Taxation

The attorneys of Stites & Harbison assist clients with tax planning and litigation on the federal, state and local levels. The firm's tax practitioners include a former United States Tax Court law clerk and a former attorney for the Internal Revenue Service's Office of Chief Counsel (Tax Court). Several members of the tax practice group have master-of-law degrees in taxation. The firm is the Kentucky member of the American Property Tax Counsel ("APTC"), a national affiliation of law firms with a property tax practice. Membership in APTC is limited to the preeminent property tax law firm in each state.

Federal Tax

The firm helps clients structure corporate reorganizations, redemption transactions, spinoffs, splitoffs, liquidations and tax free exchanges. It also regularly represents clients before the Internal Revenue Service Appeals Office, the United States Tax Court, the U.S. District Courts and federal appellate courts on federal income tax matters. Notable successes have included the defense of a Chicago Board of Trade option trader in what is believed to be the largest case involving the tax treatment afforded to tax straddles; rulings obtained for a billion dollar charitable organization; and the successful negotiation of multi-million dollar tax refunds in connection with a major insurance company insolvency.

State Taxation

State and local taxing authorities are aggressively pursuing additional revenue for their jurisdictions through a variety of mechanisms ranging from overly broad interpretations of state statutes and local ordinances to aggressive, unyielding positions in litigation. Our SALT attorneys are the "go-to" people for SALT controversies in Kentucky. With tax expertise, in-depth litigation experience and a well-known presence in Frankfort, Kentucky—the state's capital—we are uniquely positioned to achieve success for our clients. We represent a number of large multi-state, multi-national corporations in complex SALT matters, and routinely and successfully represent many other businesses and individuals as well. We regularly appear before the Kentucky Department of Revenue, Board of Tax Appeals and all levels of the courts regarding state income, sales and use, property, severance and other taxes.

We currently represent a Fortune 100 company in the Kentucky Supreme Court and in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky in lawsuits challenging the actions of the Kentucky General Assembly in 2000 and 2007 to retroactively revoke the corporation income tax refund claims owed to approximately twenty-nine (29) corporations doing business in Kentucky. The total refund claims, including interest, are estimated to exceed $200 million.

Recent engagements

  • Assisted client in identifying Kentucky tax liabilities (income, sales and use, property, severance and other) for several related entities engaged in complex, multi-million dollar transactions
  • Worked with sales tax auditors to achieve $1M+ savings for client on sales and use tax audits
  • Identified tax incentives available for $2B coal gasification facility
  • Assisted client in protest of multi-million dollar Ohio franchise tax assessment
  • Representation of numerous clients in their appeal of tangible personal and real property tax assessments resulting in significant savings for clients

Recent presentations and publications

  • "Refunds For Court-Resolved Issues and Retroactive Statutes," ABA/IPT Advanced Income Tax Seminar, New Orleans, La., March 2009 (Outline published in Institute for Professionals in Taxation, Income Tax Report, April 2009)
  • "Recurring Problems from Tax Modernization—The Monster that Won't Go Away!" Kentucky State Tax Conference, Kentucky Society of CPAs, January 2009

______________________________________________

"Any one may so arrange his affairs that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which will best pay the Treasury; there is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's taxes."

- J. Learned Hand, Helvering v. Gregory, 69 F.2d 809, 810 (2d Cir. 1934), citing United States v. Isham, 84 U.S. (17 Wall.) 496, 506, 21 L.Ed 728 (1873).