Clients choose VA to:

Measure and Manage Sales and Use Taxes.

Do you know how much sales and use tax your business paid last year? If you don’t measure it, you can’t manage it. Van Allen LLC can help you measure and manage your sales and use taxes to boost your profit margins. Contact us to see how we can help you.
Prosecute Tax Appeals at Commonwealth Court.

Did you know that Van Allen LLC has over 100 Commonwealth Court tax appeals at any one time that we are vigorously prosecuting? If you have an unfavorable decision from the Board of Finance and Revenue, contact us to see if it makes sense to appeal to Commonwealth Court.
Reduce Property Tax Liabilities.

Do you know the present value of Property tax savings? Property tax appeals do not simply provide direct savings for the tax year(s) at issue, they also provide those benefits going forward. The general rule is that the present value of tax year’s savings may be 10 times those savings. In other words, $10,000 of annual savings may be worth $100,000 of value to your business. Contact us to see if a property tax appeal for your business is appropriate.
Enhance Profit Margins Through Efficient, Value-Driven Representation.

Value. Van Allen LLC routinely provides great value to our clients by keeping our fees in proportion to the amount at controversy and in relief. As a result, we constantly build value for our clients. Contact us to see if we can build value, and profits, for your business.

April 2012 | Charitable Organizations Beware

In a close 4-3 decision, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Mesivtah Eitz Chaiom of Bobov, Inc. v. Pike County Board of Assessment Appeals, 16 MAP 2011, found that the General Assembly cannot displace the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Constitution because “the ultimate power and authority to interpret the Pennsylvania Constitution rests with the Judiciary, and in particular with this Court.”

The Court noted that the very purpose of Article VIII, Section 2 of the Pennsylvania Constitution was not so much to limit the scope of exemptions to charities as to destroy the obnoxious feature of favoritism by special legislation. The Court mentioned how prior to the 1874 Constitution, the legislature relieved from taxation just what property it saw fit, whether the property was charitable, religious, or even devoted solely to purposes of corporate or private gain.

In the end, the Court continued to hold that an entity seeking a statutory exemption from real estate taxation must first establish that it is a “purely public charity” under Article VIII, Section 2 of the Pennsylvania Constitution before the question of whether that entity meets the qualifications of a statutory exemption can be reached. The standard test for determining if an entity qualifies as an “institution of purely public charity” under the Pennsylvania Constitution is whether it:

(a)   Advances a charitable purpose;
(b)   Donates or renders gratuitously a substantial portion of its services;
(c)   Benefits a substantial and indefinite class of persons who are legitimate subjects of charity;
(d)   Relieves the government of some of its burden; and
(e)   Operates entirely free from private profit motive.

Hospitalization Utilization Project v. Commonwealth, 487 A.2d 1306, 1317 (Pa. 1985) (“HUP”).

The dissent insisted that the General Assembly determined – as a matter of policy – that more refinement was necessary for efficient, uniform application of the HUP test and enacted legislation to serve that purpose. Thus, the dissent declared that Act 55 is an integrated legal test blending the Judiciary’s well-crafted HUP test with the wide-ranging policy making experience of the legislature. Accordingly, for the dissent, an organization is a purely public charity if it satisfies the criteria set forth in Act 55.