Matter of Kahn Jacobs v. State Tax Comm

3 Citing cases

  1. Parkmed Associates v. New York State Tax Commission

    94 A.D.2d 341 (N.Y. App. Div. 1983)   Cited 2 times

    In so ruling, we initially emphasize the well-settled principle that where, as here, a taxpayer claims the benefit of a statute providing an exemption from taxation, the taxpayer bears the burden of establishing his eligibility for the exemption ( Matter of Whittemore v Tax Comm. of State of N.Y., 92 A.D.2d 1081). Moreover, Parkmed correctly points out that in determining whether it can properly reap the benefits of the subject exemption, the crucial issue is what its actual activities were from 1973 through 1975, i.e., whether its activities constituted "the `practice of [a] profession' as opposed to a purely commercial or business enterprise" ( Matter of Whittemore v Tax Comm. of State of N.Y., 92 A.D.2d 1081, 1082, supra; Matter of Mongitore vMurphy, 44 A.D.2d 746; Matter of Kahn Jacobs v State Tax Comm., 39 A.D.2d 278, affd 33 N.Y.2d 549). Judging the uncontested testimony and documentary evidence in the record by this standard, we can only conclude that Parkmed's activities during the time at issue rendered it a commercial or business enterprise as a matter of law and that its member-partners were consequently not engaged in the practice of medicine so as to be entitled to the statutory exemption from the unincorporated business tax.

  2. Matter of Costa v. State Tax Commission

    67 A.D.2d 1074 (N.Y. App. Div. 1979)   Cited 5 times

    In our view, the record contains substantial evidence upon which the Tax Commission could rationally conclude that petitioner's activity did not constitute the practice of a profession. Petitioner has no license which, although not determinative (Matter of Kahn Jacobs v. State Tax Comm., 39 A.D.2d 278, 280, affd 33 N.Y.2d 549; 20 NYCRR 203.11 [b]), is a factor to be considered. The record contains no evidence that a degree in tax preparation is available, and under Rosenbloom (supra) petitioner did not present evidence that he has "a long-term educational background generally associated with a degree in an advanced field of science or learning" (Matter of Rosenbloom v. State Tax Comm., supra, p 71). There is no indication in the record that the preparation of tax returns is controlled by standards of conduct, ethics or malpractice liability, and while less significant today since professionals can incorporate, no barrier exists to prevent tax preparers from incorporating (Matter of Rosenbloom v. State Tax Comm., supra).

  3. Matter of Mongitore v. Murphy

    44 A.D.2d 746 (N.Y. App. Div. 1974)   Cited 1 times

    The commission has determined that petitioners are not engaged in the practice of a profession within the meaning of applicable provisions of the Tax Law because the partnership failed to comply with the requirements of section 7209 Educ. of the Education Law, then in effect, providing that all the members of a partnership engaged in professional engineering be licensed. We have, on a prior occasion, rejected such reasoning and held that under such circumstance the determination of entitlement to an exemption must be based on what the entity claiming exemption actually does and not on whether or not it complies with the requirements of a licensing statute ( Matter of Kahn Jacobs v. State Tax Comm., 39 A.D.2d 278, affd. 33 N.Y.2d 549). Determination annulled, with costs. Herlihy, P.J., Greenblott, Cooke, Kane and Main, JJ., concur.