-purification equipment, fell under a provision of the Texas Tax Code requiring it to collect and remit sales tax. Alpine contested this, arguing the Comptroller failed to prove it was a direct sales organization, did not make an individualized determination for administrative efficiency, and that the tax violated the Commerce, Due Process, and Equal Protection clauses of the United States and Texas Constitutions. The appellate court affirmed the district court's judgment, ruling that the Comptroller properly applied the tax code and that the tax did not infringe upon Alpine's constitutional rights. Furthermore, the court upheld the Comptroller's counterclaim for over $2 million in back taxes.

Tax lawSales tax liabilityDirect sales organizationAdministrative efficiencyCommerce ClauseDue ProcessEqual ProtectionConstitutional lawSummary judgmentAppellate review
References
25
Case No. 03-10-00644-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 25, 2013

Energy Education of Montana, Inc. v. Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts and the Attorney General of Texas

Energy Education of Montana, Inc. (EEM) filed a tax refund suit against the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts and the Attorney General of Texas, seeking to recover use tax paid on an airplane. EEM argued for an exemption under tax code section 151.328(a)(4), claiming the aircraft was purchased for registration and use outside Texas. The district court denied EEM's motion and granted the Comptroller's summary judgment. On appeal, the court affirmed the district court's decision, holding that the exemption applies only to aircraft purchased in Texas and does not create a use-tax exemption. Consequently, EEM was found not entitled to the aircraft exemption.

TexasTax LawUse TaxSales TaxAircraft ExemptionSummary JudgmentStatutory ConstructionAppellate ReviewTax RefundComptroller of Public Accounts
References
33
Case No. 03-02-00747-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 06, 2003

United Services Automobile Association and USAA Life Insurance Company v. Carole Keeton Strayhorn, Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas, and Greg Abbott, Attorney General of the State of Texas

This appeal concerns a tax refund sought by United Services Automobile Association (USAA) for sales and use taxes paid between 1994 and 1999. USAA argued that repealed sections of the Texas Insurance Code (former articles 4.10 and 4.11) contained "no other tax" language, which they interpreted as exempting them from all state taxes not expressly provided for in the insurance code at that time. The district court denied USAA's claim and granted the Comptroller's motion for summary judgment, ruling that the insurance code provisions did not exempt USAA from sales and use taxes. The Court of Appeals, reviewing statutory interpretation and legislative history, determined that the tax exemption in the insurance code was narrowly intended to replace occupational and franchise taxes existing in 1907 when the law was first enacted, and did not apply to sales and use taxes, which were created much later in 1961. The court concluded that the exemptions were specific to a system of occupation taxes and did not cover general applicability taxes like sales and use taxes, thus affirming the district court's judgment.

Tax RefundSales TaxUse TaxInsurance CodeStatutory InterpretationLegislative IntentGross Receipts TaxOccupation TaxFranchise TaxTax Exemption
References
41
Case No. 03-14-00197-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Graphic Packaging Corporation v. Glenn Hegar, Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas And Ken Paxton, Attorney General of the State of Texas

This is a reply brief for Graphic Packaging, Inc. in an appeal concerning the application of Texas's franchise tax. Graphic Packaging argues that it properly used the Multistate Tax Compact's three-factor apportionment formula, contending that Texas Tax Code § 171.106(a) did not impliedly repeal the Compact's election or formula. The appellant asserts that the Compact is a valid and binding interstate agreement, not a mere uniform law, and that its mandatory election provision is unambiguous. Furthermore, Graphic Packaging argues that the Compact Election does not violate the Texas Constitution's anti-surrender tax power provision and that the franchise tax qualifies as an "income tax" under the Compact's broad definition.

Franchise TaxTax ApportionmentMultistate Tax CompactContract ClauseTaxation LawState SovereigntyStatutory InterpretationImplied RepealDue ProcessCommerce Clause
References
67
Case No. 03-22-00188-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 14, 2023

RJR Vapor Co., LLC// Glenn Hegar, Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas The Office of the Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas And Ken Paxton, Attorney General of the State of Texas v. Glenn Hegar, Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas The Office of the Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas And Ken Paxton, Attorney General of the State of Texas// Cross-Appellee, RJR Vapor Co., LLC

RJR Vapor Co., LLC sued the Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas to recover protested tax payments on its oral nicotine products (VELO pouches and lozenges). The central dispute was whether VELO products are 'tobacco products' under Texas Tax Code Section 155.001(15)(E), which defines such products as 'made of tobacco or a tobacco substitute'. The trial court ruled in favor of RJR Vapor, granting a refund and declaring parts of the statute unconstitutional. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed that VELO products are not taxable tobacco products, thus upholding the refund. The court also vacated the trial court's constitutional declarations and dismissed RJR Vapor's related claims for declaratory and injunctive relief, deeming them moot.

Tax LawStatutory InterpretationTobacco Products TaxNicotine ProductsOral NicotineTax RefundConstitutional ChallengesMootness DoctrineAppellate ReviewTexas Law
References
33
Case No. 03-14-00397-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 15, 2015

American Multi-Cinema, Inc.// Glenn Hegar, Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas And Ken Paxton, Attorney General of the State of Texas v. Glenn Hegar, Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas And Ken Paxton, Attorney General of the State of Texas// Cross-Appellee, American Multi-Cinema, Inc.

