Big Blue Express v. Nebraska Dept. of Rev., 309 Neb. 838

Big Blue Express, a Nebraska corporation, bought a 2/3 interest in a 2009 Embraer Phenom 100 from a Kansas seller in April 2011 and paid no Nebraska sales or use tax on the purchase.
Big Blue entered joint-ownership/management agreements with an unrelated co-owner and signed written "use agreements" leasing the aircraft to Schneider (its principal) and several related entities and a few third parties at $1,100–$1,300 per flight hour.
Invoicing and collection were irregular: many invoices were prepared/collected long after flights (some paid ~500 days late), Big Blue rarely enforced interest, and more than half the hours were invoiced to Schneider or paid from Schneider-controlled accounts.
Lease revenue was far below operating costs; Big Blue sustained losses and received capital infusions from its parent CVE, which did not use the airplane.
The Nebraska Department of Revenue assessed a $161,373.31 use-tax deficiency. The Tax Commissioner and the district court held Big Blue failed to prove the purchase was a nontaxable "sale for resale;" the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the airplane purchase was a nontaxable "sale for resale" (purchase to lease in the normal course of business at fair market rents)	Big Blue: bought the aircraft to lease it at fair market hourly rates in the normal course of its business	Dept: leases were largely to related parties, not arm's-length; revenue was insufficient; conduct showed no business intent to gain	Not a sale for resale — Big Blue failed to prove leasing was in the normal course of its business; assessment affirmed
Whether Big Blue is entitled to offset the deficiency by equitable recoupment for sales tax paid by related lessees	Big Blue: related lessees paid sales tax on leases and Big Blue should get credit or recoupment	Dept: Tax Commissioner rejected the asserted statutory reading; issue not preserved on appeal	Not reached on the merits — argument not preserved for appellate review
Whether § 77-2704.28 required taxing the lessor when leasing to related entities (Department cross-appeal)	Big Blue: statute should not impose tax on a lessor that otherwise qualified for sale-for-resale; offers an alternative reading that avoids retroactive exposure	Dept: statute exempts lessees if tax was previously paid and treats lessor as liable to the same extent the lessee would have been	Not reached — court declined to resolve statutory tension; left for future case or Legislature

Intralot, Inc. v. Nebraska Dept. of Rev., 276 Neb. 708, 757 N.W.2d 182 (2008) (burden is on claimant to prove a purchase qualifies as a sale for resale)
Devonair Enter., L.L.C. v. Dep’t of Treasury, 297 Mich. App. 90, 823 N.W.2d 328 (2012) (similar facts; supports factors for evaluating whether leasing is in the normal course of business)
Pi In The Sky, L.L.C. v. Testa, 119 N.E.3d 417 (2018) (Ohio decision finding leasing only to a related member, low rates, no marketing, and minimal hours insufficient to show business intent to lease to others)