On February 12, 2021, Maryland legislators voted to override Gov. Larry Hogan’s (R) veto of H.B. 732, making Maryland the first state in the nation to impose a digital advertising tax. While Maryland’s enactment of the bill is a first, other states have impending digital advertising tax bills, such as New York, Connecticut, Indiana, Nebraska, Washington, Montana and Massachusetts. Maryland’s digital advertising tax, which becomes effective March 14, 2021 (30 days after the Governor’s veto), has been preemptively challenged in U.S. District Court. Continue Reading ›
Pillsbury SALT partner Craig Becker will present during COST’s 2021 Sales and Transaction Tax Webinar on February 25. Craig is partnering with Harley Duncan (KPMG), Jordan Goodman (HMB) and Mark Yopp (Baker & McKenzie) to present on the topic, “Wrangling in Local Transaction Taxes.”
The Connecticut House of Representatives is considering multiple proposals that would permit Connecticut residents and part-year residents to take credits for tax paid to other states while working from Connecticut during the pandemic. Connecticut law currently allows credits for tax paid to another state only if: (1) the individual was physically located in such other state while working; or (2) the individual is a resident of a state that applies the “convenience of the employer” sourcing rule. Two bills have been introduced, both of which would expand the allowable credits only for Connecticut residents and part-year residents for the tax year beginning January 1, 2020. H.B. 6183; S.B. 873. Continue Reading ›
Partner Carley Roberts, counsel Robert Merten III and associate Malcolm Brudigam authored Part 1 of a multi-part series in Tax Notes State’s SeeSALT Digest to review the landscape of market-based sourcing rules and provide an in-depth focus on various states’ use of reasonable approximation.
In 2018, San Francisco voters approved, by simple majority vote, two new gross receipts taxes: the Homelessness Gross Receipts Tax (SF-HT) and the Commercial Rents Tax (SF-CRT), with both taxes effective as of January 1, 2019. Because these taxes fund specific governmental services, they are designated as special taxes (specifically, the SF-HT funds homelessness services and the SF-CRT funds early childhood education). Since the California Constitution specifies that special taxes imposed by local government need two-thirds voter approval (i.e., a “supermajority”), taxpayer groups have filed lawsuits to invalidate these special taxes, as both were approved by only a majority vote (61% for the SF-HT and 51% for the SF-CRT). As discussed more fully below, the courts have ruled against these taxpayer groups and the California Supreme Court to date has refused review.
The pressing question is whether San Francisco taxpayers, who paid the SF-HT and/or the SF‑CRT for 2019 and 2020, should be filing claims to protect their rights to refunds in the unlikely (but not impossible) event that these taxes are ultimately rendered invalid.
Nuclear fuel storage facilities have been impacted by a change in New York law, which requires facilities located at permanently shut down nuclear power plants to be assessed as real property for ad valorem tax purposes, leading to potential larger, national impacts. SALT team members Zachary T. Atkins, Breann E. Robowski, Craig A. Becker, and Marc A. Simonetti team up with Pillsbury’s Energy attorneys to discuss.