Articles Posted in California

Posted
by , , and

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

For years, some California counties have been imposing disproportionately higher property tax rates on centrally assessed property despite the state constitutional mandate that this property be assessed like locally assessed property.

In a challenge brought by centrally assessed utilities, the California Court of Appeal conceded that the higher property tax rates disproportionally burden utility company property but concluded that this disparity does not violate the California Constitution.

Click here to read the full article.

Posted
by , and

 

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

In addition to the tax relief announced in January, the California Franchise Tax Board (FTB) has automatically extended the income tax filing and payment deadlines for businesses and individuals affected by severe winter storms in California until October 16, 2023.

Continue Reading ›

Posted
by , and

Following the IRS’s announcement of tax relief for 41 California counties* affected by severe winter storms, the California Franchise Tax Board (FTB) and California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA) announced similar relief for state-level taxes and fees.https://seesalt.pillsburylaw.com/files/2020/05/250px-Seal_of_California.svg_.png

Continue Reading ›

Posted
by and

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

In the Appeal of Sheward, 2022-OTA-228P (May 25, 2022), the California Office of Tax Appeals (OTA) held the California Franchise Tax Board (FTB) failed to follow its own market-based sourcing apportionment regulation by prematurely using reasonable approximation to source the income of a multistate unitary business.  During the tax year 2017, the taxpayer operated a business providing in-person services as a horse racetrack judge in California and Minnesota but failed to file a California return.  Related to such services, the taxpayer received Form 1099s from the State of California, the State of Minnesota, and Minnesota Harness Racing, Inc.

Continue Reading ›

Posted
by , and

The American Catalog Mailers Association (ACMA), which describes itself as the nation’s leading industry trade association advocating for catalog, online, direct mail, and other remote-selling merchants and their suppliers, has filed suit against the California Franchise Tax Board (FTB) in the San Francisco County Superior Court of California.

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

ACMA’s complaint seeks a judicial declaration that the FTB’s 2022 publicly-issued guidance related to Public Law 86-272 (PL 86-272) – specifically, Technical Advice Memorandum (TAM) 2022-01 and FTB Publication 1050 – are invalid because (1) they contradict PL 86-272 and the U.S. Constitution; and (2) the FTB did not properly follow the California Administrative Procedure Act’s required rulemaking process before publishing such guidance.  In the alternative, ACMA seeks a judicial declaration that the FTB’s new guidance applies on a prospective basis only.  ACMA also seeks attorney’s fees and costs of suit for bringing the action to enforce an important right affecting the public interest.

Continue Reading ›

Posted
by and

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 ›

Posted
by and

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

California Governor Gavin Newsom has signed legislation (i.e., S.B. 113) to, among other things, reinstate business tax credits and net operating loss (NOL) deductions originally limited by the enactment of A.B. 85 in 2020.

Continue Reading ›

Posted
by

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

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.

Continue Reading ›

Posted
by , and

This week, Governor Newsom vetoed Senate Bill 792 (Glazer), which would have required large online retailershttps://seesalt.pillsburylaw.com/files/2020/05/250px-Seal_of_California.svg_.png 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 ›