Articles Posted in Issues

Posted

OTAThe California Office of Tax Appeals (OTA), in a decision marked “not precedential” in the Matter of the Appeal of Microsoft Corporation & Subsidiaries, held 100 percent of repatriated dividends under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) must be included in the taxpayer’s sales factor denominator.

  • First, the OTA rejected the “matching principle” included in FTB Ruling 2006-01, and supported its holding based primarily on the plain language of Cal. Rev. & Tax. Code § 25120(f)(2), and legislative history.
  • Second, the OTA rejected the FTB’s argument that repatriated dividends constitute a substantial and occasional sale of property under FTB Regulation 25137(c)(1)(A).
  • Last, the OTA determined the FTB failed to carry its burden to show the taxpayer’s inclusion of 100 percent of repatriated dividends in the sales factor denominator is distortive under Cal. Rev. & Tax. Code § 25137.
  • Anyone may submit a request to the OTA requesting the decision be marked “precedential.”

Continue Reading ›

Posted

https://seesalt.pillsburylaw.com/files/2020/05/250px-Seal_of_California.svg_.png

The California Franchise Tax Board (FTB), California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA) and California Employment Development Department (EDD) announced tax relief for certain California counties affected by severe winter storms.

Continue Reading ›

Posted

image-removebg-preview-5-298x300

The Supreme Court of Ohio has held the Ohio legislature did not violate the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution by directing an Ohio citizen to pay taxes to the municipality where the employee’s principal place of work was located rather than to where the employee actually worked.

Continue Reading ›

Posted

 

FTB

A California trial court denied the Franchise Tax Board’s (FTB) motion to vacate and modify the judgment declaring FTB Technical Advice Memorandum (TAM) 2022-01 and FTB Publication 1050 invalid underground regulations adopted in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act.

 

Continue Reading ›

Posted

https://seesalt.pillsburylaw.com/files/2020/04/Seal_of_New_York.svg_-300x300.png

The New York State Tax Appeals Tribunal (Tribunal) held that a taxpayer’s distributive share income from a partnership was intangible income properly sourced to the taxpayer’s residence and not to the location of the partnership’s underlying operations. In the Matter of Greenberg, the taxpayer was a New York resident partner in a partnership operating an investment fund from Connecticut. The taxpayer sought to credit her tax paid to Connecticut against her 2014 and 2015 New York State personal income tax liability. On audit, the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance (Department) disallowed the credit, asserting that a partner’s “carried interest” income (i.e., a partner’s compensation based on the performance of the fund’s investments) is sourced as intangible income to the taxpayer’s residence. The Department thus asserted that the taxpayer was not eligible for the credit because the income was sourced to the taxpayer’s New York residence and not to Connecticut where the partnership operated.

Continue Reading ›

Posted

https://seesalt.pillsburylaw.com/files/2020/04/Seal_of_New_York.svg_-300x300.png

A New York nonresident taxpayer, Edward Zelinsky, recently filed a notice of exception to a Division of Tax Appeals’ (DTA) determination that he must allocate all his wages to New York under the so-called “convenience of the employer” rule.[1] Zelinsky, a Connecticut resident who had previously challenged New York’s controversial sourcing rule, petitioned the DTA after the Department of Taxation and Finance (Department) denied his personal income tax refund claims for the 2019 and 2020 tax years. Although he was required to work from his Connecticut residence during the COVID-19 pandemic, which covered most of the 2020 tax year, the DTA upheld the rule allocating all Zelinsky’s wages to New York.[2] 

Continue Reading ›

Posted

OTA

The California Office of Tax Appeals (OTA) recently issued two opinions addressing the burden of proof taxpayers must meet to substantiate entitlement to California’s research and development (R&D) tax credit for qualified expenditures under California Revenue and Taxation Code section 23609. In both opinions, the OTA ruled in favor of the California Franchise Tax Board, holding each taxpayer failed to meet its respective burden to substantiate the R&D tax credit claimed.

Continue Reading ›