“ I work for you: any state, any tax, any time. I use the knowledge from my tenure on the state side and my 22 years of successful appellate and trial leadership to help you meet your tax goals.
Mitchell defends audits and litigates U.S. state-and-local-tax matters before administrative tribunals and judicial courts around the country.
He has secured favorable outcomes on tax matters, many of which are precedential, and has argued successfully before state high courts, intermediate appellate courts, and trial courts, on behalf of clients including:
Mitchell also advises clients on all state and local income, gross-receipts, franchise, sales, use, excise, and miscellaneous taxes and fees, and state unclaimed property obligations.
He counsels clients on state and local aspects of sophisticated planning and transactional matters including:
Mitchell has also successfully counseled individuals and estates regarding residency, domicile, and multistate taxability in audits and appeals.
Mitchell’s articles on U.S. state-and-local taxation have appeared in publications including:
Mitchell also frequently delivers lectures on state and local tax issues and has spoken before organizations including:
Mitchell is a co-chair of the State Practice, Procedure and Liaison Committee of the Tax Section of the New Jersey Bar Association.
He is also a member of the Tax Section of the New Jersey Bar Association Executive Committee and Executive Council, which he previously chaired.
Mitchell was a member of the New Jersey Supreme Court Committee on the Tax Court for 11 years until he termed out in 2018.
He received the New Jersey State Bar Association Tax Section’s award for outstanding contribution to the Taxation Law Section.
Prior to joining MoFo, Mitchell spent six years as a Deputy Attorney General at the New Jersey Attorney General’s Office, where he represented the Division of Taxation, among other agencies and bodies, in court. He also counseled the Division of Taxation and other agencies on regulatory matters.
Mitchell received two Attorney General recognition awards, including for his work in response to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack on the World Trade Center.Show More
The New Jersey Tax Court reversed the Taxation Director’s denial of refund claims and found that, when considering the “unreasonable” exception to the related-party royalty expense addback the relevant consideration is whether the recipient of the royalty payment paid tax in New Jersey on the income and, if it does pay tax, the payor’s and the recipient’s relative apportionment factors are irrelevant and cannot be the basis for a refund denial.
The New Jersey Tax Court held under the state tax addback that, when related parties are included in combined or consolidated state income tax filings and agree to adjust liabilities among them under a tax sharing agreement, the amounts settled under the agreement are intercompany liabilities and are not state taxes for the potential addback.
The Virginia Supreme Court, in a 4-3 decision, held that the subject-to-tax safe harbor to the royalty addback was ambiguous and applies only to the extent that the royalties are actually taxed by another state. In addition, the court agreed with the company’s alternative argument that a portion of the royalties also qualifies for the safe harbor when: (1) the royalties are taxed by states that require the royalty payor to add back the royalty payments or (2) the royalties are taxed by states that require combined or consolidated reporting.
The Massachusetts Appellate Tax Board reversed the Commissioner of Revenue’s assessment of penalties. Imputation of penalties was improper because Reynolds Innovations Inc. (an affiliate of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company) had reasonably relied on written statements and actions of the Department of Revenue’s auditors and supervisors during two prior audits.
The New Jersey Supreme Court declined the state’s request to review our win for this affiliate of Lorillard Tobacco Company in the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division, which affirmed the Tax Court and held that New Jersey may not apply dual nexus standards for throwout purposes in computing apportionment. The court held that because New Jersey successfully asserted an economic nexus-based standard for constitutional subjectivity purposes, when applying the throwout to increase the portion of income that is taxed in New Jersey, that same economic nexus-based standard must also apply when considering other states’ subjectivity.
The New Jersey Supreme Court affirmed our win for this affiliate of UPS in the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division, and held that the Director abused his discretion and should have abated late payment penalties on a good faith issue and that the amnesty penalty did not apply to a good faith issue found on audit when the assessment was issued after the close of the amnesty.
The New Jersey Tax Court ruled for the company and concluded that electric utilities taxes paid by Duke Energy Corporation to North Carolina and South Carolina “are not taxes ‘on or measured by profits or income, or business presence or business activity’ . . . and are not, therefore, required to be added back to the taxpayer’s federal taxable income for CBT purposes.”
The New Jersey Supreme Court significantly narrowed the throwout statute to survive a facial constitutionality challenge and held that, to operate constitutionally, the throwout could only be applied to untaxed receipts due to a lack of jurisdiction to tax arising from an insufficient connection with the corporation or from congressional prohibition, such as Public Law 86-272.
The New Jersey Tax Court held that inasmuch as, after an assessment is protested, a refund claim is not permitted until after the appeal is completed, refund interest accrues in favor of the taxpayer starting at the time the taxpayer filed its protest.
The New Jersey Tax Court held that the corporation business tax expresses a clear intent on the part of the Legislature to couple entire net income with federal taxable income with limited explicit exceptions, thereby precluding the Director’s attempt to require that the exclusion of extraterritorial income for federal purposes be added back to income for computing corporation business tax liability.
The New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division, affirmed our win at New Jersey Tax Court and held that a transferor in a tax-free IRC Section 351 contribution of property was not required to take an excess depreciation deduction that would have resulted in lower basis and depreciation by the recipient because New Jersey had decoupled from federal accelerated depreciation during those years (requiring straight-line depreciation) and a transferred basis continued in the hands of the transferee.
Legal 500 US 2017- 2019
Legal 500 US 2016
Legal 500 US 2014
Outstanding Contribution to the Taxation Law Section 2016