73, September 18, 2014) (hereinafter Deja Vu II ). This appeal involves the same parties as the appeal in Deja Vu Showgirls v. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's decision. We conclude that the district court properly limited appellants to a petition for judicial review and was correct in refusing to invoke judicial estoppel. We also consider whether the district court committed error by refusing to invoke judicial estoppel in lieu of granting respondents' motion to dismiss the underlying de novo action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. In this opinion, we address whether the district court erred by concluding that, after exhausting their administrative remedies for seeking a refund under Nevada's Live Entertainment Tax (NLET), appellants were limited to a petition for judicial review, rather than a de novo action. Doerr, Senior Deputy Attorneys General, and Vivienne Rakowsky, Deputy Attorney General, Carson City, for Respondents. Catherine Cortez Masto, Attorney General, David J. Shafer, Lansing, MI, for Appellants Deja Vu Showgirls of Las Vegas, LLC Little Darlings of Las Vegas K–Kel, Inc. Brown, Las Vegas Shafer and Associates and Bradley J. Roos, Las Vegas, for Appellant SHAC, LLC. NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION Nevada Tax Commission and The State of Nevada Board of Examiners, Respondents. Westwood, Inc., d/b/a Treasures, Appellants, v. DEJA VU SHOWGIRLS OF LAS VEGAS, LLC, A Nevada Limited Liability Company, d/b/a Deja Vu Showgirls Little Darlings of Las Vegas, d/b/a Little Darlings K–KEL, Inc., d/b/a Spearmint Rhino Gentlemen's Club Olympus Garden, Inc., d/b/a Olympus Garden Shac, LLC, d/b/a Sapphire The Power Company, Inc., d/b/a Crazy Horse Too Gentlemen's Club and D.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |