Evan Hamme and Aruna Chittiappa discuss tax rate changes in the New York State budget and how this looks to offer relief to industries impacted by the pandemic. 
Continue Reading ›
On March 29, 2021, Tennessee Governor Bill Lee signed legislation creating a new sales and use tax exemption and a new franchise and excise tax (F&E) credit for “qualified productions.” H.B. 141, 112th Gen. Assemb., ch. 70 (Tenn. 2021). The new legislation is expected to attract greater production activity, especially smaller-scale productions, to the state and put Tennessee on a competitive footing with other states that offer tax incentives to the industry. Continue Reading ›
Much to the recent surprise of many in the tax community, the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (“CDTFA”) is able to adopt or amend regulations without the normal review process by the Office of Administrative Law (“OAL”) under the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”). Continue Reading ›
On February 15, 2021, the Maryland Court of Appeals issued a decision in Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. v. Director, Department of Finance of Baltimore City, Case No. 24-C-18-001778 (Md. 2021), upholding the constitutionality of a local ordinance that imposes an annual excise tax on businesses selling advertising space on off-site billboards. The tax in question applies only to businesses that own or control off-site billboards in the City of Baltimore i.e., billboards that are not located on the premises where the goods or services being advertised are offered for sale. Continue Reading ›
In Tesoro Logistics Northwest Pipeline LLC v. Department of Revenue (002), the Oregon Tax Court, Regular Division, held that although a unit of property acquired by one centrally assessed company from another qualified as “new property” for purposes of Or. Const. Art. XI, § 11 (Measure 50), the unit of property’s existing maximum assessed value (MAV) was preserved in the hands of the new owner. Tesoro Logistics Nw. Pipeline LLC v. Dep’t of Revenue, No. TC 5252, 2021 WL 6700471 (Or. Tax Ct., Reg. Div., Feb. 19, 2021). As a result, the Oregon Department of Revenue was not entitled to redetermine the MAV on account of the acquisition.
Pillsbury State & Local Tax special counsel Zachary Atkins explores the recent Delaware court decision of Verisign and the implications it has for taxpayers in Tax Notes State’s SeeSALT Digest.
On February 12, 2021, Maryland legislators voted to override Gov. Larry Hogan’s (R) veto of H.B. 732, making Maryland the first state in the nation to impose a digital advertising tax. While Maryland’s enactment of the bill is a first, other states have impending digital advertising tax bills, such as New York, Connecticut, Indiana, Nebraska, Washington, Montana and Massachusetts. Maryland’s digital advertising tax, which becomes effective March 14, 2021 (30 days after the Governor’s veto), has been preemptively challenged in U.S. District Court. Continue Reading ›
Pillsbury SALT attorneys Carley Roberts, Annie Huang and Robert Merten III will present at the COST Central West Regional State Tax Webinar on March 24.
Pillsbury SALT attorneys Carley Roberts, Zachary Atkins, Nicole Boutros and Evan Hamme will present during Tax Executive Institute’s Wisconsin Chapter Meeting on February 18.
Continue Reading ›
In 2018, San Francisco voters approved, by simple majority vote, two new gross receipts taxes: the Homelessness Gross Receipts Tax (SF-HT) and the Commercial Rents Tax (SF-CRT), with both 
taxes effective as of January 1, 2019.[1] Because these taxes fund specific governmental services, they are designated as special taxes (specifically, the SF-HT funds homelessness services and the SF-CRT funds early childhood education). Since the California Constitution specifies that special taxes imposed by local government need two-thirds voter approval (i.e., a “supermajority”), taxpayer groups have filed lawsuits to invalidate these special taxes, as both were approved by only a majority vote (61% for the SF-HT and 51% for the SF-CRT).[2] As discussed more fully below, the courts have ruled against these taxpayer groups and the California Supreme Court to date has refused review.
The pressing question is whether San Francisco taxpayers, who paid the SF-HT and/or the SF‑CRT for 2019 and 2020, should be filing claims to protect their rights to refunds in the unlikely (but not impossible) event that these taxes are ultimately rendered invalid.
SeeSALT Blog