Shafer, Lansing, Michigan, 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. SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) 1947A (a 30-iLta Lambrose Brown and William H.
Roos, Las Vegas, for Appellant SHAC, LLC. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County Elizabeth Goff Gonzalez, Judge. INDEMAN rte 0 BY 9ABtrART HiS oPu:ryttlRK K Appeal from a district court order dismissing a tax action for failure to properly follow administrative procedures by filing a petition for judicial review in the district court. NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION NEVADA TAX COMMISSION AND THE STATE OF NEVADA BOARD OF EXAMINERS, Respondents. WESTWOOD, INC., D/B/A TREASURES, Appellants, vs. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA 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. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as Nevada law required Appellants to file a petition for judicial review.ġ30 Nev., Advance Opinion 72. This appeal challenging the district court’s dismissal of Case 2 followed. The district court (1) dismissed Appellants’ as-applied challenge in Case 1 and (2) dismissed the entirety of Case 2 for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Appellants failed to file a petition for judicial review after the completion of their administrative proceedings. Appellants then filed a second de novo action (Case 2) challenging the administrative denials of their refund requests and asserting an as-applied challenge to NLET. The Department denied refunds, and the Nevada Tax Commission affirmed. While Case 1 was pending, Appellants filed individual tax refund requests with the Nevada Department of Taxation on the grounds that NLET is facially unconstitutional. Appellants then filed a de novo action (Case 1) in a Nevada district court seeking similar remedies to those sought in federal court and asserting an as-applied challenge to NLET. Appellants filed suit in federal court seeking a declaration that Nevada’s Live Entertainment Tax (NLET) was facially unconstitutional for violating the First Amendment.
0 kommentar(er)
