Posted
by and

(This article was originally published by Law360 on August 24, 2018.)

California is the latest to join a growing list of states to ban local taxes targeted at sweetened beverages or similar sugar taxes. California Assembly Bill 1838 signed into law on June 28, 2018, imposes a 13-year ban on any new local taxes on carbonated and noncarbonated beverages and other “groceries.”1 Arizona and Michigan have done the same and three more states, Oregon, Pennsylvania and Washington are considering similar bans. The public policy debates behind these recent legislative enactments are no different than the all too familiar “sin taxes” that harken of decades, if not centuries past.

Aside from the inherent differences between sugary groceries and the likes of tobacco, alcohol or gambling, sweetened beverage taxes imposed at local levels pose serious compliance issues for distributors and retailers. The recent popularity of these taxes at the local level not only has the beverage and retail industry fired up over the compliance issues, but citizens are beginning to recognize the paternalistic nature of these taxes and their regressive effects on the communities.

Continue Reading ›

Posted
by

On July 31, Breann Robowski presents “Life in the Fast Lane … New Rules of the Road for Internet Regulation: How Do Changes in Net Neutrality Impact Property Taxes?” during the Center for Management Development’s 48th Annual Taxation Conference Appraisal for Ad Valorem Taxation Conference 2018.

Posted
by

(This article was originally published by Bloomberg’s Daily Tax Report: State.)

Recent developments in several key states, including Illinois, New York, Minnesota, and Oregon, will impact many captive insurance companies. These states are moving to include certain captives in corporate income tax combined returns with parents and affiliates. The effect of combination is to tax the captives’ investment income and to disallow the deductions for premiums paid to the captives. New York and Minnesota are also using the federal definitions of “insurance” to determine whether captive insurance companies are combinable and subject to corporate income tax.

Continue Reading ›

Posted
by

TAKEAWAYS

The Supreme Court in South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc. overruled the “physical presence” requirement as “unsound and incorrect” and ruled that “substantial nexus” is satisfied when an out-of-state seller has sufficient “economic and virtual contacts” with the state. The prior Supreme Court precedent in National Bellas Hess, Inc. v. Department of Revenue of Illinois and Quill Corp. v. North Dakota required out-of-state sellers to collect and remit sales/use tax on retail sales of certain tangible personal property and services only if the seller had “physical presence” with the state.

Continue Reading ›

Posted
by and

(This article was originally published by Law360.)

California’s A.B. 2731 seeks to accomplish what the federal Tax Cuts and Jobs Act did not, namely, to close the carried interest “loophole.” Currently making its way through state assembly committees, AB 2731 would impose an additional 17 percent tax on interest income derived from investment management services on taxpayers subject to California’s personal income tax law.

Continue Reading ›

Posted
by

On April 13, Pillsbury senior counsel Richard Nielsen presents “Sales Taxation of Digital Commerce in the United States” during the the “Digital Economy in the Crosshairs” panel session at the American Bar Association’s 18th Annual Tax Planning Strategies U.S. and Europe Conference.

Posted
by , and

(Note this originally appeared in March 26, 2018, edition of State Tax Notes)

Nearly every state that imposes a corporate income tax includes a sales factor in its apportionment formula. Generally, the sales factor in computed by comparing a taxpayer’s “in-state” sales to its total sales. Determining in-state sales of tangible personal property is a straightforward concept—good shipped to a customer’s location are included as in-state sales only in the state of the customer’s location. It is more complicated to determine an in-state sale regarding the provision of multistate services or licenses of intangibles. Historically, states looked to a taxpayer’s costs of performing the service of licensing the intangible. Some states have become critical of this cost-of-performance method and replaced it with a market-based method of computing in-state sales.

Continue Reading ›