Articles Posted in California

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

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/2020/05/250px-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 ›