On March 3, 2015, the United States Supreme Court overturned the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision in Direct Marketing Association v. Brohl. The Supreme Court held that the Tax Injunction Act (TIA), which bars federal courts from restraining the assessment, levy, or collection of state taxes, did not divest the federal district court of jurisdiction to decide whether Colorado’s use tax reporting provisions violate the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution.
New York’s corporate tax reform includes sweeping changes affecting nearly every aspect of its corporation franchise tax. Although some taxpayers won’t feel the brunt of the changes until filing their 2015 tax returns in 2016, there are six decisions that should be made now. This article does not address imminent decisions required for New York City, because the city’s tax reform has not been finalized. However, the decisions discussed here will likely be required for the city, particularly if its tax reform is retroactively effective on January 1, 2015.
The remainder of this article can be accessed in the February 9, 2015 edition of State Tax Notes.
On December 5, 2014, the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance issued TSB-M-14(5)C, (7)I, (17)S, explaining its policy regarding convertible virtual currency.
In 926 North Ardmore Avenue, LLC v. County of Los Angeles, the 2nd District Court of Appeal held that Proposition 13 changes in ownership prompted by transfers of legal entity interests should also be characterized as “realty sold,” resulting in the imposition of realty transfer taxes under the California Documentary Transfer Tax Act in cases even where no real property interests are transferred at all.
As part of a sweeping law change, New York will require taxpayers to use a water’s-edge combined reporting method when filing corporate income tax returns beginning January 1, 2015.
On July 1, 2014, the United States Supreme Court agreed to review the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Direct Marketing Association v. Brohl.1 The Court of Appeals held that federal courts lack jurisdiction under the Tax Injunction Act (TIA) to address Direct Marketing Association’s (DMA) challenge to Colorado’s use tax notice and reporting provisions.
On June 3, 2014, in a published decision, the California Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District affirmed the Superior Court ruling in Ocean Avenue LLC v. County of Los Angeles, holding that even though 100 percent of an entity was sold, a reassessable change in ownership of the entity’s real property did not occur because no one person obtained more than 50 percent of the entity. Assembly Bill 2372 would change that result by requiring reassessment of an entity’s realty if 90 percent or more of its ownership interests were sold within a three year period, even if no one owner acquired more than 50 percent.
A New York state corporate franchise tax audit is almost as frustrating as participating in a coin toss with a one-sided coin. It seems like taxpayers cannot win. New York state auditors forcibly combine taxpayers that have filed separate returns and decombine taxpayers that have filed combined returns. Auditors also seem to use the commissioner’s discretionary authority to adjust a taxpayer’s income or expense arbitrarily, in place of a combination adjustment, when it leads to greater tax liability. In this A Pinch of SALT, we assert that the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance applies to its combined reporting and discretionary authority provisions arbitrarily to maximize its tax assessments.
The remainder of this article can be accessed in the May 19, 2014 edition of State Tax Notes.
The amount of non-taxable embedded software being taxed in California is a staggering number. While companies own assets with millions of dollars of embedded software, few companies are maximizing their property tax savings through the embedded software exemption. The good news is that it is not too late to dig in and maximize your potential tax savings. Most businesses have until May 7, 20141 to file their annual Business Property Tax Statements (Form 571-L) with California counties.
Taxpayers involved in state tax controversy matters often request information and documentation from state tax authorities to analyze audit adjustments. Some of those requests are thwarted by state tax authorities’ assertions of the deliberative process privilege to prevent the disclosure of information or documentation that may compromise the state tax authorities’ legal position.
The remainder of this article can be accessed in the December 10, 2012 edition of State Tax Notes.
