Pillsbury SALT attorneys Carley Roberts, Robert P. Merten III, Jeff Phang, and Lexi Louderback recently published “How to Be Reasonable When Reasonably Approximating the Market: Part II” in Tax Notes State. Read more here.
Pillsbury SALT attorney Zachary Atkins will present during Verizon’s Small Business Accelerator Program on January 19.
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.
Pillsbury SALT partner Craig Becker will present during the California Alliance of Taxpayer Advocates Annual Conference on December 10.
Pillsbury SALT attorneys Carley Roberts, Zachary Atkins, Robert Merten III, Aruna Chittiappa and Jeff Phang will present during the TEI Chicago Virtual State Income Tax Program on December 9.
Pillsbury Special Counsel Zack Atkins was recently quoted in Tax Notes State and Law360 discussing the challenges presented by market-based sourcing. Read more here. Continue Reading ›
Pillsbury SALT attorneys Zachary Atkins and Evan Hamme will present during TEI’s Carolinas Chapter Meeting on November 12.
Pillsbury SALT partners Jeffrey Vesely and Carley Roberts will present during the Annual Meeting of the California Tax Bar and California Tax Policy Conference November 3-5, 2021.
Pillsbury SALT partner Breann Robowski will present during this month’s California State Board of Equalization’s meeting on October 19-21, 2021.
On September 30, 2021, the Washington Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the state’s 1.2% Business & Occupation (“B&O”) surtax on large financial institutions. Wash. Bankers Ass’n v. State, No. 98760-2 (Wash. 2021). The surtax, which went into effect January 1, 2020, applies to every “specified financial institution,” which is defined in relevant part as a financial institution that is a member of a consolidated financial institution group with consolidated annual net income of $1 billion or more. 
The Washington Bankers Association and the American Bankers Association (collectively, the “Associations”) filed a declaratory relief action seeking to invalidate the surtax on the grounds that the measure discriminates against interstate commerce in violation of the Commerce Clause. In 2020, a Washington trial court entered summary judgment for the Associations, holding that the statute discriminates against interstate commerce in purpose and effect. The trial court also held that the Associations had standing under the state’s Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act (the “UDJA”) to bring an action on behalf of their members challenging the surtax. Continue Reading ›
