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 ›

Posted
by and

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. SealofWashingtonStateSeal-300x300

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 ›

Posted
by , and

This week, Governor Newsom vetoed Senate Bill 792 (Glazer), which would have required large online retailershttps://seesalt.pillsburylaw.com/files/2020/05/250px-Seal_of_California.svg_.png to include with their sales tax returns an additional schedule that reports gross receipts based on the “ship to” or destination location.  The bill targeted online retailers with over $50 million in annual sales of tangible personal property.  Qualifying online retailers that failed to report this information would have been subject to a penalty of $5,000.

California imposes a statewide sales tax on retailers for the privilege of selling tangible personal property at retail within the state, measured by the gross receipts from each sale.  An additional sales tax of 1.25% (the Bradley-Burns Tax) is imposed on sales subject to the statewide sales tax, of which 1% is allocated to localities to use at their discretion and the remainder is distributed to county local transportation funds to support transportation programs. Continue Reading ›

Posted
by

hartman-300x101

Pillsbury SALT attorney Zachary Atkins will present

“Market-Based Sourcing, the Continuing Conundrum” during the 28th Annual Paul J. Hartman State and Local Tax Forum on October 28. The Professor Paul J. Hartman Memorial State and Local Tax (SALT) Forum, sponsored in conjunction with the Vanderbilt University Law School, provides industry, practitioners and state revenue employees the opportunity to participate in a quality forum exploring significant national developments and trends in state and local taxation.

Continue Reading ›