Zack Atkins’ comments in Law360 Tax Authority regarding newly passed legislation in Tennessee that could provide taxpayers with up to $1.6 billion in rebates for portions of three years of past payments and up to $400 million in new savings each year.
Read more here.
The 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.
A proposed initiative (available here) is being circulated to place on the November 5, 2024 ballot, an ordinance amending the Business and Tax Regulations Code effective January 1, 2025.
On April 5, 2024, the New Jersey Division of Taxation issued guidance discussing New Jersey’s adoption of the federal centralized partnership audit regime enacted as part of the federal Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, P.L. 114-74. The guidance was released over a year after the Senate and General Assembly of the State of New Jersey approved P.L. 2022, c. 133 on December 22, 2022. This law applies to any adjustments to a taxpayer’s federal taxable income on or after January 1, 2020.
Under a new bill signed into law on March 11, 2024, the South Carolina Department of Revenue will have to satisfy additional standards before it may force affiliated corporate taxpayers to file a unitary combined return. These new standards, enacted as part of Senate Bill 298, are expected to rein in the Department’s aggressive use of forced combination, which has led to considerable tax controversy in the state.
The California Office of Tax Appeals (OTA), in a decision marked “not precedential” in the Matter of the Appeal of Microsoft Corporation & Subsidiaries, held 100 percent of repatriated dividends under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) must be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.
The California Franchise Tax Board (FTB), California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA) and California Employment Development Department (EDD) announced tax relief for certain California counties affected by severe winter storms.
The Supreme Court of Ohio has held the Ohio legislature did not violate the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution by directing an Ohio citizen to pay taxes to the municipality where the employee’s principal place of work was located rather than to where the employee actually worked.
A California trial court denied the Franchise Tax Board’s (FTB) motion to vacate and modify the judgment declaring FTB Technical Advice Memorandum (TAM) 2022-01 and FTB Publication 1050 invalid underground regulations adopted in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act.
The New York State Tax Appeals Tribunal (Tribunal) held that a taxpayer’s distributive share income from a partnership was intangible income properly sourced to the taxpayer’s residence and not to the location of the partnership’s underlying operations. In the Matter of Greenberg, the taxpayer was a New York resident partner in a partnership operating an investment fund from Connecticut. The taxpayer sought to credit her tax paid to Connecticut against her 2014 and 2015 New York State personal income tax liability. On audit, the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance (Department) disallowed the credit, asserting that a partner’s “carried interest” income (i.e., a partner’s compensation based on the performance of the fund’s investments) is sourced as intangible income to the taxpayer’s residence. The Department thus asserted that the taxpayer was not eligible for the credit because the income was sourced to the taxpayer’s New York residence and not to Connecticut where the partnership operated.
SeeSALT Blog