In a recently issued guidance, the Massachusetts Department of Revenue indicated that the emergency telecommuting rules it put in place during the Massachusetts COVID-19 state of emergency would cease to be in effect as of September 13, 2021. Under the telecommuting rules, which were effective beginning March 10, 2020, wages paid to a non-resident employee who worked remotely (i.e., working from home or a location other than their usual work location) because of the COVID-19 pandemic were sourced based on where the employee worked prior to the state of emergency. Effective September 13, 2021, wages will generally be sourced based on where the employee’s work is actually performed.
Illinois Enacts Pass-Through Entity Tax to Help Partners and S Corporation Shareholders Avoid the $10,000 SALT Cap
Illinois enacted a pass-through entity tax (PTE Tax) that may be elected by partnerships and S corporations to permit a federal deduction of state income taxes that otherwise are limited to $10,000 per year from 2018 to 2025 by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (TCJA). State income taxes paid by individuals, whether attributable to pass-through entity income or other income, are subject to the TCJA’s $10,000 “SALT Cap.”
In Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Notice 2020-75, the IRS announced its approval of the federal deduction of state PTE Taxes paid by the entity in circumstances where the partner or shareholder receives a state tax credit, and the PTE Tax essentially is paid in lieu of the state income tax otherwise imposed upon the partner or S corporation shareholder.
The new Illinois PTE Tax was signed into law by Governor JB Pritzker on August 27, 2021 (Public Act 102-658) and applies to taxable years ending on or after December 31, 2021, and prior to January 1, 2026. Eighteen other states have also enacted PTE Taxes and 14 of those (including Illinois) are effective for 2021.
TAX AT ENTITY LEVEL
The Illinois PTE Tax is imposed on electing partnerships and S corporations at a rate of 4.95%, the flat income tax rate applicable to individuals. The tax is imposed upon the Illinois net income of the partnership or S corporation, which is equal to Illinois base income after apportionment or allocation. As discussed below, partners and S corporation shareholders may claim a refundable Illinois credit equal to their distributive share of the Illinois PTE Tax paid by the partnership or S corporation. Illinois base income of a partnership or S corporation for purposes of the PTE Tax is computed without deduction of Illinois net loss carryovers or the standard exemption. It’s also computed after addback of the partnership subtraction modification for reasonable compensation of partners (including guaranteed payments to partners) and the subtraction modification for income allocable to partners or shareholders subject to the Illinois “replacement tax.” The PTE Tax does not affect the replacement tax computation.
The Illinois PTE Tax is paid by the partnership or S corporation on all of its Illinois net income after apportionment or allocation. As a result, any tax exempt owner of a partnership or S corporation may be required to file Illinois refund claims in order to recoup PTE Taxes paid at the entity level (including as estimated payments). In some cases, this may be avoided by forming an upper-tier partnership for partners that are not tax exempt. Other states have avoided this problem by permitting the PTE Tax to be elected on a partner-by-partner basis rather than for the entity as a whole (e.g., California) or by imposing the PTE Tax only upon income that is allocable to partners subject to the state’s personal income tax (e.g., New York State).
In the case of tiered partnerships, if a lower-tier partnership makes the PTE Tax election, the upper-tier [...]
Texas Comptroller Announces Medical or Dental Billing Services are Not Taxable, Effective Immediately
On June 4, 2021, the Texas Comptroller issued a policy statement (Accession No. 202106003L) announcing that it is not going to enforce its previously stated policy of taxing medical billing services. This guidance comes in response to a sales and use tax bill that was signed into law April 30, 2021, which excluded “medical or dental billing services” performed prior to the original submission of a medical or dental insurance claim from insurance services. The Comptroller states that it will immediately treat medical or dental billing services as excluded from the definition of insurance services even though the bill is not effective until January 1, 2022. It remains to be seen if the Comptroller’s interpretation of medical billing services, which has been defined through decades of policy and guidance, is aligned with the legislature’s view of “medical or dental billing services.” Some commentators have suggested there may be points of divergence that will need to be worked out over time. For additional information on this topic, please see our prior blog post.
