The California Court of Appeal held a nonresident S corporation shareholder’s pro rata share of gain on the sale of goodwill classified as business income by the S corporation has a California source and is subject to tax for personal income tax purposes to the extent of the S corporation’s California apportionment formula and is not sourced 100 percent to the nonresident shareholder’s domicile. Continue Reading ›
California Supreme Court holds that courts can entertain arguments that a BID assessment scheme violates certain provisions of Proposition 218 when raised by a party who did not articulate these objections in public hearings held to consider protests.
On December 20, 2021, the California Supreme Court reversed the court of appeal which had concluded that petitioners failure to present their objections to proposed business improvement districts (“BIDs”) and related assessment schemes at the appropriate public hearings meant they had not exhausted their extrajudicial remedies, a lapse that prevented the court from deciding petitioners’ claims on the merits. Hill RHP Housing Partners, L.P. et al. v. City of Los Angeles, No. S263734.
This week, Governor Newsom vetoed Senate Bill 792 (Glazer), which would have required large online retailers to include with their sales tax returns an additional schedule that reports gross receipts based on the “ship to” or destination location. The bill targeted online retailers with over $50 million in annual sales of tangible personal property. Qualifying online retailers that failed to report this information would have been subject to a penalty of $5,000.
California imposes a statewide sales tax on retailers for the privilege of selling tangible personal property at retail within the state, measured by the gross receipts from each sale. An additional sales tax of 1.25% (the Bradley-Burns Tax) is imposed on sales subject to the statewide sales tax, of which 1% is allocated to localities to use at their discretion and the remainder is distributed to county local transportation funds to support transportation programs. Continue Reading ›
In One Technologies LLC v. Franchise Tax Board, an out-of-state California corporate taxpayer filed suit in California trial court challenging the state’s mandatory single sales factor apportionment formula on the basis its passage in 2012 via voter initiative Proposition 39 unconstitutionally violated the “single subject rule.”
The California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (Department) has given notice that it proposes to amend California Code of Regulations, title 18, section (Regulation) 1706, Drop Shipments. Regulation 1706, subdivision (c) provides that a drop shipper making a drop shipment must report and pay tax measured by the retail selling price of the property paid by the California consumer to the true retailer, unless the sale and use of the property are otherwise exempt. The proposed amendments clarify that marketplace sales are generally not drop shipment transactions and provide more guidance about how a person can overcome the presumption they are a drop shipper. Continue Reading ›
Five years and six interested parties meetings later, California is finally ready to proceed with the formal rulemaking process to adopt substantial amendments to its market-based sourcing rules. At the Franchise Tax Board’s September 9, 2021 meeting, FTB staff requested permission and received approval from its three-member Board to commence the formal regulatory process under California’s Administrative Procedure Act (APA) to amend California Code of Regulations, Title 18, section 25136-2 (Regulation 25136-2). Continue Reading ›
California’s Court of Appeal again held that a special tax measure placed on the local ballot as a citizen initiative required only a simple majority, not a supermajority, vote to pass.
Proposition G is a school parcel tax initiative that passed on San Francisco’s June 2018 ballot with 60.76% of the vote. The Proposition G school parcel tax is a special tax—in other words, the expenditure of its revenues is dedicated to a specific project or projects—and not a general tax, which revenues roll into the locality’s general fund. Here, the Proposition G school parcel tax funds are earmarked for educators’ salaries, staffing, professional development, technology, charter schools, and oversight of funding.
California’s Court of Appeal held a local sales tax ordinance (Measure K) was a general tax, not a special tax, and therefore its adoption did not require a two-thirds vote (supermajority) under California’s Constitution. A tax is “special” and therefore would require a two-thirds vote, when the expenditure of its revenues is dedicated to a specific project or projects. The plaintiffs argued that Measure K was a special tax because the funds were earmarked for the funding of the county’s public safety services and essential services. The Court of Appeal disagreed, concluding tax proceeds that are deposited in a separate account for unspecified “other essential services” could be used for any and all government services that qualify as an “essential service” and are therefore not dedicated to a specific project or purpose, indicative of a general tax. Thus, the court held Measure K was valid.