INSIDE SALT

A second chance to get it right: Washington’s ESSB 5814 penalty relief program offers critical compliance window

by Mary Kay McCalla Martire and Elle Kaiser | Mar 20, 2026 | Interest and Penalties, Nationwide Importance, Sales Tax, Washington

If your business has been struggling to keep pace with Washington State’s sweeping expansion of retail sales tax under Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill (ESSB) 5814, you are not alone. And, more importantly, you may not be too late. The Washington Department of Revenue (DOR) announced a temporary penalty relief program specifically designed to help businesses that have not yet complied with their new tax obligations. For affected taxpayers, this program represents an opportunity to resolve outstanding liabilities without penalty exposure.

Background: ESSB 5814 and the expansion of taxable services

ESSB 5814 represents a significant expansion of Washington’s retail sales tax regime. The legislation expanded the statutory definition of “retail sale” to encompass several service transactions that were subject only to Washington’s business and occupation (B&O) tax under the “service and other” classification.

The categories of services newly subject to retail sales tax include:

Advertising services
Information technology consulting and technical support services
Custom software development and customization of prewritten software
Custom website development services
Investigation and security services, including monitoring and armored car services
Temporary staffing services
Certain live presentations and event-related services

As a result of the legislative change, providers of these services must now:

Collect and remit retail sales tax on taxable transactions.
Report the receipts under the retailing B&O tax classification rather than the service and other classification that historically applied. This change generally will help compliant taxpayers as the retailing B&O tax rate (0.471%) is lower than the services and other B&O tax rate (between 1.5% and 1.75%).

The law took effect October 1, 2025, but transitional rules applied to certain preexisting contracts through March 31, 2026. Given the quick implementation of ESSB 5814, the breadth of the change, and the number of industries affected, many taxpayers faced uncertainty regarding compliance. To address these transition challenges, the DOR has announced a temporary penalty relief program for taxpayers that failed to collect or remit the newly applicable taxes during the early stages of implementation. The program is also intended to encourage voluntary compliance with the new law.

Overview of the penalty relief program

To be eligible for relief, businesses must meet the following criteria:

Covered liabilities: The program covers uncollected retail sales tax and unpaid use tax for the new categories of taxable services created by ESSB 5814.
Covered reporting periods: Eligible reporting periods run from October 1, 2025, through December 31, 2026. For businesses with preexisting contracts that qualified for temporary sales tax relief, penalty relief begins when the contract no longer qualifies for such relief or on April 1, 2026 (whichever occurs first). Relief for businesses with preexisting contracts also ends on December 31, 2026.
Application process: Applications must be submitted via the DOR’s Voluntary Disclosure Application system. Once the DOR determines that a taxpayer qualifies, it will issue a Penalty Relief Agreement that the taxpayer must sign and return within 30 days. After execution, the DOR will work with the taxpayer to determine the appropriate tax liability and issue a formal assessment. (Note that Washington law requires [...]

Continue Reading

Congress passes resolution blocking District of Columbia decoupling legislation

by Stephen P. Kranz, Michael J. Hilkin and Eric D. Carstens | Feb 13, 2026 | District of Columbia, Federal Tax, Income Tax, Nationwide Importance

US Congress has passed H.J.Res.142, a joint resolution to nullify legislation enacted by the District of Columbia City Council to decouple from certain One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) provisions, including:

Modifications of the limit on interest that businesses may expense under Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 163(j).
The allowance of first-year expensing for new investments in qualified production property as provided for in new IRC Section 168(n).
Modifications to the treatment of research and experimentation expenses under IRC Section 174 and new Section 174A.

The US Constitution provides Congress with plenary legislative authority over the District of Columbia as the federal capital, but Congress has granted limited home rule authority while “reserving the right, at any time, to exercise its constitutional authority as legislature for the district.” Generally, for noncriminal legislation, Congress has 30 business days to pass a resolution nullifying a bill passed by the District of Columbia local government. In practice, Congress has rarely exercised such authority. In fact, it is so rare that Eleanor Holmes Norton, the spokesperson for District Delegate to Congress, has claimed that there is a dispute as to whether the 30-day review period has already expired.

