The Illinois General Assembly enacted a number of new tax measures in a flurry of activity at the end of its legislative session. Some of the changes are taxpayer friendly and others are not. Unlike the no-deal chaos of past years, all of the measures have been or are expected to be signed by the state’s new Democratic governor, J.B. Pritzker.

This blog post summarizes the income-tax and franchise tax-related changes approved by the General Assembly. Subsequent posts will address sales/use, property and other tax changes. Continue Reading Illinois Fiscal Year 2020 Income and Franchise Tax Changes

Legislators in Frankfort added a new “video streaming service” tax to the omnibus tax bill (HB 354) as part of a closed-door conference committee process before the bill was hastily passed in the House and Senate. Notably, the new video streaming service tax was not previously raised or discussed as part of HB 354 (or any other Kentucky legislation) before it was included in the final conference committee report that passed the General Assembly in March.

Specifically, as passed by the General Assembly, HB 354 will add “video streaming services” to the definition of “multichannel video programming service” subject to the telecom excise tax.  This is the same tax imposition that the Department of Revenue argued applied to video streaming services in the Netflix litigation—an argument that was rejected by the courts in Kentucky and then subsequently settled on appeal. Under existing law, Kentucky taxes “digital property” under the sales and use tax. The term is broadly defined and applies to audio streaming services, but expressly carves out “digital audio-visual works” (i.e., downloaded movies, TV shows and video; defined consistently with the SSUTA) from the scope of the sales and use tax imposition. HB 354 would not modify the treatment of digital goods and services under the sales and use tax, and changes that would be implemented are limited to the telecom excise tax imposed on the retail purchase of a multichannel video programming service. Continue Reading Kentucky to Begin Taxing Video Streaming Services under Telecom Tax

On May 8, Governor Bill Lee (R) signed SB 558, which provides for the exclusion of 95% of Global Intangible Low-Taxed Income (GILTI) and foreign earnings deemed repatriated under IRC section 965 (965 Income) from the tax base for tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2018. By enacting this bill, Tennessee joins about 20 other states that explicitly exclude at least 95% of GILTI from the tax base and joins about 25 other states that explicitly exclude at least 95% of 965 Income from the tax base.

Despite this win for taxpayers, many may be wondering, “what about 965 Income included in 2017?” With respect to 2017, the Tennessee Department of Revenue issued guidance providing that 965 Income should not be included in the Tennessee tax base because such income was not reported on Line 28 of the Federal 1120 (the federal form changed for 2018 and 965 Income is included on Line 28 of the 2018 Form 1120). We understand that SB 558 has not impacted the department’s guidance in any way and that it remains the department’s position that 100% of 965 Income should be excluded from the tax base for 2017.

SB 558 does not address whether or how the 5% of GILTI and 965 Income that is taxed will be represented in the apportionment formula. Some states that have opted to tax 5% of GILTI and 965 Income consider the taxed amount to be a disallowed expense related to the GILTI and 965 Income that is excluded from the base. Tennessee does not frame its 5% tax as an expense disallowance so such taxed amounts should be represented in the apportionment formula. However, at least for now, there is no guidance from the legislature or Department of Revenue on this issue.

Judicial deference to state tax agencies puts taxpayers at a steep disadvantage and wastes time and resources on costly tax disputes. A united advocacy effort can help promote passage of state-level legislation that takes the tax administrator’s thumb off the scales of justice in administrative and judicial review of tax determinations.

Access the full article.

Learn more here about the Deference Coalition and how McDermott can help.

California legislators have recently introduced a bill, AB 1270, that would amend the False Claims Act (Act) to strike the tax bar. As introduced, the bill would amend the existing false claims statute in the state of California to expressly authorize tax-related false claims actions against a person whose reported taxable income, net income, or sales totaled $500,000 or more in to which the claim pertained, and the damages pleaded in the action total $200,000 or more. Also, “[t]he bill would authorize the Attorney General or the prosecuting authority, but not the qui tam plaintiff, to obtain otherwise confidential records relating to taxes, fees, or other obligations under the Revenue and Taxation Code. The bill would prohibit the disclosure of federal tax information to the Attorney General or the prosecuting authority without authorization from the Internal Revenue Service.”

Under current California law, those making false or fraudulent claims to state or local governments can be liable to the state or locality for treble damages, including consequential damages, attorneys’ fees and a civil penalty of between $5,500 and $11,000 for each violation. The False Claims Act does not apply to claims made under the Revenue and Taxation Code.

