Westwood filed individual tax refund requests with the Nevada Department of Taxation (the Department), arguing that NLET is facially unconstitutional for violating the First Amendment. While Case 1 was pending in district court, appellants K–Kel, Olympus Garden, SHAC, The Power Company, and D. Appellants later amended their Case 1 complaint to include an as-applied constitutional challenge to NLET. On December 19, 2006, following the dismissal of their federal case, appellants filed a de novo action (Case 1) in the Eighth Judicial District Court seeking similar remedies to those sought in federal court, including declaratory and injunctive relief, damages, attorney fees, and costs. The federal court dismissed that suit because appellants failed to show that Nevada's court and administrative systems deprived them of a plain, speedy, and efficient remedy. On April 18, 2006, appellants filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada seeking a declaration that NLET is facially unconstitutional, an injunction against its enforcement, and a refund for all taxes paid under the statute. However, unlike Deja Vu II, which primarily addresses whether NLET violates the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, this appeal focuses on the procedural processes available to a claimant challenging an unfavorable decision regarding his or her tax refund request. 73, September 18, 2014) (hereinafter Deja Vu II ). This appeal involves the same parties as the appeal in Deja Vu Showgirls v. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's decision.
We conclude that the district court properly limited appellants to a petition for judicial review and was correct in refusing to invoke judicial estoppel. We also consider whether the district court committed error by refusing to invoke judicial estoppel in lieu of granting respondents' motion to dismiss the underlying de novo action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. In this opinion, we address whether the district court erred by concluding that, after exhausting their administrative remedies for seeking a refund under Nevada's Live Entertainment Tax (NLET), appellants were limited to a petition for judicial review, rather than a de novo action. Doerr, Senior Deputy Attorneys General, and Vivienne Rakowsky, Deputy Attorney General, Carson City, for Respondents. Catherine Cortez Masto, Attorney General, David J. Shafer, Lansing, MI, for Appellants Deja Vu Showgirls of Las Vegas, LLC Little Darlings of Las Vegas K–Kel, Inc.
Brown, Las Vegas Shafer and Associates and Bradley J. Roos, Las Vegas, for Appellant SHAC, LLC. NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION Nevada Tax Commission and The State of Nevada Board of Examiners, Respondents. Westwood, Inc., d/b/a Treasures, Appellants, v. DEJA VU SHOWGIRLS OF LAS VEGAS, LLC, A Nevada Limited Liability Company, d/b/a Deja Vu Showgirls Little Darlings of Las Vegas, d/b/a Little Darlings K–KEL, Inc., d/b/a Spearmint Rhino Gentlemen's Club Olympus Garden, Inc., d/b/a Olympus Garden Shac, LLC, d/b/a Sapphire The Power Company, Inc., d/b/a Crazy Horse Too Gentlemen's Club and D.
0 kommentar(er)
