Home/New York Court of Appeals/Licata v. Chu

Licata v. Chu

476 N.E.2d 997, 64 N.Y.2d 873, 487 N.Y.S.2d 552, 1985 N.Y. LEXIS 14154
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedFebruary 21, 1985
StatusPublished
Cited by15 cases

This text of 476 N.E.2d 997 (Licata v. Chu) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Licata v. Chu, 476 N.E.2d 997, 64 N.Y.2d 873, 487 N.Y.S.2d 552, 1985 N.Y. LEXIS 14154 (N.Y. 1985).

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The judgment of the Appellate Division should be reversed and the determination of the State Tax Commission reinstated, with costs.

Petitioners’ sales tax records have as their source cash register tapes which show only total sales and sales tax collected by categories, although the tape given the customer itemized each transaction. Because respondent’s auditor could not determine from the tapes available whether tax had been charged on all taxable items and whether the proper tax had been charged in each instance, the auditor’s use of a test period and markup audit to estimate the tax due from petitioners was neither arbitrary nor without rational basis (Tax Law § 1138 [a] [1]; Matter of Markowitz v State Tax Commn., 54 AD2d 1023, affd 44 NY2d 684).

Petitioners also challenge the accuracy of the test audit because, they contend, a sufficient margin was not allowed for employee purchases, theft, waste and “loss leaders.” On that issue, however, the burden of proof was on petitioners (Matter of Petroleum Sales & Serv. v Bouchard, 64 NY2d 671, affg 98 AD2d 882), and they presented neither direct proof of such losses nor expert testimony establishing the extent of such losses regularly occurring in the industry.

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Jasen, Meyer, Simons, Kaye and Alexander concur in memorandum.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), judgment reversed, etc.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Thorbahn Ents., L.L.C. v. Ohio Dept. of Taxation
2021 Ohio 4457 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2021)
In re the Appeal of National Catastrophe Restoration, Inc.
291 P.3d 89 (Court of Appeals of Kansas, 2012)
Alexandre v. Commissioner of Revenue Services
22 A.3d 518 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 2011)
Yilmaz, Inc. v. Director, Division of Taxation
22 N.J. Tax 204 (New Jersey Tax Court, 2005)
Raemart Drugs, Inc. v. Wetzler
157 A.D.2d 22 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1990)
Oak Beach Inn Corp. v. Wexler
158 A.D.2d 785 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1990)
Continental Arms Corp. v. State Tax Commission
530 N.E.2d 1282 (New York Court of Appeals, 1988)
Arnmart Wholesale Beer Distributors, Inc. v. State Tax Commission
140 A.D.2d 900 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1988)
Sloan's Supermarkets, Inc. v. Chu
140 A.D.2d 794 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1988)
Ace Provision & Luncheonette Supply, Inc. v. Chu
135 A.D.2d 1070 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1987)
S. H. B. Super Markets, Inc. v. Chu
135 A.D.2d 1048 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1987)
Guiragossian v. Chu
130 A.D.2d 901 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1987)
Sol Wahba, Inc. v. New York State Tax Commission
127 A.D.2d 943 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1987)
Hennekens v. State Tax Commission
114 A.D.2d 599 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1985)
Snyder v. State Tax Commission
114 A.D.2d 567 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1985)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
476 N.E.2d 997, 64 N.Y.2d 873, 487 N.Y.S.2d 552, 1985 N.Y. LEXIS 14154, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/licata-v-chu-ny-1985.