(This article was originally published by Law360 on March 18, 2019.)
When challenging a state tax assessment outside the tax agency that issued the assessment, taxpayers face a variety of obstacles. One is the presumption of correctness that often attaches to a tax agency’s determination. Judicial deference to a tax agency’s interpretation of a tax statute or regulation makes the taxpayer’s task even more difficult.
Three years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated a portion of Maryland’s personal income tax scheme on grounds that it violated the dormant commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution. In Comptroller of the Treasury of Maryland v Wynne, the Court held that Maryland’s credit mechanism for income taxes paid to other states impermissibly discriminated against interstate commerce because it allowed a credit against state taxes paid but not county taxes, resulting in double taxation on some income earned outside the state.
Pillsbury attorneys speak on a number of tax-related issues at the TEI Mergers & Acquisitions Seminar on March 7. Topics include Corporate, Sales/Use Tax, State Income Tax, Federal Income Tax, Property/Transfer Taxes, Regulatory, and Employment and Labor.
Pillsbury partners Annie Huang and Carley Roberts discuss “The State of State and Local Taxes” at Tax Executives Institute’s New York State and Local Chapter Meeting on March 5.
Nicole Boutros presents “State Tax Updates and What’s in Store for 2019” during Tax Executives Institute’s Fort Worth Chapter Luncheon on February 27.
Despite the narrow issue it originally addressed, the August 2017 decision by the California Supreme Court in California Cannabis Coal. v. City of Upland has sparked a much larger debate regarding whether local special taxes introduced by voter initiative are subject to the long-standing requirement in the California Constitution that local special taxes must be passed with a two-thirds supermajority vote by the electorate
In “The Sequel to Upland: A Calif. Supermajority Tax Showdown,” an article that originally appeared in Law360, Robert P. Merten III and Richard E. Nielsen recap the pertinent Upland background, identify the local special taxes currently at issue and discuss an important consideration courts will need to address when deciding these cases: the over 40-year history of California’s two-thirds supermajority voting requirement for the passage of local special taxes.
On February 8, Carley Roberts presents “Debt-Related Considerations Arising from the Federal Tax Cuts and Jobs Act” at the 2019 National Multistate Tax Symposium.
On February 8, Jeffrey Vesely presents “Income Tax – TCJA and Other SALT Matters” during Tax Executives Institute’s New England Chapter Meeting.
On January 29, Carley Roberts presents “Federal-State Tax Conformity after the TCJA” during Tax Policy Center’s How Are States Responding to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act? Conference.
(This article was originally published by Law360 on January 15, 2019.)
The growing tension between government promises of transparency and taxpayers’ right to confidentiality is likely to continue in 2019. Although the spirit of government transparency to enhance public access is well-meaning, this lofty goal often conflicts with taxpayer confidentiality and the associated expectation of privacy. Striking the appropriate balance between these two often conflicting positions can prove difficult, as highlighted by two recent developments, namely, the Pennsylvania Board of Finance and Revenue’s push to record and publish hearings on its website and the California Office of Tax Appeals’ attempts to address concerns regarding closed hearings and sealed records.
