Posted
by and

https://seesalt.pillsburylaw.com/files/2022/02/1200px-Seal_of_Alabama.svg_-300x300.png

The Alabama Tax Tribunal held the taxpayers’ wholesale sales of fuel that entered and exited the state via the Colonial Pipeline were subject to the state’s wholesale oil license fee. The sales in question were made to Alabama license holders and involved fuel imported from out-of-state. The fuel would either enter Alabama from out-of-state through the Colonial Pipeline or be injected in the pipeline at a point in Alabama. In either instance, the fuel was bound for final movement out of Alabama with there being no subsequent point in Alabama where the fuel could exit the pipeline.

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 and

SealofWashingtonStateSeal-300x300

Two organizations, the Washington Bankers Association and American Bankers Association (collectively, the “Associations”), are urging the U.S. Supreme Court to review the constitutionality of Washington’s business and occupation surtax on large financial institutions. On January 28, 2022, the Associations filed a cert petition arguing that the surtax discriminates against interstate commerce in violation of the Commerce Clause and that the Washington Supreme Court’s decision upholding the surtax is erroneous.

Continue Reading ›

Posted
by , , and

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.Tax-Notes-logo

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 ›