The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court recently held that software vendors have a statutory right to apportion tax on the sale of prewritten computer software purchased for use in multiple states and that they may do so through the Commonwealth’s general tax abatement process. The court’s decision in Oracle USA, Inc. v. Commissioner of Revenue, 487 Mass. 518 (2021) confirms that the ability to apportion tax on software is not contingent on strict compliance with the administrative procedures set forth in the Massachusetts Commissioner of Revenue’s apportionment regulation. The tax abatement process is an acceptable mechanism for taxpayers to seek tax apportionment with respect to software purchased for use in multiple jurisdictions. Continue Reading ›
On May 25, the U.S. Solicitor General filed its highly anticipated brief in New Hampshire v. Massachusetts and recommended that the Court decline jurisdiction over the case. Although the ultimate decision is yet to be issued, the U.S. Supreme Court generally follows the Solicitor General’s recommendations after, as here, the Court requests the U.S. government’s input.
On March 29, 2021, Tennessee Governor Bill Lee signed legislation creating a new sales and use tax exemption and a new franchise and excise tax (F&E) credit for “qualified productions.” H.B. 141, 112th Gen. Assemb., ch. 70 (Tenn. 2021). The new legislation is expected to attract greater production activity, especially smaller-scale productions, to the state and put Tennessee on a competitive footing with other states that offer tax incentives to the industry. Continue Reading ›
On February 15, 2021, the Maryland Court of Appeals issued a decision in Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. v. Director, Department of Finance of Baltimore City, Case No. 24-C-18-001778 (Md. 2021), upholding the constitutionality of a local ordinance that imposes an annual excise tax on businesses selling advertising space on off-site billboards. The tax in question applies only to businesses that own or control off-site billboards in the City of Baltimore i.e., billboards that are not located on the premises where the goods or services being advertised are offered for sale. Continue Reading ›
In Tesoro Logistics Northwest Pipeline LLC v. Department of Revenue (002), the Oregon Tax Court, Regular Division, held that although a unit of property acquired by one centrally assessed company from another qualified as “new property” for purposes of Or. Const. Art. XI, § 11 (Measure 50), the unit of property’s existing maximum assessed value (MAV) was preserved in the hands of the new owner. Tesoro Logistics Nw. Pipeline LLC v. Dep’t of Revenue, No. TC 5252, 2021 WL 6700471 (Or. Tax Ct., Reg. Div., Feb. 19, 2021). As a result, the Oregon Department of Revenue was not entitled to redetermine the MAV on account of the acquisition.