The California Office of Tax Appeals (OTA) held a California resident was not entitled to claim an other state tax credit (OSTC) for taxes paid to Massachusetts because gain from the sale of an LLC membership interest was wholly sourced to the taxpayer’s domicile under California law. Continue Reading ›
(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.
In “California Office of Tax Appeals Rejects Franchise Tax Board’s Broad Interpretation of California’s “Doing Business” Standard,” the SALT team examines the board’s rejection of the California Franchise Tax Board’s (FTB) extremely narrow interpretation and application of Swart Enterprises, Inc. v. Franchise Tax Board, involving California’s “doing business” standard.
(This article originally was published by Law360 on October 7, 2017.)
On Sept. 16, 2017, California Governor Jerry Brown signed Assembly Bill (A.B.) 131 into law,[1] which takes effect immediately and makes various changes to the Taxpayer Transparency and Fairness Act of 2017 enacted on June 27, 2017.[2] The Act overhauled the California State Board of Equalization (BOE) and created two new tax agencies.
SeeSALT Blog