NYC Tax Law Library: A Community Resource
Kalish Law LLC has compiled the NYC Tax Law Library as a complimentary public service for the benefit of the legal and tax community. This resource is a curated compilation of links to publicly available materials, including statutes, regulations, and recent tribunal decisions, organized to facilitate easier access for practitioners, advisors, and taxpayers.
Help Us Keep This Resource Current
We rely on the collaboration of the tax community to maintain the integrity and accuracy of this library. If you have suggestions for improvements, notice a broken link, or identify a more recent version of a document, please email us at jarrett@kalishtaxlaw.com. Your feedback is essential to keeping this resource as helpful and accurate as possible for all users.
Unincorporated Business Tax
Recent Tribunal Decisions:
The “Recent Tribunal Decisions” section of the NYC Tax Law Library solely contains recent published decisions from the Appeals Division of the NYC Tax Appeals Tribunal. The NYC Tax Law Library does not contain any such decisions from prior to 2003 and does not contain any determinations from the ALJ Division of the NYC Tax Appeals Tribunal. The NYC Tax Law Library also does not contain any NYS Court Decisions, even in instances where Appeals Division decisions that are included in the library were the subject of further appellate review in the New York State courts. The summaries of the decisions included below are the same as those that are publicly provided by the NYC Tax Appeals Tribunal and are not the work product of Kalish Law LLC.
A&E TELEVISION NETWORKS, LLC TAT(E) 20-32 (UB) (November 19, 2025)
THE INTRODUCTORY LANGUAGE TO ADMINISTRATIVE CODE §11-507 DEFINES UNINCORPORATED BUSINESS DEDUCTIONS AS “THE ITEMS OF LOSS AND DEDUCTION DIRECTLY CONNECTED WITH OR INCURRED IN THE CONDUCT OF THE BUSINESS, WHICH ARE ALLOWABLE FOR FEDERAL INCOME TAX PURPOSES FOR THE TAXABLE YEAR.” THE ALJ CORRECTLY CONCLUDED THAT THE “DIRECTLY CONNECTED WITH…” LANGUAGE DOES NOT ADD A DISTINCT REQUIREMENT TO DEDUCTIBILITY UNDER THE UBT, AND AN ITEM IS DEDUCTIBLE UNDER THE UBT WHEN IT IS ALLOWABLE FOR FEDERAL INCOME TAX PURPOSES, SUBJECT TO SPECIFIED UBT MODIFICATIONS. THE ALJ’S DETERMINATION IS AFFIRMED, THE PETITION IS GRANTED AND THE NOTICE IS CANCELLED.
SKIDMORE, OWINGS & MERRILL, LLP TAT(E)17-21(UB) (January 26, 2023)
PETITIONER’S DEDUCTION OF COMMISSION PAYMENTS TO A DOMESTIC INTERNATIONAL SALES CORPORATION, IN WHICH PETITIONER’S PARTNERS WERE THE SHAREHOLDERS, WAS DISALLOWED UNDER ADMINISTRATIVE CODE § 11-507(3) AND 19 RCNY §28-06(d)(1)(i)(B).
KATZ & KERN LLP TAT(E)19-20(UB) (January 10, 2022)
THE EXCEPTION WAS DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION. THE TRIBUNAL DOES NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO REVIEW A FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT WHICH DOES NOT "GIVE A PERSON A RIGHT TO A HEARING" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 168.a OF THE NEW YORK CITY CHARTER.
TOCQUEVILLE ASSET MANAGEMENT L.P. TAT(E)10-37(UB) (May 29, 2015)
PETITIONER CANNOT DEDUCT THE PORTION OF ITS PAYMENT TO THE GENERAL PARTNER REPRESENTING COMPENSATION FOR THE SERVICES OF EMPLOYEE-PARTNERS FOR PURPOSES OF THE NEW YORK CITY UNINCORPORATED BUSINESS TAX. THE EMPLOYEE-PARTNERS WERE NOT MERELY EMPLOYEES OF THE GENERAL PARTNER BUT WERE ALSO INDIVIDUAL PARTNERS IN PETITIONER.
MURPHY & O'CONNELL TAT (E) 06-18 (UB) (July 26, 2011)
A PARTNERSHIP'S PAYMENTS TO A PENSION PLAN ON BEHALF OF ITS PARTNERS ARE WITHIN THE SCOPE OF §11-507(3) OF THE NEW YORK CITY ADMINISTRATIVE CODE AND ARE NOT DEDUCTIBLE FOR PURPOSES OF THE NEW YORK CITY UNINCORPORATED BUSINESS TAX. PETITIONER IS DUE A REFUND IN THE AMOUNT OF THE PENALTIES AND IS ENTITLED TO INTEREST ON THE REFUND OF THE PENALTIES.
