Articles Posted in States

Posted
by , , and

In the Appeal of Mather, the California Office of Tax Appeals (OTA) held in a precedential opinion that New York City’s (NYC) Unincorporated Business Tax (UBT) was not a tax “imposed by and paid to another state,” as required to claim the Other State Tax Credit (OSTC), because New York State (NYS) did not require NYC to impose the UBT. The OTA also held that the NYS Metropolitan Commuter Transportation Mobility Tax (MCTMT) met the requirements to claim the OSTC, but that the taxpayers failed to substantiate the amount of their claim.

 

OTA

Continue Reading ›

Posted
by , and

On September 28, 2024, California enacted Assembly Bill 2854, which imposes new disclosure requirements on local agencies (i.e., chartered or general law cities and counties) that have entered into local sales tax sharing agreements with retailers. Generally, pursuant to a local sales tax sharing agreement, a retailer will agree to establish a new sales or fulfillment center in a local jurisdiction and source its sales to that local jurisdiction. In exchange, the local jurisdiction will provide the retailer a rebate on the local sales tax revenue generated for the local jurisdiction.

https://seesalt.pillsburylaw.com/files/2020/05/250px-Seal_of_California.svg_.png

Continue Reading ›

Posted
by , and

The California Franchise Tax Board (FTB) announced it has initiated the formal rulemaking process to amend Regulation Section 25136-2, which governs the sourcing of receipts from services and intangible property.  The proposed changes would apply to taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2024.Capture-2-300x101 Continue Reading ›

Posted
by and

The Arizona Court of Appeals held that an investment tax credit (ITC)

download

deferred as a tax asset has “value” and therefore is properly excluded from the taxable original cost of renewable energy equipment for Arizona property tax purposes.  In so holding, the court rejected the argument that an ITC has no monetary worth until its owner derives an actual economic benefit from the ITC, i.e., by using it to reduce a federal income tax liability.

Continue Reading ›

Posted
by

The Pillsbury SALT team had an incredible time last month at the COST SALT Workshop for Technology Companies in Cupertino, CA.  Carley Roberts, Zachary Atkins, Craig Becker, Evan Hamme, Robert P. Merten III, Jeffrey Vesely, and Aruna Chittiappa were all panelists and presented on various topics at the workshop. The team also participated in SALT group meetings held at Pillsbury’s Palo Alto office. Over the course of several days we learned more about each other, strategized ways to better serve our clients, and attended a variety of substantive sessions.

cost-300x90

Continue Reading ›

Posted
by

In 1993, the California Legislature amended Revenue and Taxation Code (RTC) sections 6011 and 6012 to exclude from California sales and use tax amounts charged for intangible personal property transferred with a technology transfer agreement (TTA) if the TTA separately stated a reasonable price for the tangible personal property (TPP). Nine years later, the State Board of Equalization (SBE) adopted Regulation 1507, Technology Transfer Agreements, to implement and interpret the TTA statutes and to incorporate the California Supreme Court’s holding in Preston v. State Board of Equalization, 25 Cal.4th 197 (2001). Subsequent litigation over the next 13 years in Nortel Networks, Inc. v. State Board of Equalization, 191 Cal.App.4th 1259 (2011) and Lucent Technologies, Inc. v. State Board of Equalization, 241 Cal.App.4th 19 (2015), invalidated portions of Regulation 1507, as well as Regulation 1502 (Computers, Programs and Data Processing). In the nine years since the Lucent decision, the SBE and its successor, the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA), have been engaged in a seemingly endless regulation project.

Continue Reading ›

Posted
by and

https://seesalt.pillsburylaw.com/files/2020/03/1200px-Seal_of_New_Mexico.svg_-297x300.png

The New Mexico Court of Appeals has held that a multinational oil and gas production company did not constitute a “unitary corporation” with its foreign subsidiaries, pursuant to statutory carve-out language regarding the term “unitary corporation.”

Continue Reading ›