

Browdy Law Tax Controversy And Business Litigation

Browdy Law

We treat you with respect

One office with a national presence

We treat you with respect

We treat each client's problem as if it is our own, and we do what we say we will do. We will not send you drafts of briefs or discovery responses the day before they are due. We will not return your phone call by sending you an email.

Experience you can trust

One office with a national presence

We treat you with respect

We guarantee aggressive and efficient work from the start of our engagement to the finish. Our reputation and 30 years of courtroom victories speak for themselves.

Find out more

One office with a national presence

Browdy P.C. routinely handles compex commercial matters, audits, appeals, arbitrations, and mediations throughout the United States. Our clients are not limited to U.S corporations.

About browdylaw.com

Experienced Business Lawyers

Scott Browdy founded Browdy Law in 2011. Scott has tried complex commercial cases and defended them on appeal for over 25 years. Browdy Law's practice concentrates in federal and state tax controversies, securities and securities-related employment matters, and bet-the-company business disputes. Our practice is nationwide in scope, and

Show Less

Tailored Legal Solutions

Experienced Business Lawyers

Your business and your legal challenges are unique, and that is exactly how Browdy Law will treat them. Starting on the day we meet, we will work toward an efficient solution that maximizes your recovery (or minimizes your exposure) and lets you focus on your business rather than litigation.

Personal and Timely Service

Experienced Business Lawyers

Personal and Timely Service

Scott Browdy will be the first chair on any matter that goes to trial or an appellate court. Your calls will always be answered the day you place them, usually within three hours or less. You will receive timely and thorough calls and emails about the status and next steps in your matter. You will also have online access to your files through Browdy Law's portal.

Recent Courtroom Successes

Successes

Browdy P.C. tries complex cases and defends them on appeal in state and federal courts across the United States. We are a full-scale business litigation firm, with a sub-specialty in tax controversies. Our firm has won over over $250,000,000 in recoveries and savings for our clients since 2010. We are proud to share with you our recent courtroom success stories:

City of Chicago et al. v. Inspired Development, LLC et al. (2020)

Browdy P.C. defended an economic developer and various retailers in three suits alleging that the developer and two Illinois municipalities conspired to deprive the City of Chicago of over $100 million in Retailers’ Occupation Tax and Use Tax revenue. After nearly five years of litigation, all of Chicago’s claims were dismissed with prejudice. The firm successfully defended the dismissal before the Illinois Supreme Court in a case of first impression.

Potomac Edison Co. v. Maryland Comptroller of the Currency (2019)

We represented an electrical utility who transmitted and distributed electricity throughout the State of Maryland. The taxpayer did not, however, operate electricity generation plants. At issue was the taxpayer’s appeal of a Maryland Tax Court decision denying a refund for sales tax paid on transmission and distribution equipment purchased from 2003 through 2007. Maryland provides a sales tax exemption used for tangible personal property that is used in a “production activity.” A production activity is largely the same as “manufacturing” or “processing” under Maryland law. The Maryland Comptroller argued that the electricity manufacturing process ends at the generation plant and does not continue during transmission and distribution. At trial, we demonstrated through two experts that the voltage and current of electricity are modified and processed during transmission and distribution, and that without this processing electricity could not be supplied or sold to consumers. After a denial of the refund at trial, the Maryland Special Court of Appeals reversed, and remanded the case to the Tax Court for the purpose of determining the scope and amount of the taxpayer’s refund. Use Tax revenue.

British Airways PLC v. Director, New Jersey Division of Taxation (2016)

The taxpayer filed refund claims, asserting that it did not owe sales and use tax on thousands of room rentals at three hotels near Newark Airport. After an exhaustive factual analysis, we filed a motion for summary judgment that demonstrated that the taxpayer was a “permanent resident” of the rooms in question and, therefore, did not owe sales and use tax. Shortly before our motion’s hearing date, the Division of Taxation agreed to all but a small portion of our refund calculation.

Sherwin-Williams Co. v. Director, Illinois Department of Revenue (2015)

We filed refund claims on behalf of our client, arguing that machinery and equipment used to produce paint in the client’s retail stores qualified for the state’s manufacturing exemption. We submitted the case on a stipulated record, and obtained an award granting over 95 percent of the requested relief.

AmTopp Corp. v. Director, New Jersey Division of Taxation (2015)

The New Jersey Division of Taxation disallowed over $60 million of our client’s net operating losses for business income purposes on the purported ground that the NOLs had expired during a statutory suspension period. In a case of first impression, we filed a motion for summary judgment and recaptured over $40 million of the NOLs.

PPG Industries, Inc. v. Director, Illinois Department of Revenue (2014)

Our client asserted that liquid nitrogen and hydrogen used in its float bath glass manufacturing process was exempt equipment. We did not prevail at trial, but obtained a complete reversal on appeal before the Circuit Court of Cook County. The case subsequently settled on favorable terms while on appeal to a separate appellate court.

Target Corp. v. Florida Department of Revenue (2013)

Our client purchased a material handling and storage system that, in effect, operated as a mechanized warehouse. We argued that the system was real, rather than personal, property, and, therefore, not subject to use tax. The court ruled that much of the system qualified as real property and granted a substantial refund.

Apportionment Factor Computation in Connection with Sales of Electricity (2011)

We represented one of the nation’s largest power generators in a challenge to income-tax assessments issued by the Illinois Department of Revenue. In a case of first impression, Illinois disputed our client’s conception of a “sale” of electricity, and attempted to collect over $40 million in unpaid tax, interest, and penalties. The settled shortly before trial with a savings of over $20 million to our client.

Flight Simulator Lease Payments (2010)

We represented a Fortune 100 aerospace company in an audit dispute with the Georgia Department of Revenue. Georgia alleged that our client owed over $1 million in unpaid sales tax, based on purported leases of flight simulators in Atlanta. We demonstrated that most of the contested transactions were not taxable leases and settled the case for a small fraction of the amount originally demanded.

Inspired Development, LLC et al. v. State of Illinois (2010)

We represented three economic developers in a constitutional challenge to Illinois’ newly amended Freedom of Information Act. Acting under color of the FOIA statute, the Illinois Attorney General demanded access to highly confidential documents relating to taxpayers who enrolled in the state’s Retailers Occupation Tax incentive program. After extensive legal arguments in the Circuit Court, the Attorney General voluntarily dropped her demand for the documents.