In a recent decision, the New York State Tax Appeals Tribunal (“Tribunal”) upheld notices of deficiency issued by the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance (the “Department”) totaling approximately $15 million in additional tax, plus interest and penalties for tax years dating as far back as 2002. In the Matter of the Petition of Cushlin Limited, DTA No. 829939 (TAT Oct. 10, 2024). The notices of deficiency came on the heels of an audit that lasted a decade and at the end of which the Department computed additional corporation franchise tax due “based on the information it had available” inasmuch as the information provided by the company over the 10-year audit was “incomplete and/or unsubstantiated.” This case is a cautionary tale for taxpayers and a reminder that tax issues do not get better with age, and delaying or putting off addressing known issues only makes the situation worse in the end.
The company was a corporation organized under the laws of The Isle of Man and was in the business of acquiring and refurbishing three- and four-star hotels. The company also owned equity interests in 13 limited liability companies (“LLCs”) that were doing business in New York. In 2008, the Department began an audit of one of the LLCs and discovered that it had sold real property in New York but did not file a New York State partnership tax return. As a result of its ownership interest in the LLCs, the Department determined that the company was required to file New York corporation franchise tax returns on which it was required to report the gains and losses of the LLCs. The audit of the company initially covered the tax years 2002 through 2006 and was later expanded to include 2007 through 2009.
From 2010 through 2013, the company and the Department communicated multiple times, and the company repeatedly stated that it was preparing tax returns for the audit years for the LLCs and the company and that it required more time to prepare those returns. In 2013, the company provided the Department with draft tax returns for the company and the LLCs. In May 2016, after another three years passed without final tax returns being filed, the Department informed the company that it was assessing additional corporation franchise tax computed based on the amounts in the draft returns plus interest and penalties. In June 2016, the company filed final tax returns for all of the audit years, and the final returns reflected income and deductions that were larger than the amounts previously included in the draft returns.
The Department then issued three information document requests over the next two years that requested information substantiating the deductions claimed on the filed returns. In response to these requests, the Tribunal found that the company “provided only partial responses that lacked any externally verifiable substantiation” and repeated Department requests were “met with partial, inconclusive responses.” Finally, in 2018, the Department issued the notices of deficiency that assessed the amount of additional corporation franchise tax that the Department had previously computed using the company’s draft returns plus updated additional interest and penalties. The company appealed and the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) sustained the notices finding: (1) that the company had failed to meet its burden of proving that the notices were incorrect; and (2) that penalties were properly imposed as the company also failed to demonstrate that its failure to file timely returns was a result of reasonable cause and not willful neglect.
The Tribunal agreed with the ALJ, concluding that there was a rational basis for the notices because “[w]orking without returns or supporting documentation more than six years after it began, the [Department] used the available information provided by petitioner, verified by other information contained in the [Department’s] own database, to arrive at a computation of tax due from petitioner.” Moreover, the Tribunal reasoned, the Department provided the company with numerous opportunities to substantiate the amounts that the company reported on its filed returns and the company’s failure to provide substantiating information left the Department with “little choice” but to “use another method to arrive at a determination of tax liability.” Finally, the Tribunal concluded that the ALJ correctly determined that penalties were properly imposed as the company did not meet its burden to demonstrate reasonable cause.