Last week, the Lancaster County District Court granted the state’s motion to dismiss in COST v. Nebraska Department of Revenue. COST brought this declaratory judgment action to invalidate GIL 24-19-1, in which the department determined that earnings deemed repatriated under IRC § 965 are not eligible for the state’s dividends-received deduction and are thus subject to Nebraska corporate income tax. COST has until July 19, 2021, to appeal the judge’s decision.
The state’s motion was brought on procedural grounds, one of which was that the GIL is a guidance document and not a “rule” such that a declaratory judgment was not permitted under Nebraska law. COST argued that although the GIL is labeled a guidance document, it is in substance a rule because it establishes a legal standard and explicitly penalizes taxpayers that do not comply. The district court determined that the GIL is not a rule and granted the state’s motion. The district court did not address the substantive issue of whether 965 income is eligible for the dividends received deduction.
While on its face this decision may seem to be a taxpayer loss, the language of the judge’s order suggests otherwise. In finding that the GIL is not a “rule,” the judge determined that the GIL was a mere interpretation of the law that was not binding on the taxpayer and not entitled to any deference by the Nebraska courts. This strengthens an already strong taxpayer case on the merits.
The department’s position that 965 income is not eligible for the dividends-received deduction is inconsistent with the legislative history of the deduction and the nature of 965 income. The fact that a judge stated that this position is now afforded no deference only makes the taxpayer case stronger.
As a practical matter, taxpayers that have appealed assessments on 965 income should consider including the deference argument in their appeals, and taxpayers that have followed the GIL and paid tax on 965 income may consider filing refund claims. The substance of this issue will be litigated one way or another, and the district court’s finding that the GIL is not afforded deference can only help the taxpayer case.
On May 21, 2021, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court issued a decision affirming the Massachusetts Tax Appeal Board’s decision in favor of Microsoft and Oracle, ruling that the companies may apportion sales tax to other states on software purchased by a Massachusetts company from which the software was accessed and seek a tax refund.
The case involved a claim by vendors for abatement of sales tax collected on software delivered to a location in Massachusetts but accessible from multiple states. The Massachusetts Department of Revenue (DOR) claimed that the statute gave it the sole right to decide whether the sales price of the software could be apportioned and, if so, the methods the buyer and seller had to use to claim apportionment. Under rules promulgated by the DOR, there are three methods to choose from, such as the purchaser giving the seller an exemption certificate claiming the software would be used in multiple states, none of which the purchaser used. The DOR argued that if a taxpayer did not use one of the methods specified in the rule, no apportionment was permitted. The vendors sought abatement of the tax on the portion of the sales price that could have been apportioned to other states had one of the methods specified under the rule been used. The DOR claimed the abatement procedure was not a permissible method of claiming apportionment.
The court held: (1) the statute gave the purchaser the right of apportionment and it was not up to the DOR to decide whether apportionment was permitted; (2) the abatement procedure is an available method for claiming the apportionment; and (3) the taxpayer was not limited to the procedures specified in the rule for claiming sales price apportionment.
The court’s decision was based in part on separation of powers: “Under the commissioner’s reading of [the statute], the Legislature has delegated to the commissioner the ultimate authority to decide whether to allow apportionment of sales tax on software sold in the Commonwealth and transferred for use outside the Commonwealth.” The court found such a determination represented “a fundamental policy decision that cannot be delegated.”
The Massachusetts rules reviewed by the court have their genesis in amendments to the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement (SSUTA) (that never became effective) providing special sourcing rules for, among other things, computer software concurrently available for use in more than one location. Even though Massachusetts is not a member of the SSUTA, officials from the DOR participate in the Streamlined process and apparently brought those amendments home with them and had them promulgated into the Commonwealth’s sales tax rules.
Practice Notes: This case addresses one of the issues with taxing business models in the digital space. This important decision makes clear, at least in Massachusetts, that taxpayers have post-sale opportunities to reduce sales tax liability on sales/purchases of software accessible from other states where tax on the full sales price initially was collected and remitted by the seller.
Taxpayers may have refund opportunities related to this [...]