The California Department of Tax and Fee Administration held an Interested Parties Meeting to address proposed regulation 1684.5 on marketplace sales. The proposed regulation defines terms used in the Marketplace Facilitator Act (added by AB 147), explains the registration requirements for marketplace facilitators and marketplace sellers, clarifies when a marketplace facilitator is the seller and retailer, and provides election procedures for a delivery network company to be deemed a marketplace facilitator. After the comment period closes on October 30, the Department will decide whether to proceed with formal rulemaking as authorized by the Marketplace Facilitator Act. The Department also has the authority to adopt emergency regulations through June 2020, which, if adopted, will remain in effect for two years.
The Department’s discussion paper can be found here.
There were two competing bills regarding tax sharing agreements (TSAs) this legislative session: SB 531 and SB 485. The former would have barred all TSAs at the local level as of January 1, 2020. The latter would not bar TSAs but instead would require the locality to report certain information pertaining to the agreement that would be made publicly available. On October 12, 2019, Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed the bill that would have barred TSAs altogether and instead signed the other bill that requires publicly reporting certain information pertaining to the TSAs.
Yesterday, the California Franchise Tax Board convened a public meeting to discuss tax compliance within the growing gig economy and the challenges of meeting these obligations. Speakers from academia, the FTB, the business community, and gig workers themselves, discussed various tax issues, three of which stood out.
Pillsbury is proud to partner with TEI’s NY Chapter to host their State & Local Chapter Meeting. Join Pillsbury SALT and TEI NY Chapter members for “Sales Tax: Transformation in Action.”
Nebraska’s tax department has issued guidance confirming its position that IRC 965 deemed repatriation income: 1) must be included in a taxpayer’s corporate income tax base (less the IRC 965(c) deduction); and 2) does not qualify for the state’s dividends received deduction. Nebraska Dep’t of Revenue, Gen. Info. Letter 24-19-1 (Sept. 13, 2019).
The Fifth Appellate District of the California Court of Appeal has struck another blow to taxpayers claiming California unconstitutionally discriminates against interstate commerce by permitting intrastate unitary businesses to file using either a combined reporting method or separate accounting method, while requiring interstate unitary businesses to file under the combined reporting method.