Articles Posted in SALT Impact of TCJA

Posted
by , , and

https://seesalt.pillsburylaw.com/files/2020/05/250px-Seal_of_California.svg_.pngThe May Revision of California’s 2024-2025 state budget seeks to block refund claims, worth approximately $1.3 billion for historical tax years, and $200 million per year going forward, by codifying informal guidance recently rejected by the Office of Tax Appeal’s (OTA) decision in the Matter of the Appeal of Microsoft Corporation & Subsidiaries (Appeal of Microsoft) and by granting the Franchise Tax Board’s (FTB) quasi-legislative rulemaking authority exempt from the procedural protections afforded by the Administrative Procedure Act.  The May Revision also proposes to suspend net operating loss (NOL) deductions and limit tax credit utilization to $5 million per year for tax years 2025-2027; however, the legislature proposes to apply the changes to tax years 2024-2026 instead.

Continue Reading ›

Posted
by , , and

OTAThe California Office of Tax Appeals (OTA), in a decision marked “not precedential” in the Matter of the Appeal of Microsoft Corporation & Subsidiaries, held 100 percent of repatriated dividends under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) must be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

https://seesalt.pillsburylaw.com/files/2020/04/Seal_of_New_York.svg_-300x300.pngOn April 3, 2020, New York State enacted the 2021 fiscal year budget (Budget). The Budget contains several tax measures including decoupling from taxpayer relief provisions of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act). The CARES Act was signed into law on March 27, 2020 with the primary objective to provide economic relief and greater liquidity to American taxpayers facing hardship because of the COVID-19 crisis. Specifically, the Budget decouples from taxpayer favorable provisions in the CARES Act including the increase to the permitted business interest expense deduction and the beneficial NOL provisions. As a result, New York taxpayers will not receive the benefit of the CARES Act relief provisions for New York tax purposes. Continue Reading ›

Posted
by

Nebraska-flag-logoNebraska’s tax department has issued guidance confirming its position that IRC 965 deemed repatriation income: 1) must be included in a taxpayer’s corporate income tax base (less the IRC 965(c) deduction); and 2) does not qualify for the state’s dividends received deduction. Nebraska Dep’t of Revenue, Gen. Info. Letter 24-19-1 (Sept. 13, 2019).

Continue Reading ›

Posted
by and

Three years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated a portion of Maryland’s personal income tax scheme on grounds that it violated the dormant commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution. In Comptroller of the Treasury of Maryland v Wynne, the Court held that Maryland’s credit mechanism for income taxes paid to other states impermissibly discriminated against interstate commerce because it allowed a credit against state taxes paid but not county taxes, resulting in double taxation on some income earned outside the state.

Continue Reading ›

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 ›