Iowa Supreme Court upholds taxation of KFC
Recent Cases
The Iowa Supreme Court has upheld a decision to levy corporate income taxes against fried chicken giant KFC.
At question is whether the state can impose income tax on revenue received by a company that doesn't have a presence in Iowa. KFC doesn't own any restaurants or have employees in Iowa. All KFC's in the state are owned by independent franchisers.
The Iowa Department of Revenue and Finance assessed KFC more than $248,000 for unpaid corporate income taxes in 2001.
Mark Schuling, the agency's director, says any corporation that collects revenue in Iowa should pay taxes.
KFC Corp., whose parent company is Louisville, Ky.-based Yum Brands Inc., challenged the assessment saying under Iowa law it was not subject to taxes because it didn't have property in the state.
Related listings
-
Florida AG urges spill victims to get lawyers
Recent Cases 12/19/2010Attorneys general in four Gulf Coast states are urging oil spill victims to check with lawyers before settling claims against BP PLC.They issued consumer advisories Friday in Florida, Alabama, Louisiana and Texas. Earlier this week Claims Administrat...
-
SD attorney on trial on child porn charges
Recent Cases 12/16/2010The lawyer for a Sioux Falls defense attorney being tried on child pornography charges told a federal court jury that Leo Flynn sought out the material so he could give legal advice to clients.The 62-year-old Flynn is facing charges including possess...
-
Lawsuit seeks to keep 3 Iowa justices on bench
Recent Cases 12/16/2010The retention vote in which three Iowa Supreme Court justices were ousted was illegal, according to a lawsuit seeking to keep the three justices from being tossed from the bench. The lawsuit claims the vote violated the Iowa Constitution, which requi...
Workers’ Compensation Subrogation of Administrative Fees and Costs
When a worker covered by workers’ compensation makes a claim against a third party, the workers’ compensation insurance retains the right to subrogate against any recovery from that third party for all benefits paid to or on behalf of a claimant injured at work. When subrogating for more than basic medical and indemnity benefits, the Texas workers’ compensation subrogation statute provides that “the net amount recovered by a claimant in a third‑party action shall be used to reimburse the carrier for benefits, including medical benefits that have been paid for the compensable injury.” TX Labor Code § 417.002.
In fact, all 50 states provide for similar subrogation. However, none of them precisely outlines which payments or costs paid by a compensation carrier constitute “compensation” and can be recovered. The result is industry-wide confusion and an ongoing debate and argument with claimants’ attorneys over what can and can’t be included in a carrier’s lien for recovery purposes.
In addition to medical expenses, death benefits, funeral costs and/or indemnity benefits for lost wages and loss of earning capacity resulting from a compensable injury, workers’ compensation insurance carriers also expend considerable dollars for case management costs, medical bill audit fees, rehabilitation benefits, nurse case worker fees, and other similar fees. They also incur other expenses in conjunction with the handling and adjusting of workers’ compensation claims. Workers’ compensation carriers typically assert, of course, that, they are entitled to reimbursement for such expenditures when it recovers its workers’ compensation lien. Injured workers and their attorneys disagree.