SeeSALT BlogPillsbury SALT partner Craig Becker will participate in the CalTax webinar series on February 8.
Articles Posted in Issues
How to Be Reasonable When Reasonably Approximating the Market: Part II
Posted
Pillsbury SALT attorneys Carley Roberts, Robert P. Merten III, Jeff Phang, and Lexi Louderback recently published “How to Be Reasonable When Reasonably Approximating the Market: Part II” in Tax Notes State. Read more here.
California Supreme Court Addresses Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies in Context of Proposition 218 BID Assessments
Posted
California Supreme Court holds that courts can entertain arguments that a BID assessment scheme violates certain provisions of Proposition 218 when raised by a party who did not articulate these objections in public hearings held to consider protests.
On December 20, 2021, the California Supreme Court reversed the court of appeal which had concluded that petitioners failure to present their objections to proposed business improvement districts (“BIDs”) and related assessment schemes at the appropriate public hearings meant they had not exhausted their extrajudicial remedies, a lapse that prevented the court from deciding petitioners’ claims on the merits. Hill RHP Housing Partners, L.P. et al. v. City of Los Angeles, No. S263734.
2021 California Alliance of Taxpayer Advocates Annual Conference
Posted
Pillsbury SALT partner Craig Becker will present during the California Alliance of Taxpayer Advocates Annual Conference on December 10.
TEI Chicago Virtual State Income Tax Program
Posted
Pillsbury SALT attorneys Carley Roberts, Zachary Atkins, Robert Merten III, Aruna Chittiappa and Jeff Phang will present during the TEI Chicago Virtual State Income Tax Program on December 9.
Zack Atkins Outlines Challenges of Market-Based Sourcing
Posted
Pillsbury Special Counsel Zack Atkins was recently quoted in Tax Notes State and Law360 discussing the challenges presented by market-based sourcing. Read more here. Continue Reading ›
TEI’s Carolinas Chapter Meeting
Posted
Pillsbury SALT attorneys Zachary Atkins and Evan Hamme will present during TEI’s Carolinas Chapter Meeting on November 12.
California Governor Vetoes Sales Tax Bill Seeking to Require Large Online Retailers to File Informational Reports Detailing Sales by Destination
Posted
This week, Governor Newsom vetoed Senate Bill 792 (Glazer), which would have required large online retailers to include with their sales tax returns an additional schedule that reports gross receipts based on the “ship to” or destination location. The bill targeted online retailers with over $50 million in annual sales of tangible personal property. Qualifying online retailers that failed to report this information would have been subject to a penalty of $5,000.
California imposes a statewide sales tax on retailers for the privilege of selling tangible personal property at retail within the state, measured by the gross receipts from each sale. An additional sales tax of 1.25% (the Bradley-Burns Tax) is imposed on sales subject to the statewide sales tax, of which 1% is allocated to localities to use at their discretion and the remainder is distributed to county local transportation funds to support transportation programs. Continue Reading ›
28th Annual Paul J. Hartman State and Local Tax Forum
Posted
Pillsbury SALT attorney Zachary Atkins will present
“Market-Based Sourcing, the Continuing Conundrum” during the 28th Annual Paul J. Hartman State and Local Tax Forum on October 28. The Professor Paul J. Hartman Memorial State and Local Tax (SALT) Forum, sponsored in conjunction with the Vanderbilt University Law School, provides industry, practitioners and state revenue employees the opportunity to participate in a quality forum exploring significant national developments and trends in state and local taxation.
Taxpayer Files Court Action Challenging California’s Proposition 39 (2012) and its Mandatory Single-Sales Factor Apportionment Formula
Posted
In One Technologies LLC v. Franchise Tax Board, an out-of-state California corporate taxpayer filed suit in California trial court challenging the state’s mandatory single sales factor apportionment formula on the basis its passage in 2012 via voter initiative Proposition 39 unconstitutionally violated the “single subject rule.”