PROSKAUER ROSE LLP TAT (E) 01-19 (UB), ET AL. (November 5, 2007)
PAYMENTS MADE BY PETITIONER TO RETIRED PARTNERS THAT WERE ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY A FUNCTION OF SERVICES RENDERED TO PETITIONER BY THE RETIRED PARTNERS HAD TO BE ADDED BACK IN COMPUTING PETITIONER'S UNINCORPORATED BUSINESS TAXABLE INCOME FOR THE TAX YEARS AS PAYMENTS FOR SERVICES PURSUANT TO CODE §11-507(3). THE TRIBUNAL REJECTED PETITIONER'S ARGUMENT THAT, NOTWITHSTANDING A PROHIBITION AGAINST PAYMENT FOR GOODWILL IN SECTION 13 OF THE PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT, THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE FOR THE RETIRED PARTNERS' SHARES OF PETITIONER'S GOODWILL. IN ADDITION, PETITIONER DID NOT PROVIDE SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT A FINDING THAT THE PAYMENTS WERE NOT FOR "SERVICES" OF RETIRED PARTNERS. AS A SEPARATE ISSUE, PETITIONER'S CONTRIBUTIONS TO RETIREMENT PLANS IN EACH OF THE TAX YEARS REPRESENTED PAYMENTS MADE BY PETITIONER ON BEHALF OF ITS PARTNERS FOR "SERVICES" UNDER CODE §11-507(3) THAT MUST BE ADDED BACK IN DETERMINING PETITIONER'S UNINCORPORATED BUSINESS TAXABLE INCOME FOR THE TAX YEARS.
CITRIN COOPERMAN & COMPANY, LLP TAT (E) 01-17 (UB) (September 10, 2007)
PAYMENTS MADE BY PETITIONER TO RETIRED PARTNERS AND IDENTIFIED IN THE PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT AND OTHER RELEVANT AGREEMENTS AS "PAST SERVICE COMPENSATION" HAD TO BE ADDED BACK IN COMPUTING PETITIONER'S UNINCORPORATED BUSINESS TAXABLE INCOME FOR THE TAX YEARS AS PAYMENTS FOR SERVICES PURSUANT TO CODE §11-507(3). THE TRIBUNAL REJECTED PETITIONER'S ARGUMENT THAT, NOTWITHSTANDING IDENTIFICATION OF THE PAYMENTS IN PETITIONER'S AGREEMENTS AS "PAST SERVICE COMPENSATION", THE PAYMENTS WERE ACTUALLY PAYMENTS FOR GOODWILL AND NOT PAST SERVICES. THE TRIBUNAL HELD PETITIONER TO THE TERMS OF ITS FREELY ADOPTED AND UNAMBIGUOUS AGREEMENTS.
RAYMOND AND ALICE MARQUEZ TAT (E) 97-107 (UB) (May 16, 2007)
PETITIONER RAYMOND MARQUEZ WAS ENGAGED IN AN UNINCORPORATED BUSINESS IN THE CITY DURING EACH OF THE TAX YEARS ENDED THROUGH (THE "TAX YEARS"), HOWEVER, THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE THAT PETITIONER ALICE MARQUEZ WAS ENGAGED IN THAT SAME UNINCORPORATED BUSINESS IN THE CITY DURING THE TAX YEARS. RESPONDENT'S ADOPTION OF A STATE AUDIT OF PETITIONER RAYMOND MARQUEZ FOR 1993 TO SUPPORT THE UBT DEFICIENCY AFTER THE COMPLETION OF THE CITY HEARING CONSTITUTED A NEW FACTUAL ISSUE PREJUDICIAL TO PETITIONERS. WHILE RESPONDENT WAS PRECLUDED FROM ADOPTING THE STATE AUDIT METHODOLOGY, RESPONDENT WAS FOUND TO HAVE MODIFIED THE NOTICE OF DETERMINATION TO REDUCE THE DEFICIENCY ASSERTED. RESPONDENT ADEQUATELY DESCRIBED THE METHODOLOGY USED IN THE ORIGINAL CITY AUDIT AND THE RECORD SUPPORTED THE REDUCED UBT DEFICIENCY ASSERTED IN THE MODIFIED NOTICE. THE RECORD ALSO SUPPORTED THE IMPOSITION OF FRAUD PENALTIES AND A SUBSTANTIAL UNDERSTATEMENT PENALTY FOR THE TAX YEARS.
LEONARD I. HOROWITZ TAT (E) 99-3 (UB) et al. (September 1, 2005)
PAYMENTS MADE BY THE UNINCORPORATED BUSINESS OF AN ATTORNEY ENGAGED IN THE PRACTICE OF LAW AS A SOLE PROPRIETOR FOR ONE-HALF OF THE PROPRIETOR'S SELF-EMPLOYMENT TAX; THE COST OF THE PROPRIETOR'S HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUMS AND CONTRIBUTIONS TO A DEFINED BENEFIT PLAN FOR THE PROPRIETOR ARE NOT DEDUCTIBLE FROM UNINCORPORATED BUSINESS GROSS INCOME PURSUANT TO THE NEW YORK CITY ADMINISTRATIVE CODE (THE "CODE"). SECTION 11-507(3) OF THE CODE PROVIDES, IN RELEVANT PART, THAT "[N]O DEDUCTION SHALL BE ALLOWED . . . FOR AMOUNTS PAID OR INCURRED TO A PROPRIETOR OR PARTNER FOR SERVICES OR FOR USE OF CAPITAL." THE PAYMENTS AT ISSUE WHILE MADE TO THIRD PARTIES WERE MADE BY THE UNINCORPORATED BUSINESS AND WERE REMUNERATION FOR SERVICES RENDERED BY THE PROPRIETOR TO HIS UNINCORPORATED BUSINESS