Under a new bill signed into law on March 11, 2024, the South Carolina Department of Revenue will have to satisfy additional standards before it may force affiliated corporate taxpayers to file a unitary combined return. These new standards, enacted as part of Senate Bill 298, are expected to rein in the Department’s aggressive use of forced combination, which has led to considerable tax controversy in the state.
The California Office of Tax Appeals (OTA), in a decision marked “not precedential” in the Matter of the Appeal of Microsoft Corporation & Subsidiaries, held 100 percent of repatriated dividends under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) must be included in the taxpayer’s sales factor denominator.
SALT partners Zachary Atkins and Evan Hamme will speak at COST’s upcoming Spring Conference.
The California Franchise Tax Board (FTB), California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA) and California Employment Development Department (EDD) announced tax relief for certain California counties affected by severe winter storms.
The Supreme Court of Ohio has held the Ohio legislature did not violate the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution by directing an Ohio citizen to pay taxes to the municipality where the employee’s principal place of work was located rather than to where the employee actually worked.
SALT attorney Aruna Chittiappa will speak at TEI’s 2024 Midyear Conference on March 19.
SALT partner Evan Hamme will speak at PLI’s Hot Topics in State and Local Tax 2024.
SALT partner Carley Roberts will moderate a panel at this year’s ABA-IPT Advanced Sales and Use Tax Seminar.
A California trial court denied the Franchise Tax Board’s (FTB) motion to vacate and modify the judgment declaring FTB Technical Advice Memorandum (TAM) 2022-01 and FTB Publication 1050 invalid underground regulations adopted in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act.
The New York State Tax Appeals Tribunal (Tribunal) held that a taxpayer’s distributive share income from a partnership was intangible income properly sourced to the taxpayer’s residence and not to the location of the partnership’s underlying operations. In the Matter of Greenberg, the taxpayer was a New York resident partner in a partnership operating an investment fund from Connecticut. The taxpayer sought to credit her tax paid to Connecticut against her 2014 and 2015 New York State personal income tax liability. On audit, the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance (Department) disallowed the credit, asserting that a partner’s “carried interest” income (i.e., a partner’s compensation based on the performance of the fund’s investments) is sourced as intangible income to the taxpayer’s residence. The Department thus asserted that the taxpayer was not eligible for the credit because the income was sourced to the taxpayer’s New York residence and not to Connecticut where the partnership operated.
