Bloomberg, Inc. v. District of Columbia Office of Tax & Revenue

── Bloomberg, Inc. v. District of Columbia Office of Tax & Revenue ── Court: District of Columbia Court of Appeals Date: May 21, 2026 Category: General Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound volumes go to press. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS No. 25-AA-0004 BLOOMBERG, INC., PETITIONER, V. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA OFFICE OF TAX AND REVENUE, RESPONDENT. On Petition for Review of an Order of the District of Columbia Office of Administrative Hearings (2019-OTR-00038) (Argued February 24, 2026 Decided April 1, 2026 *) Stephanie A. Lipinski Galland, with whom Sonia Shaikh was on the briefs, for petitioner. Chris Edward Mendez, Assistant Attorney General, with whom Brian L. Schwalb, Attorney General for the District of Columbia, Caroline S. Van Zile, Solicitor General, Ashwin P. Phatak, Principal Deputy Solicitor General, and Thais- Lyn Trayer, Deputy Solicitor General, were on the brief, for respondent. Before DEAHL and HOWARD, Associate Judges, and THOMPSON, Senior Judge. * The decision in this case was originally issued as an unpublished Memorandum Opinion and Judgment. It is now being published upon the court’s grant of respondent’s motion to publish. Petitioner’s motion for leave to file a surreply in response to that motion is granted and the Clerk shall file petitioner’s surreply.  2 THOMPSON, Senior Judge: The petitioner in this matter, Bloomberg, Inc. (Bloomberg), challenges an October 24, 2024, Final Order of the District of Columbia Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) and OAH’s subsequent order denying Bloomberg’s motion for reconsideration. OAH upheld a determination by the District of Columbia Office of Tax and Revenue (OTR) that Bloomberg, which owns substantially all of Bloomberg L.P. (BLP), was not entitled to claim, on its corporation franchise tax returns for tax years 2015-17, tax benefits based on BLP’s status as a self-certified Qualified High Technology Company (QHTC) during those years. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the OAH orders. I. Background The material facts are not in dispute. Bloomberg is an S-Corporation that owns a general and limited partnership interest in BLP. For tax years 2012-17, BLP self- certified as a Qualified High Technology Company (QHTC). See D.C. Code § 47-1817.01(5) (defining QHTC). 1 The Council of the District of Columbia (Council) created the QHTC designation through the New E-Conomy Transformation Act of 2000, D.C. Law 13- 1 Section 47-1817.01(5) provides that a QHTC is “[a]n individual or entity organized for profit and leasing or owning an office in the District of Columbia” that has “10 or more qualified employees in the District” and derives “at least 51% of its gross revenues earned in the District from” services, sales, or technologies described in subparagraphs (I) through (V).  3 256, 48 D.C. Reg. 730 (2001), legislation that consisted of a “series of tax incentives to encourage high technology companies to locate to the District of Columbia,” with the objective that such companies would be “an important source for new jobs and public revenue” for the District. New E-Conomy Transformation Act of 2000, D.C. Council, Report on Bill 13-752 at 1-2 (Oct. 19, 2000). The tax incentives (some of which have now been repealed) included tax credits for activities such as hiring full- time employees in the District and hiring qualified disadvantaged employees; assistance in obtaining space to lease; and exemptions from personal property tax, sales tax, corporate franchise tax, and