SALT Impact of TCJA

New York FY 2021 Budget Bill Decouples from CARES Act Taxpayer Relief Provisions

Posted April 8, 2020

by Aruna Chittiappa and Marc A. Simonetti

Aruna Chittiappa

Marc A. Simonetti

On 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 ›

Nebraska Clarifies Treatment of IRC 965 Repatriation Income

Posted September 19, 2019

by Marc A. Simonetti

Marc A. Simonetti

Nebraska’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).

“The Taxation of Section 965 Deemed Repatriation”

Posted May 1, 2019

by Pillsbury SALT

Pillsbury SALT

Carley Roberts presents on “The Taxation of Section 965 Deemed Repatriation” at COST’s Spring Audit Session & Income Tax Conference 2019 on May 1.

Commerce Clause Decisions Open Door for TCJA-Related Challenges

Posted March 18, 2019

by Evan M. Hamme and Tim Gustafson

Evan M. Hamme

Tim Gustafson

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 ›

“Income Tax – TCJA and Other SALT Matters”

Posted February 8, 2019

by Pillsbury SALT

Pillsbury SALT

On February 8, Marc Simonetti and Jeffrey Vesely present “Income Tax – TCJA and Other SALT Matters” during Tax Executives Institute’s New England Chapter Meeting.

“Federal-State Tax Conformity after the TCJA”

Posted January 29, 2019

by Pillsbury SALT

Pillsbury SALT

On January 29, Carley Roberts presents “Federal-State Tax Conformity after the TCJA” during Tax Policy Center’s How Are States Responding to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act? Conference.

Revisiting California Tax Residency after the TCJA

Posted January 1, 2019

by Eric Coffill

Eric Coffill

(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 ›

“Federal Tax Changes Rocking the SALT Landscape”

Posted November 16, 2018

by Pillsbury SALT

Pillsbury SALT

On November 16, Carley Roberts and Marc Simonetti present “Federal Tax Changes Rocking the SALT Landscape” during Tax Executives Institute’s New Jersey All-Day Seminar.

Fund Managers Face Tax Hike If California Passes AB 2731

Posted June 20, 2018

by Tim Gustafson and Pillsbury SALT

Tim Gustafson

Pillsbury SALT

(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.