Presuming the joint resolution is valid, District of Columbia officials have warned it will cost approximately $650 million over five years and could force the suspension of income tax filing deadlines to this fall because of necessary changes to tax forms, the District of Columbia’s tax processing system, and third-party tax processing software. Nevertheless, such action is consistent with the Trump administration’s public complaints about states failing to conform to the OBBBA.

Diann Smith honored with prestigious NYU Paul H. Frankel achievement award

by Stephen P. Kranz and Catherine A. Battin | Dec 10, 2025 | Nationwide Importance

We are thrilled to share that Diann Smith has been selected to receive the NYU School of Professional Studies Paul H. Frankel Award for Outstanding Achievement in State and Local Taxation. Established in 2002 to honor Paul H. Frankel – widely regarded as “the godfather of state and local taxation” – this award is presented annually to individuals who have made exceptional and lasting contributions to the state and local tax (SALT) profession.

Diann received the award on December 8, 2025, during the NYU SPS Institute on State and Local Taxation Conference. She is the second McDermott Will & Schulte lawyer to receive the award, following retired New York partner, Peter Faber (2014). With the award, Diann joins a short list of 23 distinguished individuals who have made a permanent mark on the SALT landscape.

Diann’s career accomplishments in SALT and unclaimed property law are widely recognized as having solved some of the most difficult client-facing problems and for advancing the law on the tax policy front. She has spent her career defending against unconstitutional action by governments and advocating for fair and reliable administration of the laws. She is known for her emphatic and informed defense of taxpayers and her appetite to educate and mentor tax practitioners. She previously served as general counsel for the Council On State Taxation, where she played a pivotal role in addressing nearly every major SALT issue impacting multistate businesses. She was also an adjunct professor at Georgetown University Law Center for the LLM in Taxation program and has contributed extensively to the profession through regular publications and by speaking at schools and conferences.

Diann’s role at McDermott Will & Schulte has been called “our big brain” by Partner Stephen Kranz. He describes her as the firm’s secret artificial intelligence model: “You can feed Diann a question about anything SALT and watch as her mind churns out an incredible analysis reflecting the nation’s SALT history and state of the law.” She is based in the firm’s Washington, DC, office but spent nearly a decade in New York City. She loves SALT almost as much as she loves her cats.

Please join us in congratulating Diann on this outstanding achievement!

Biting the hand that feeds? California faces new proposed wealth tax

by Charles Moll, III, Troy M. Van Dongen and Elle Kaiser | Nov 7, 2025 | California, Constitutional Issues, Income Tax, Nationwide Importance, Nexus, Tax Base

California’s reputation as a hub for innovation and entrepreneurship may soon collide with an ambitious new tax proposal. Initiative 25-0024, known as the 2026 Billionaire Tax Act, would levy a proposed “one-time” 5% excise tax in tax year 2026 on applicable individuals and trusts with a net worth of $1 billion or more. It would tax all “forms of personal property and wealth, whether tangible or intangible.” The initiative broadly defines an “applicable individual” to include California residents and part-year residents as far back as January 1, 2025, reminiscent of the Eagles anthem “Hotel California”: “You can check out anytime you like, but you can never leave.”

Filed with the California Attorney General’s Office late last month by the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), Initiative 25-0024 is currently undergoing a 30-day public review process. During this time, members of the public can submit comments on the proposed initiative and the SEIU can submit amendments to the initiative that are “reasonably germane to the theme, purpose, or subject of the initiative measure as originally proposed.” Cal. Elections Code § 9002(b). The attorney general also generally has 65 days (here, until December 26, 2025) from the date the proposed initiative was first received to issue a circulating title and summary, which will be the official summary of the proposed initiative measure. Thereafter, proponents have a maximum of 180 days to collect at least 874,641 voter signatures to qualify for the November 2026 ballot. If qualified, Initiative 25-0024 may only require a simple majority vote to pass.

