The California Attorney General has confirmed the Office of Tax Appeals (OTA) may decline to apply a tax regulation in a taxpayer appeal if it conflicts with the relevant statute. OTA must afford appropriate deference to the issuing agency, but its authority extends to setting aside the regulation for that appeal. OTA lacks authority to invalidate or repeal the regulation more broadly or to apply its conclusions outside the specific appeal.
Pillsbury SALT partner Aruna Chittiappa will be speaking at NYU’s Introduction to State and Local Tax program.
Pillsbury SALT partner Robert P. Merten III will be an instructor for the 2025 Summer Tax Institute, hosted by the UC Davis School of Law.
Senate Bill 711 (S.B. 711) would update California’s conformity date to the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) from January 1, 2015, to January 1, 2025. If enacted, this change would apply to taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2025, and would align California tax law with numerous federal provisions enacted over the past decade. Notable provisions include:
SALT partners Aruna Chittiappa and Evan Hamme will be presenting at COST’s 2025 Spring Conference taking place April 28 – May 1, 2025.
The California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA or Department) hosted its third workshop (Workshop III) on December 9, 2024, to discuss and receive input on technology transfer agreements (TTAs).
On January 22, 2025, the CTIA (formerly the Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association) submitted comments. The California Taxpayers Association (CalTax) and the Silicon Valley Leadership Group (SVLG) also submitted their comments in a joint letter.
SALT partner Aruna Chittiappa will be presenting at TEI’s Midyear Conference on March 17.
Pillsbury SALT partner Breann Robowski will present at the 2025 ABA-IPT Advanced Property Tax Seminar on March 13.
In the Appeal of Mather, the California Office of Tax Appeals (OTA) held in a precedential opinion that New York City’s (NYC) Unincorporated Business Tax (UBT) was not a tax “imposed by and paid to another state,” as required to claim the Other State Tax Credit (OSTC), because New York State (NYS) did not require NYC to impose the UBT. The OTA also held that the NYS Metropolitan Commuter Transportation Mobility Tax (MCTMT) met the requirements to claim the OSTC, but that the taxpayers failed to substantiate the amount of their claim.
SeeSALT Blog
