Articles Posted in California

Posted
by , and

(This article originally was published by Law360 on July 7, 2016.)

Rarely does a subject as mundane as a documentary transfer tax become worthy of its own article. However, the June 29, 2017, decision of the California Supreme Court in 926 North Ardmore Avenue LLC v. County of Los Angeles (Ardmore)[1] is a worthy exception. Affirming the Court of Appeal, the California Supreme Court held in Ardmore that California’s documentary transfer tax may be imposed by localities on transfers of interests in legal entities holding title to real property when three criteria are met: (1) the legal entity interest transfer is memorialized in writing; (2) the transfer is made for consideration; and (3) the transfer constitutes a “change of ownership” in the legal entity within the meaning of “change of ownership” for property tax reassessment purposes as set forth in Cal. Rev. & Tax. Code[2] § 64, subds. (c) or (d).[3] Under the Ardmore holding, it is irrelevant whether the written instrument at issue memorializing the legal entity interest transfer is recorded or directly references the real property.[4] Moving forward, every transaction involving a transfer of an interest in a legal entity holding title to real property in California is going to require thorough investigation and due diligence concerning the possible triggering of Ardmore documentary transfer tax imposition.

Posted
by and

On April 6, the Third District California Court of Appeal decided Morning Star Packing Company v. California Air Resources Board, a case that challenged California’s cap-and-trade auction process as an unconstitutional tax because it was not enacted by two-thirds majorities in both chambers of the State Legislature, as required for new taxes by the California Constitution (propositions 13 and 26). The appeal pursued by Morning Star Packing Company against State Air Resources Board et al. was consolidated with a separate suit filed by the California Chamber of Commerce and by intervener National Association of Manufacturers. That decision is important not only to the future of the auction process, but also as to the key question of what is a tax as opposed to a fee or, in this case, as opposed to a “something else.”

Continue Reading ›

Posted
by

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.

Posted
by , and

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.)

Posted
by

(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 ›

Posted
by and

(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 ›

Posted
by , and

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 ›

Posted
by , , and

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 ›

Posted
by and

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 ›

Posted
by , , and

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 ›