VA P.D. 10-14 Individual Income Tax 2008-06-30

What did the Chesterfield County Circuit Court decide in Ross L. McDonald's case against the Virginia Department of Taxation?

Short answer: The court entered judgment for the Virginia Department of Taxation on every allegation. It granted a motion to strike part of Ross McDonald's complaint after his proof and then found, after all evidence and arguments, that he had not carried the burden of showing the challenged tax assessments and collections were erroneous or otherwise improper. The short final order refers to reasons stated orally at trial but does not identify the underlying tax issues, amounts, or detailed analysis.

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 2008. Ezel answers yours, under current Virginia tax law, with citations.

Currency note: this ruling is from 2008
Subsequent statutory amendments, regulation changes, court decisions, or later rulings may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current tax advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, rate, or position mentioned here.
Disclaimer: This is a final order of the Circuit Court of Chesterfield County, published by the Virginia Department of Taxation, not a Tax Commissioner ruling. It binds the parties but is a trial-court disposition rather than statewide appellate precedent. The order refers to reasons stated from the bench that are not included and does not identify the underlying tax issues or amounts, so no broader merits rule is inferred. This summary is informational only and is not legal or tax advice.
About this page: The plain-English summary, reader guidance, and Q&A below were written by Ezel based on the official state tax ruling. The original ruling (linked on this page as a PDF) is the authoritative source for any reliance.
View original ruling (PDF)

Subject

Court Case: Ross L. McDonald v. Virginia Department of Taxation

Plain-English summary

The Chesterfield County Circuit Court entered judgment for the Virginia Department of Taxation because Ross L. McDonald did not prove that the challenged assessments and collections were erroneous or improper.

After McDonald presented part of his case, the court granted the Department's motion to strike the allegations identified by page and line in the complaint. After all remaining evidence and closing arguments, the court found he had not met his burden on any allegation.

The case was removed from the active docket as an ended action. The final order says the court's reasons were stated orally at the June 2008 trial, but the published document does not reproduce those reasons or describe the tax type, disputed periods, amounts, or substantive claims.

What this means for you

  • The taxpayer bore the burden of proving the assessments or collections wrong.
  • McDonald failed to carry that burden on the record presented.
  • Part of the complaint was struck before the end of trial.
  • The short order does not support a broader tax-law conclusion beyond the procedural result.

Common questions

Who won?

The Virginia Department of Taxation.

Why did McDonald lose?

The court found he failed to prove the assessments and collections were erroneous or improper.

Does the order explain the underlying tax dispute?

No. Those details and the bench reasoning are absent from the published text.

Citations and references

  • Ross L. McDonald v. Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of Taxation, Chesterfield County Circuit Court Case No. CL07-2432.

Source

Original ruling text

VIRGINIA:

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CHESTERFIELD COUNTY

ROSS L. McDONALD, )

)

Plaintiff, )

v. ) Case No. CL07-2432

)

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, )

DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION, )

)

Defendant, )

FINAL ORDER

On June 17 and 18, 2008, the parties to this action, Ross L. McDonald ("McDonald"), in proper person, and the Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Taxation ("Department of Taxation"), by counsel, appeared for trial upon the pleadings filed herein. The parties presented evidence to the Honorable Michael C. Allen for decision. After the completion of McDonald's proof and argument by counsel for the Department of Taxation, the Court, for the reasons stated from the bench on June 17, 2008, granted the Department of Taxation's motion to strike with respect to the allegations appearing between page 1, line 29 and page 4, line 4 of McDonald's complaint. Upon the conclusion of all the evidence and the parties' closing arguments, the Court found McDonald failed to carry his burden of showing that the assessments and collections of taxes from which he applied to this Court for correction were erroneous or otherwise improper. Therefore, for the foregoing reasons and those stated from the bench at trial, the Court hereby enters judgment in favor of the Department of Taxation with respect to all allegations in McDonald's complaint. Nothing further remaining to be done herein, this case is stricken from the docket, to be indexed among the ended actions at law. Pursuant to Rule 1:13, the Court dispenses with the requirement of endorsement of this order by all counsel of record. The Court orders the Clerk to certify a copy of this Order to all counsel of record.

ENTERED THIS 30 th DAY of June, 2008.

JUDGE - Michael C. Allen

WE ASK FOR THIS:

Thomas W. Nesbitt (VSB No. 73262)

Flora T. Hezel (VSB No. 47482)

Assistant Attorneys General

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

900 East Main Street

Richmond, Virginia 23219

(804) 786-7750 (telephone)

(804) 786-1904 (facsimile)

Counsel for the Commonwealth of Virginia,

Department of Taxation

Get today's answer for your situation

You just read a 2008 ruling on this question. Ezel checks current Virginia tax law and answers your specific situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the authority it relies on.