Posted
by

cost-300x90Pillsbury attorneys Craig Becker and Robert Merten III will present during COST’s 2020 Property Tax webinar, held in cooperation with the International Property Tax Institute (IPTI).

Craig will present “California – Examining Property Tax Issues in the Golden State” on Wednesday, September 16 at 4:10pm. The presenters will address how business taxpayers may have to deal with split-rolls, transfer taxes as a result of the intersection of the Ardmore decision and Prop 13, the erosion of Proposition 13 protections through post-Uplands litigation that may make it easier to increase taxes at the local level, and technology transfer agreements. In addition, renovations of buildings have the potential to trigger “New Building” assessments in California.

Robert will present “Your Tax Department Should Work as a Team – Strategies to Make it Work – Even When Working Remotely,” on Thursday, September 17 at 2:05pm. In this session, the panelists will provide examples of how the different tax types intersect and how those relationships need to be taken into account, especially in the current stay-at-home COVID-19 environment.

For more information, please click here.

Posted
by

In Alaska, a state and local sales tax class action survived a motion to dismiss and motion to strike class allegations after a federal judge determined the plaintiff’s alleged claims were plausible. In Van v. LLR, INC., d/b/a LuLaRoe et al., the plaintiff—an Alaska resident and customer of the defendant retailer—alleged she was improperly charged sales tax on clothing purchased from the out-of-state retailer’s “remote consultants” and shipped to her residence in Anchorage, Alaska. With no state sales tax in Alaska and few local sales taxes, the plaintiff claimed defendant retailer unlawfully collected sales tax on transactions shipped to Alaska for over a year.

Continue Reading ›

Posted
by

This article was originally published by Tax Notes State.

The Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court released its decision in the much-anticipated Synthes USA HQ Inc. v. Commonwealth case July 24. The case addressed the proper interpretation of Pennsylvania’s sales factor sourcing statute in effect for tax years before 2014, which sourced service receipts to the location where the “income-producing activity” occurred. The commonwealth court deferred to the Pennsylvania Department of Revenue’s interpretation, which construed income-producing activities to occur where the service provider’s customer receives the benefit of the services (benefits-received sourcing method).

Continue Reading ›

Posted
by and

https://seesalt.pillsburylaw.com/files/2020/04/Seal_of_New_York.svg_-300x300.pngA New York trial court held that charges for storage services rendered in New Jersey were not subject to New York sales tax despite the fact that the property was originally picked up in New York. Vital Records, Inc. v. New York State Dep’t of Taxation & Finance, No. 900088-19 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Albany Cty. Aug. 19, 2020). The case was not heard by the New York State Division of Tax Appeals, which is the typical venue for state tax disputes. Instead, the vendor brought an action against the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance (“Department”) and its executive deputy commissioner in a New York Supreme Court (trial court) seeking declaratory, injunctive, and other relief.

Continue Reading ›

Posted
by

https://seesalt.pillsburylaw.com/files/2020/05/250px-Seal_of_California.svg_.pngThe California Court of Appeal recently came down with a published decision in the Paula Trust case, a case involving the taxation of trusts and limited partners—two very nettlesome issues in California. (Steuer v. Franchise Tax Board, No. A154691, 2020 BL 240383 (Cal. Ct. App. 6/29/20)). The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court and held that the trust was taxable on the entire capital gain generated from the sale of stock in various businesses. The case involves California’s unique and somewhat confusing system of taxing trusts. Generally speaking, the taxability of a trust is dependent upon the residency of fiduciaries (i.e., trustee) and beneficiaries. In this case, there were two trustees—one who was a California resident and one who was a Maryland resident, along with a contingent beneficiary who was a California resident.

Continue Reading ›

Posted
by

https://seesalt.pillsburylaw.com/files/2020/07/1200px-Seal_of_the_District_of_Columbia.svg_-300x300.pngThe District of Columbia Council finalized the 2021 fiscal year budget yesterday, which removed the recently enacted digital advertising tax. The Council’s July 28 vote formalized the elimination of a proposed 3% sales tax on gross receipts from traditional and digital advertising services and from the sale of personal information (e.g., IP addresses, , names, phone numbers, biometric data etc.). The proposal defined “digital advertising services” as “advertising services related to advertisements displayed on a digital interface, including advertisements in the form of banner advertising, search engine advertising, interstitial advertising, or other comparable advertising.” “Digital interface” was defined as “any combination of hardware and software that an individual may use to access internet-based platforms such as websites, parts of websites, or applications.”

Continue Reading ›

Posted
by , , and

In 731 Market Street Owner LLC v. City and County of San Francisco 731_Market_St-300x180(June 18, 2020), California appellate court affirms that local realty transfer tax does not apply when leasehold has a remaining term of 35 years or more.  SeeSALT authors Craig Becker, Breann Robowski, Richard Nielsen, and Robert Merten III explain.

Read the full article here.