Morris v. New York State Department of Taxation & Finance
623 N.E.2d 1157, 603 N.Y.S.2d 807, 82 N.Y.2d 135 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To pierce the corporate veil and hold an individual liable for a corporate obligation, a party must show that the individual exercised complete domination over the corporation and used that domination to commit a fraud or wrong. The doctrine cannot be used to impose liability on an individual for a tax that the corporation itself does not owe.
Facts:
- Joseph Morris, a New Jersey resident, was the president and sole board member of Sunshine Developers, Inc. (Sunshine), a corporation legally owned by his brother and nephew.
- Morris made all corporate decisions for Sunshine, which was incorporated for the purpose of purchasing, owning, and leasing boats.
- While residing in New Jersey, Morris maintained a rented apartment in New York City for occasional business-related overnight stays.
- Between 1981 and 1984, Sunshine purchased two boats, both of which were picked up by Morris in North Carolina.
- The boats were moored during the summer months in Montauk, New York.
- Sunshine leased the boats for the purpose of business entertainment to other companies owned by Morris and his brother.
Procedural Posture:
- The New York State Department of Taxation and Finance (the Department) issued a notice of determination for sales and use taxes to Joseph Morris, Robert Morris, and Sunshine Developers, Inc. (Sunshine).
- On administrative appeal, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) cancelled the assessment, finding that Sunshine was entitled to a nonresident exemption and that the corporate veil should not be pierced.
- The Department appealed to the Tax Appeals Tribunal.
- The Tribunal affirmed the ALJ's findings that Sunshine was exempt and Robert Morris was not liable, but it reversed as to Joseph Morris, piercing the corporate veil to hold him personally liable for the tax.
- Morris initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding in the Appellate Division to review the Tribunal's determination.
- The Appellate Division confirmed the Tribunal's determination, upholding Morris's personal liability.
- The New York Court of Appeals (this court) granted Morris leave to appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil permit holding a controlling individual personally liable for a compensating use tax when the corporation itself is determined to be exempt from the tax and there is no evidence that the individual used the corporate form to commit a fraud or wrong?
Opinions:
Majority - Hancock, Jr., J.
No. The doctrine of piercing the corporate veil cannot be used to hold Morris personally liable. Piercing the corporate veil requires a two-part showing: (1) that the owners exercised complete domination of the corporation with respect to the transaction at issue, and (2) that such domination was used to commit a fraud or wrong against the party seeking to pierce the veil. Here, even assuming Morris exercised complete domination, the second prong is not met. There was no finding of fraud or wrongdoing; Sunshine was formed for a legitimate business purpose and had previously paid use taxes when they were found to be due. More fundamentally, the doctrine presupposes that the corporation is liable for the obligation sought to be imposed on the owner. In this case, the Tax Appeals Tribunal had already determined that the corporation, Sunshine, was a nonresident entitled to an exemption and therefore owed no tax. It is inconsistent with the theory of the doctrine to pierce the corporate veil to hold an individual liable for a debt the corporation itself does not owe.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the stringent two-part test for piercing the corporate veil in New York, emphasizing that complete domination alone is insufficient without a showing of fraud or injustice. It establishes a critical limitation on the doctrine's application: it cannot be used as an independent basis to create liability for an individual where no underlying corporate liability exists. This prevents courts from using the doctrine to circumvent a corporation's legitimate legal status, such as a tax exemption, to impose a tax on its owners. The ruling solidifies the principle that piercing the veil is a tool to enforce an existing corporate obligation, not to generate a new one against an individual.
Unlock the full brief for Morris v. New York State Department of Taxation & Finance