Articles Posted in Issues

Posted
by

(This article originally appeared in the Journal of Multistate Taxation and Incentives, Vol. 28, No. 9.)

The question of whether or not an individual is a resident of a particular state has always been an important issue in the area of state personal income taxation. California, because of its top marginal personal income tax rate of 13.3 percent1, and the large number of high-wealth individuals living in the state, always has been one of the most significant jurisdictions for this issue. Indeed, California, at 13.3 percent, currently has the highest personal income tax rate of any state.2 The significance of the high California rate, and the residency issue in general, recently has taken on added significance as a result of two federal tax law changes.

Continue Reading ›

Posted
by

In SeeSALT Digest, members of our team examine important issues in play in the State and Local Tax arena. In “Ill-Fated Litigation: Exhausting Administrative Remedies and De Novo Review,” published in State Tax Notes, colleagues Carley Roberts and Jessica Allen take a look at two of the more dangerous pre-litigation pitfalls that can present themselves at any stage of the state or local tax controversy life cycle.

Posted
by

On July 31, Breann Robowski presents “Life in the Fast Lane … New Rules of the Road for Internet Regulation: How Do Changes in Net Neutrality Impact Property Taxes?” during the Center for Management Development’s 48th Annual Taxation Conference Appraisal for Ad Valorem Taxation Conference 2018.

Posted
by

TAKEAWAYS

The Supreme Court in South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc. overruled the “physical presence” requirement as “unsound and incorrect” and ruled that “substantial nexus” is satisfied when an out-of-state seller has sufficient “economic and virtual contacts” with the state. The prior Supreme Court precedent in National Bellas Hess, Inc. v. Department of Revenue of Illinois and Quill Corp. v. North Dakota required out-of-state sellers to collect and remit sales/use tax on retail sales of certain tangible personal property and services only if the seller had “physical presence” with the state.

Continue Reading ›

Posted
by and

(This article was originally published by Law360.)

California’s A.B. 2731 seeks to accomplish what the federal Tax Cuts and Jobs Act did not, namely, to close the carried interest “loophole.” Currently making its way through state assembly committees, AB 2731 would impose an additional 17 percent tax on interest income derived from investment management services on taxpayers subject to California’s personal income tax law.

Continue Reading ›