The SEIU has framed Initiative 25-0024 as a cure to the anticipated $30 billion annual state budget shortfall from federal funding cuts to California’s Medicaid program. The SEIU also argues that the proposed tax is “fair” because “billionaires have used state resources to create their enormous wealth and were the largest beneficiaries of the federal legislation that contributed to the current California budget crisis.” Citing research from the Fiscal Policy Institute, which shows that high earners move out of state at lower rates than individuals in other income brackets, even in response to a personal income tax increase, some proponents claim that threats of a mass exodus are just that – idle threats.

But opponents remain skeptical, pointing to the graveyard of billionaire wealth tax proposals – Assembly Bill (AB) 259, AB 2289, AB 310, and AB 2088 – that have been introduced and abandoned by the California legislature in the past five years. Moreover, the history of California is replete with so-called “one-time” or otherwise “temporary” levies that ended up being permanent. It is unclear whether this initiative will help or hurt California in the longer term. Given that the top 1% of taxpayers pay more than 40% of California personal income taxes, if even some of those high-net-worth individuals are incented to leave California, the gap in tax collections could grow even larger, increasing the annual tax burden upon those taxpaying residents who remain in California.

If enacted, Initiative 25-0024 likely will invite constitutional challenges on multiple grounds. [...]

Continue Reading

California SB 711: Closing the conformity gap with the IRC

by Charles Moll, III, Troy M. Van Dongen and Elle Kaiser | Oct 21, 2025 | California, Federal Tax, Franchise Tax, Incentives, Income Tax

After nearly a decade of lagging behind federal tax updates, California has finally hit “refresh.” Signed into law on October 1, 2025, Senate Bill (SB) 711 delivers the most sweeping overhaul of California’s tax conformity rules since 2015.

The legislation advances the state’s conformity to the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) from January 1, 2015, to January 1, 2025, for taxable years beginning on or after that date, thereby bringing California into line with hundreds of federal tax changes made over the past decade. This alignment is designed to simplify compliance and reduce costly inconsistencies between federal and state returns. But conformity also comes with caveats, and taxpayers will need to understand where California continues to chart its own course.

The major changes introduced by SB 711

Updating California’s IRC “conformity date” to January 1, 2025, the bill incorporates several federal amendments enacted during the last decade. For example, one major innovation in SB 711 is the overhaul of California’s research credit. Starting in 2025, taxpayers may use the Alternative Simplified Credit method under IRC § 41(c)(4), which was adjusted with lower state percentages for qualified research expenses (3% and 1.3% instead of 14% and 6%). Other notable modifications include conformity to federal limitations on IRC § 1031 exchanges to real property and the elimination of the deferral for exchanges of certain non-real property.

Of course, many instances of nonconformity to recent federal enactments remain, including:

Corporate alternative minimum tax (CAMT). SB 711 continues to exclude the new federal CAMT, created by the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA), from conformity.
Renewable energy credits. SB 711 does not adopt the clean energy credits added under the IRA.
Net operating loss rules. California continues to diverge from federal carryback and carryforward limits.
IRC 163(j). SB 711 continues nonconformity to interest expense limitations under IRC § 163(j).
One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) (P.L. 119-21). Because SB 711 conforms to the IRC as of January 1, 2025, it does not include changes made under the OBBBA, which was signed by US President Donald Trump earlier this year.

Preparing for the transition

SB 711 applies to both the personal income tax and corporation tax regimes for taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2025. Taxpayers should begin modeling how the new conformity affects their liabilities and planning strategies. Key steps include:

Reviewing federal provisions now incorporated into state law.
Identifying exceptions and modified rules applicable to your business or filing type.
Consulting tax professionals to evaluate the impact on research and development incentives, loss carryovers, and credit eligibility, among others.
Monitoring California Franchise Tax Board guidance as the agency clarifies implementation details over the coming months.

Bottom line

SB 711 represents California’s latest move to more closely synchronize its tax code with the modern federal landscape. The reform promises greater clarity, fewer compliance headaches, and a more innovation-friendly framework. Yet, with selective decoupling and transitional complexities, taxpayers will need to remain vigilant. In short, California may finally be closer to being in sync – but [...]

Continue Reading