Articles Posted in States

Posted

https://seesalt.pillsburylaw.com/files/2020/04/Seal_of_New_York.svg_-300x300.png

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.

Continue Reading ›

Posted

https://seesalt.pillsburylaw.com/files/2020/04/Seal_of_New_York.svg_-300x300.png

A New York nonresident taxpayer, Edward Zelinsky, recently filed a notice of exception to a Division of Tax Appeals’ (DTA) determination that he must allocate all his wages to New York under the so-called “convenience of the employer” rule.[1] Zelinsky, a Connecticut resident who had previously challenged New York’s controversial sourcing rule, petitioned the DTA after the Department of Taxation and Finance (Department) denied his personal income tax refund claims for the 2019 and 2020 tax years. Although he was required to work from his Connecticut residence during the COVID-19 pandemic, which covered most of the 2020 tax year, the DTA upheld the rule allocating all Zelinsky’s wages to New York.[2] 

Continue Reading ›

Posted

OTA

The California Office of Tax Appeals (OTA) recently issued two opinions addressing the burden of proof taxpayers must meet to substantiate entitlement to California’s research and development (R&D) tax credit for qualified expenditures under California Revenue and Taxation Code section 23609. In both opinions, the OTA ruled in favor of the California Franchise Tax Board, holding each taxpayer failed to meet its respective burden to substantiate the R&D tax credit claimed.

Continue Reading ›

Posted

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

A California trial court granted summary adjudication in the American Catalog Mailers Association’s (ACMA) action against the Franchise Tax Board (FTB), invalidating FTB guidance that says certain online activities exceed the protections of Public Law 86-272 for state income tax purposes. This follows the court’s denial of ACMA’s first motion for summary adjudication, which we discussed in detail in an earlier blog post, where the court found ACMA did not carry its burden to show FTB Technical Advice Memorandum (TAM) 2022-01 and amendments to FTB Publication 1050 are facially invalid because they contradict PL 86-272.

Continue Reading ›

Posted

 

https://seesalt.pillsburylaw.com/files/2020/05/250px-Seal_of_California.svg_.pngIn the Appeal of Southern Minnesota Beet Sugar Cooperative (2023-OTA-342P) (Beet Sugar), the California Office of Tax Appeals (OTA) issued a precedential opinion holding the California Franchise Tax Board (FTB) is not entitled to apply its FTB Legal Ruling 2006-01 (Apr. 28, 2006) to prohibit taxpayers from including in their apportionment factors property, payroll, and sales that generated statutorily deductible income. The OTA’s guidance on the FTB’s interpretation and application of Legal Ruling 2006-01 in this opinion also has implications beyond the specific issue in Beet Sugar, as the FTB has been attempting to expand the application of the limited legal ruling to other inapplicable situations. For example, an opinion by the OTA in the Appeal of Microsoft Corporation & Subsidiaries (OTA Case Number 21037336) is also anticipated to be issued soon, which appeal concerns whether the FTB is entitled to apply Legal Ruling 2006-01 to prohibit taxpayers from including in their apportionment sales factors statutorily deductible foreign dividend amounts.

Continue Reading ›

Posted

The entire Pillsbury State and Local Tax (SALT) Team is very proud to congratulate our practice leader Carley Roberts for receiving the prestigious Benjamin F. Miller award during this year’s California Annual Meeting of the Tax Bar and Tax Policy Conference.

This award is presented annually by the California Lawyers Association’s Taxation Section to recipients recognized for having achieved professional excellence and notable contributions in the field of state and local taxation law akin to the attorney the award is named after, Benjamin F. Miller.

Carley has been achieving professional excellence and notable contributions to SALT, both in California and nationwide, for approximately 25 years and counting.  Throughout this quarter century, Carley has also worked prolifically towards successfully garnering effective collaboration and cooperation between the private and public sectors of SALT.

Congratulations Carley!

Read more: Carley Roberts Honored with Benjamin F. Miller Award by California Lawyers Association

Posted

On July 3, 2023, Governor Phil Murphy signed into law A.B. 5323, enacting important revisions to New Jersey’s Corporation Business Tax (CBT)[1] including expanding the definition of what constitutes a “unitary business.”  The expanded definition now includes affiliated entities that may not have previously met the requirements for combined group membership for CBT purposes.      seal-of-new-jersey_800-300x300

Continue Reading ›

Posted

A California trial court denied summary judgment in the American Catalog Mailers Association’s (ACMA) action that seeks to invalidate Franchise Tax Board (FTB) guidance that says certain online activities exceed the protections of Public Law 86-272 for state income tax purposes.  However, the court signaled it may invalidate the FTB’s guidance on the basis it constitutes underground regulations and violates California’s Administrative Procedure Act.https://seesalt.pillsburylaw.com/files/2020/05/250px-Seal_of_California.svg_.png Continue Reading ›

Posted

In a split decision, the Michigan Supreme Court rejected a taxpayer’s assertion that applying the standard apportionment formula to gain derived from a deemed asset sale led to a grossly distorted, unconstitutional result.  The court held in Vectren InfrastructuCapture-300x300re Services Corporation v. Department of Treasury, No. 163742 (July 31, 2023), that applying the standard single sales factor apportionment formula—which did not include any receipts from the deemed asset sale—to apportion the gain did not violate the U.S. Constitution’s Due Process Clause or Commerce Clause.

Continue Reading ›

Posted

On July 3, 2023, New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy signed A.B. 5323 into law to amend New Jersey’s Corporation Business Tax (CBT). seal-of-new-jersey_800-300x300The bill enacted a variety of clarifications, corrections and modifications to the CBT.

Continue Reading ›