This case is an appeal concerning whether American Multi-Cinema, Inc. (AMC) sells 'goods' when exhibiting movies, impacting its eligibility for a cost-of-goods-sold deduction under Texas franchise tax law. The Cross-Appellants (Comptroller and Attorney General) contend that AMC sells intangible property (a license), an experience, or a service, none of which qualify as 'goods' as defined by the Texas Tax Code. They argue that AMC does not produce films, but merely exhibits them, thus not meeting the criteria for the deduction. The brief also addresses the applicability of 2007 and 2013 amendments to the franchise tax statute, asserting they are not retroactive to the 2008 and 2009 tax years at issue. The Cross-Appellants seek to reverse the trial court's decision that AMC is entitled to the deduction.

Franchise TaxCost of Goods SoldTexas Tax CodeMovie ExhibitionIntangible PropertyServicesTax DeductionStatutory InterpretationAppellate LawTax Law
References
20
Case No. 15-25-00022-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 03, 2024

City of Coppell, Texas; City of Humble, Texas; City of DeSoto, Texas; City of Carrollton, Texas; And City of Farmer's Branch, Texas // Kelly Hancock, in His Official Capacity as Acting Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas v. Kelly Hancock, in His Official Capacity as Acting Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas // City of Coppell, Texas; City of Humble, Texas; City of DeSoto, Texas; City of Carrollton, Texas; City of Farmer's Branch, Texas; And City of Round Rock, Texas

The case involves a legal dispute over the State of Texas Comptroller's amendments to Rule 3.334, which governs local sales and use tax sourcing, especially for e-commerce and fulfillment centers. The applicant cities challenge several subsections of the rule, arguing they contravene existing statutes, prior interpretations, and the Administrative Procedure Act due to inadequate notice and reasoned justification. The Comptroller asserts the amendments clarify long-standing interpretations to address modern e-commerce practices, ensure uniform tax application, and prevent revenue manipulation, maintaining that the changes are within their statutory rulemaking authority. The trial court invalidated several contested subsections of Rule 3.334, permanently enjoining their enforcement and remanding them for further consideration. Both parties are appealing aspects of the trial court's decision, with the Comptroller cross-appealing the invalidity rulings. The issue is significant to Texas jurisprudence, determining where sales or use taxes are consummated for local allocation.

Sales Tax SourcingLocal Sales TaxE-commerceFulfillment CentersAdministrative LawStatutory InterpretationTexas Tax CodeRule 3.334Tax Revenue AllocationJudicial Review of Agency Action
References
21
Case No. 03-04-00261-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 16, 2005

Local Neon Company, Inc. v. Carole Keeton Strayhorn, Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas, and Greg Abbott, Attorney General of the State of Texas

Local Neon Company, Inc. initiated a tax protest lawsuit challenging the Comptroller of Public Accounts of Texas's assessment of sales and use tax from 1988 to 1995, arguing a lack of sufficient nexus to require tax collection and that their protest letter met statutory requirements. The district court dismissed the case due to a plea to the jurisdiction, finding Local Neon's protest letter did not 'state fully and in detail each reason for recovering the payment.' The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the tax protest suit and declaratory judgment claims for a refund, agreeing that the protest letter was insufficient. However, the appellate court reversed and remanded the dismissal of Local Neon's claims seeking declaratory relief on the constitutionality of the tax code statutes and administrative rules, finding these were not redundant to tax code remedies and should be heard.

Tax LawSales and Use TaxTax Protest SuitDeclaratory JudgmentSovereign ImmunityConstitutional LawDue ProcessCommerce ClauseAdministrative LawJurisdiction
References
61
Case No. 03-99-00427-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 11, 2000

Carole Keeton Rylander, as Successor to John Sharp, Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas And John Cornyn, as Successor to Dan Morales, Attorney General of the State of Texas v. Bandag Licensing Corporation

This case involves an appeal by the Comptroller of Public Accounts and the Attorney General of Texas from a district court judgment. The district court awarded Bandag Licensing Corporation (BLC) a recovery of $503,726 in franchise taxes paid under protest for the years 1992-96, along with attorney's fees. The central issue was whether BLC's mere possession of a certificate of authority to do business in Texas, without physical presence or intrastate business, constituted a 'substantial nexus' for franchise tax purposes under the Commerce Clause and Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution. The appellate court affirmed the district court's judgment, concluding that such passive possession was insufficient for taxation. Furthermore, the court found section 112.108 of the Texas Tax Code, which prohibited attorney's fees in declaratory judgment actions against the state, unconstitutional, thereby upholding the award of attorney's fees to BLC.

Franchise TaxCommerce ClauseDue Process ClauseDeclaratory Judgment ActGovernmental ImmunitySubstantial NexusCertificate of AuthorityInterstate CommerceTaxation LawConstitutional Law
References
34
Showing 1-10 of 10,105 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