The California Franchise Tax Board has issued a chief counsel ruling stating that a registered broker-dealer must include the entire sales price received from the sale of securities—including the return of capital—in the sales apportionment factor. Interestingly, the chief counsel determined that California’s alternative apportionment provisions do not apply to the combined group’s intrastate apportionment result.
On May 30, 2012, the State Board of Equalization (SBE), approved pro-posed amendments to the California Code of Regulations, Title 18, section 1684. The Proposed Regulation attempts to provide guidance as to the meaning of the broadened statutory definition of “retailers engaged in business in this state.” The statutory definition now includes retailers who are members of “commonly controlled groups,” as well as retailers who enter into agreements with “a person or persons in this state” who meet certain minimum thresholds.
California Sales and Use Tax Regulation 1698.5, which sets forth comprehensive procedures for sales and use tax audits, has been approved by the California Office of Administrative Law. The new regulation, which was proposed by the California Board of Equalization (BOE), goes into effect August 18, 2010. According to the BOE, the regulation was necessary to clearly establish taxpayers’ and BOE staff’s responsibilities and duties during the audit process in order to ensure that BOE staff completes audits in a timely and efficient manner and to help taxpayers better understand and avoid confusion regarding the BOE audit process.
Taxpayers who have been relying upon Section 530 to provide relief with respect to their classification of service providers as independent contractors rather than employees should take note of the fact that Section 530 is now under attack from Congress and the Obama Administration.
For purposes of the California sales and use tax law, a “sale” and “purchase” do not include the design, development, writing, translation, fabrication, lease or transfer for a consideration of title or possession of a custom computer program. An issue that often arises with respect to a custom computer program is whether such program is deemed a performance of service, versus a sale or purchase of tangible personal property. In addition, it is often difficult to determine how much “customization” is necessary to constitute a custom computer program.
(The remainder of this article can be accessed in the June 2006 edition of Lexis California Tax Practice Insights.)
Pursuant to Cal. Rev. & Tax. Code Section 19306(a) a claim for refund typically must be filed within for years from the date the return was filed, four years from the last day prescribed for filing the return (determined without regard to any extension of time for filing the return), or one year from the date of the overpayment, whichever expired later. If six months elapses without any action upon a filed refund claim, the taxpayer generally may consider the claim disallowed or “deemed denied” and either appeal the claim to the State Board of Equalization (SBE) or file a suit for refund in court.
(The remainder of this article can be accessed in the June 2006 edition of Lexis California Tax Practice Insights.)
Taxpayers intending to change their residency for California personal income tax purposes should be aware that intent alone is insufficient to establish new residency. Moreover, intent coupled with physical acts of starting to move or transition to another state is also insufficient to establish new residency. The California courts have held if one is a resident of California, that person cannot be in California for “a temporary or transitory purpose” until that person’s acts as well as his or her intent show that he or she has moved out of California. That one may intend to move from California at some time in the future does not make that person someone who is in California for a temporary or transitory purpose. One is a resident for tax purposes until there are sufficient indicia of an actual change of such residence.
(The remainder of this article can be accessed in the June 2006 edition of Lexis California Tax Practice Insights.)
Pursuant to Cal. Rev. & Tax. Code Section 17041, a California resident is taxed on all income, from whatever sources derived. In contrast, Cal. Rev. & Tax. Code Sections 17041(b) and 17951 state that nonresidents and part-year residents of California are only taxable on income from sources within California. Exactly what income has a California “source” is the subject of much debate and legislative action.
(The remainder of this article can be accessed in the June 2006 edition of Lexis California Tax Practice Insights.)
Pursuant to Cal. Rev. & Tax. Code Section 17014(a), a resident is an individual who (1) is in California for “other than a temporary or transitory purpose” or (2) is “domiciled” in California but is outside California for “a temporary or transitory purpose.” Presence within California for more than nine months of a taxable year creates a rebuttable presumption of California residence under Cal. Rev. & Tax. Code Section 17016. However, no presumption of nonresidency arises when an individual spends less than nine months of the year in California.
(The remainder of this article can be accessed in the June 2006 edition of Lexis California Tax Practice Insights.)
In situations where the taxpayer has not paid the tax in full but has otherwise filed a valid claim for refund, Cal. Rev. & Tax. Code Section 19322.1 allows a taxpayer to file an informal claim for refund tolling (delaying the expiration of) the statute of limitations. Practitioners should be aware of some of the common pitfalls associated with filing an informal refund claim, including situations involving taxpayers making payments under an installment agreement, the effective date of the statute and the Franchise Tax Board’s (FTB) Notice interpreting the statute.
(The remainder of this article can be accessed in the June 2006 edition of Lexis California Tax Practice Insights.)
SeeSALT Blog