Skip to Content (Press Enter)

Skip to Nav (Press Enter)


Subscribe to Consumer Finance

Thank you for your desire to subscribe to Severson & Werson’s Consumer Finance Weblog. In order to subscribe, you must provide a valid name and e-mail address. This too will be retained on our server. When you push the “subscribe button”, we will send an electronic mail to the address that you provided asking you to confirm your subscription to our Weblog. By pushing the “subscribe button”, you represent and warrant that you are over the age of 18 years old, are the owner/authorized user of that e-mail address, and are entitled to receive e-mails at that address. Our weblog will retain your name and e-mail address on its server, or the server of its web host. However, we won’t share any of this information with anyone except the Firm’s employees and contractors, except under certain extraordinary circumstances described on our Privacy Policy and (About The Consumer Finance Blog/About the Appellate Tracker Weblog) Page. NOTICE AND AGREEMENT REGARDING E-MAILS AND CALLS/TEXT MESSAGES TO LAND-LINE AND WIRELESS TELEPHONES: By providing your contact information and confirming your subscription in response to the initial e-mail that we send you, you agree to receive e-mail messages from Severson & Werson from time-to-time and understand and agree that such messages are or may be sent by means of automated dialing technology. If you have your email forwarded to other electronic media, including text messages and cellular telephone by way of VoIP, internet, social media, or otherwise, you agree to receive my messages in that way. This may result in charges to you. Your agreement and consent also extend to any other agents, affiliates, or entities to whom our communications are forwarded. You agree that you will notify Severson & Werson in writing if you revoke this agreement and that your revocation will not be effective until you notify Severson & Werson in writing. You understand and agree that you will afford Severson & Werson a reasonable time to unsubscribe you from the website, that the ability to do so depends on Severson & Werson’s press of business and access to the weblog, and that you may still receive one or more emails or communications from weblog until we are able to unsubscribe you.

In LISA STETTNER et al., Plaintiffs & Appellants, v. MERCEDES-BENZ FINANCIAL SERVICES USA, LLC et al., Defendants & Respondents. Additional Party Names: California Dep't of Tax & Fee Admin., Michele Zousmer, No. C094345, 2023 WL 8818219, at *1–2 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 29, 2023), the Court of Appeal held that a consumer cannot challenge imposition of a use-tax at lease-end… Read More

In Ally Financial, Inc. v. State Treasurer, State of Michigan,  2018 WL 3520302, at *6–7 (Mich., 2018), the Michigan Supreme Court found that auto finance companies properly sought tax refunds for post-repossession deficiency balances. In the present case, we have to make sense of the fifth item, “repossessed property.” The statute clearly states that “repossessed property” is not part of… Read More

In Arkow v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 2016 WL 7377286 (U.S. Tax Ct. 2016), Judge Vasquez held that a TCPA plaintiff failed to report taxable income on a $3,000 TCPA settlement. In December 2011 petitioner husband filed a complaint against Wyndham in the Superior Court of California for Los Angeles, California, alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), 47 U.S.C. sec. 227… Read More

In Ally Financial, Inc. v. State Treasurer, 2016 WL 5107138 (Mich.App.,2016), the Michigan Court of Appeals found that two auto finance companies could not deduct their post-repossession losses as bad debt under state tax law. The procedural history sets up the issue. Plaintiffs are financing companies that financed the purchase of motor vehicles from various retailers (dealerships) around the state.… Read More

In Clark v. C.I.R., 2015 WL 5243760, at *2 (U.S.Tax Ct.,2015), Judge Cohen held that an automobile finance company's charge-off of a post-repossession deficiency was taxable income to a debtor.  The facts were as follows, and were not uncommon. Petitioner resided in California when she filed her petition.  On December 22, 1999, petitioner entered into a retail installment contract with an… Read More

In Loeffler v. Target Corp., --- P.3d ----, 2014 WL 1714947 (2014), the California Supreme Court held that California’s consumer protection codes can not supplant the limitations and procedures set forth in the Revenue and Taxation Code. Plaintiffs are consumers who contend that defendant retailer represented that it properly was charging and in fact charged them sales tax reimbursement on… Read More

In HVT, Inc. v. Law, --- A.3d ----, 300 Conn. 623, 2011 WL 1413650 (Conn. 2011), the Connecticut Supreme Court found that vehicle renewal registration fees paid directly to the DMV by lessees under car leases qualify as taxable gross receipts. The sole issue in this appeal is whether vehicle registration renewal fees (renewal fees) paid directly to the department… Read More