RCA International Development Corp. v. New York City Tax Appeals Tribunal

253 A.D.2d 392, 677 N.Y.S.2d 127, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8951

This text of 253 A.D.2d 392 (RCA International Development Corp. v. New York City Tax Appeals Tribunal) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
RCA International Development Corp. v. New York City Tax Appeals Tribunal, 253 A.D.2d 392, 677 N.Y.S.2d 127, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8951 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Opinions

Determination of respondent New York City Tax Appeals Tribunal dated December 20, 1996, which sustained the determination of respondent Commissioner of the Department of Finance of the City of New York, dated March 29, 1985, assessing a general corporation tax deficiency against petitioner for the years 1980, 1981 and 1982, confirmed, the petition denied and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 dismissed, without costs.

Deferring to respondents’ expertise with respect to whether particular instruments are “designed as a means of investment” within the meaning of former General Corporation Tax Regulation (20 NYCRR) § 3.31 (c), thereby qualifying as “other securities” within the meaning of former Administrative Code of the City of New York § R46-2.0 (4) (now § 11-602 [4]) entitled to the favorable tax treatment accorded income derived from investment capital (see, Matter of Mobil Intl. Fin. Corp. v New York State Tax Commn., 117 AD2d 103, 106-107), substantial evidence supports respondents’ determination that the subject short term commercial notes, issued by RCA Corporation to petitioner, its wholly owned subsidiary, did not constitute such “other securities”. It is for respondents, not the court, to weigh conflicting factors and draw the appropriate inferences. We have considered petitioner’s other arguments, including that the determination should be annulled because of administrative delays in adjudicating petitioner’s protest, and find them to be without merit (see, Matter of Cortlandt Nursing Home v Axelrod, 66 NY2d 169, 178, cert denied 476 US 1115). Concur— Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin and Andrias, JJ.

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

Related

Howard v. Wyman
271 N.E.2d 528 (New York Court of Appeals, 1971)
Kurcsics v. Merchants Mutual Insurance
403 N.E.2d 159 (New York Court of Appeals, 1980)
Cortlandt Nursing Home v. Axelrod
486 N.E.2d 785 (New York Court of Appeals, 1985)
Mobil International Finance Corp. v. New York State Tax Commission
117 A.D.2d 103 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1986)
Carret & Co. v. State Tax Commission
148 A.D.2d 40 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1989)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
253 A.D.2d 392, 677 N.Y.S.2d 127, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8951, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rca-international-development-corp-v-new-york-city-tax-appeals-tribunal-nyappdiv-1998.