Articles Posted in California

by
Posted

On January 30, 2017, the California Legislature Assembly Committee on Revenue and Taxation held an informational hearing on “Life after Lucent: Administering California’s Technology Transfer Agreement Law.” The California State Board of Equalization (SBE) and the Board’s staff are currently wrestling with the meaning of the Technology Transfer Act (TTA) provisions in sections 6011 and 6012 of the Revenue and Taxation Code in connection with implementation of the California Court of Appeal decision in Lucent Technologies v. Board of Equalization, 241 Cal. App. 4th 19 (2015). The January 30 hearing demonstrates that the Legislature is now apparently interested in this issue.

To learn more, please contact the author.

by , and
Posted

As consumer products become more high tech, the line between computers and traditional devices has blurred. Even basic products, such as toothbrushes, alarm clocks, doorbells, smartphones, cameras, home security systems, printers and copiers now include technical software that enables new functionality options for the device. As a general principle, tangible personal property, but not intangibles or services, is subject to California Sales and Use Tax. Software “embedded” into a product has value distinct from the value of the rest of the device and that distinct (intangible) value is not subject to sales tax. On the heels of two recent taxpayer victories in the California Court of Appeal relating to taxation of software, this article discusses current developments on how to treat such embedded software for California sales (and use) tax purposes.

(The remainder of this article can be accessed in the January 2017 edition of the Journal of Multistate Taxation and Incentives.)

by
Posted

(This article originally was published in Vol. 25, No. 4 of the California Lawyers Association’s California Tax Lawyer.)

Section 995 and 995.2 of the California Revenue & Taxation Code exempt all software except for basic operational programs from property taxation. Basic input output systems, known as BIOS, draw the line between the taxable and nontaxable. BIOS, which by definition is necessary to the operation of the computer, handles primitive functions such as turning the computer on and off. BIOS is taxable. Everything else, such as operating systems like Windows, is not taxable. (Property Tax Rule 152; Cardinal health 301 Inc. v. County of Orange (2008) 167 Cal.Appl.4th 219.) Often, computers or other electronic devices are sold with nontaxable software (i.e., non-basic operating systems or application software) preloaded onto the device. When there is no separate sales price for the nontaxable software, it is termed “bundled” or “embedded” software. Embedded software is not taxable. Id.

Continue Reading ›

by and
Posted

(This alert was also published as a bylined article by Law360 on July 31, 2015.)

Over five years into a personal income tax residency audit by the California Franchise Tax Board (FTB), Gilbert Hyatt filed a civil suit in Nevada state court against FTB alleging tortious conduct by FTB auditors. After more than 17 years of litigation, including a previous trip to the United States Supreme Court, the High Court has again agreed to weigh in, this time to decide the extent the United States Constitution requires Nevada to provide the FTB immunity from such a civil suit.

Continue Reading ›

by , and
Posted

In 926 North Ardmore Avenue, LLC v. County of Los Angeles, the 2nd District Court of Appeal held that Proposition 13 changes in ownership prompted by transfers of legal entity interests should also be characterized as “realty sold,” resulting in the imposition of realty transfer taxes under the California Documentary Transfer Tax Act in cases even where no real property interests are transferred at all.

Continue Reading ›

by , , and
Posted

As part of a sweeping law change, New York will require taxpayers to use a water’s-edge combined reporting method when filing corporate income tax returns beginning January 1, 2015.

Continue Reading ›

by and
Posted

On June 3, 2014, in a published decision, the California Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District affirmed the Superior Court ruling in Ocean Avenue LLC v. County of Los Angeles, holding that even though 100 percent of an entity was sold, a reassessable change in ownership of the entity’s real property did not occur because no one person obtained more than 50 percent of the entity. Assembly Bill 2372 would change that result by requiring reassessment of an entity’s realty if 90 percent or more of its ownership interests were sold within a three year period, even if no one owner acquired more than 50 percent.

Continue Reading ›

by , , and
Posted

The amount of non-taxable embedded software being taxed in California is a staggering number. While companies own assets with millions of dollars of embedded software, few companies are maximizing their property tax savings through the embedded software exemption. The good news is that it is not too late to dig in and maximize your potential tax savings. Most businesses have until May 7, 20141 to file their annual Business Property Tax Statements (Form 571-L) with California counties.

Continue Reading ›

by
Posted

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.

Continue Reading ›

by and
Posted

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.

Continue Reading ›