In addition to repealing the exception for false claims made under the Revenue and Taxation code, the bill would expand the definition of “prosecuting authority” to include “counsel retained by a political subdivision to act on its behalf.” This opens a wide door to the use of contingent fee “bounty hunters” by localities for the prosecution of false tax claims.  The bill makes no provision for review of the allegedly false tax claims by any of the governmental agencies charged with interpretation of the Revenue and Tax Code, such as the Franchise Tax Board or the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration.

As we have seen in jurisdictions like New York and Illinois, opening the door to tax-related false claims can lead to significant headaches for taxpayers and usurp the authority of the state tax agency by involving profit-motivated private parties and the state Attorney General in tax enforcement decisions. Allowing private parties to intervene in the administration, interpretation or enforcement of the tax law commandeers the authority of the tax agency, compounded by the use by local governments of contingent-fee outside attorneys, creates uncertainty and can result in inequitable tax treatment. While many other problems exist with application of false claims to tax matters, those issues are beyond the scope of this blog.

A bill (AB 447) was introduced on March 25th in the Nevada Assembly that would create a broad new excise tax on the retail sale of “specified digital products” to Nevada customers. Instead of expanding the scope of Nevada’s sales and use tax, the bill would enact an entirely new chapter of the Revenue and Taxation Title imposing this new excise tax. Currently, sales of digital products, including electronic transfers of computer software, are not subject to the sales and use tax. Thus, the new proposal represents a major policy departure from the status quo. The introduced bill also would create inconsistencies with the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement (SSUTA)—to which Nevada is a member state—and contains many potential violations of federal law under the Permanent Internet Tax Freedom Act (PITFA) that do not appear to have been carefully considered.

Broad New Tax

Specifically, the bill would impose the new excise tax “upon the retail sale of specified digital products to an end user in this State . . . [and] applies whether the purchaser obtains permanent use or less than permanent use of the specified digital product, whether the sale is conditioned or not conditioned upon continued payment from the purchaser and whether the sale is on a subscription basis or is not on a subscription basis.” Based on this broad imposition, subscription-based services and leases or rentals of “specified digital products” would be covered by the new tax. “Specified digital products” is defined as “electronically transferred: (a) Digital audio works; (b) Digital audio-visual works; (c) Digital books; (d) Digital code; and (e) Other digital products.” Except for “other digital products,” these terms are defined consistently with the definitions in the SSUTA (of which Nevada is a member). The bill defines the term “other digital products” as “greeting cards, images, video or electronic games or entertainment, news or information products and computer software applications.” Continue Reading Nevada Bill Proposes Broad New Excise Tax on Sales of Digital Goods and Services

The District of Columbia (DC) Office of Tax & Revenue (OTR) implemented sweeping changes to the Qualified High Technology Company (QHTC) certification process this year. As you may remember, beginning last year, OTR implemented a new online QHTC self-certification process for companies to obtain exempt purchase certificates. This year, OTR is expanding the scope of this online self-certification requirement to all QHTC benefits—including exempt sales as a QHTC and other non-sales tax benefits available to a QHTC (summarized here). This change was accomplished through amendments to the QHTC certification regulation (DC Mun. Regs. tit. 9, § 1101) that were proposed by OTR in November 2018 and became final on January 4, 2019. The changes apply to all tax returns due on or after January 1, 2019.

So What Changed?

Historically, the relevant OTR regulation provided that to claim a credit or other benefit, a QHTC was required to attach a form prescribed by OTR (i.e., Form QHTC-CERT) to each applicable tax return or claim for refund. See DC Mun. Regs. tit. 9, § 1101 (prior to Jan. 4, 2019). Effective January 4, 2019 with the finalization of the amended regulation, this procedure now requires every QHTC to submit a Self-Certification request online via MyTax.DC.gov on an annual basis and obtain a “certificate of benefits” letter from OTR each year. No tax exemptions or benefits will be allowed without a valid certificate of benefits letter that is obtained prior to or concurrently with the filing of a return on which the benefits are claimed. Thus, to claim QHTC benefits on a monthly sales tax return for January 2019, the certificate of benefits will need to be requested from OTR for review/processing prior to the upcoming mid-February return deadline. Unlike the procedure in the past, the certificate of benefits letter obtained online will be deemed to attach to any tax return due and filed during the period for which the certificate is valid and unexpired. The certificate of benefits is expected to be valid for one (1) calendar year from the date it is issued/approved by OTR. Unlike prior years, the new regulation requires all benefits applications filed by a QHTC to include all of the following information:

  1. Taxpayer ID Number
  2. Name
  3. Address
  4. Sales Tax Account Number
  5. NAICS Code
  6. Information demonstrating QHTC eligibility (including attaching proof of DC office location, such as a current lease agreement)
  7. First year certified as QHTC
  8. Explanation of principal business activity
  9. Amount of QHTC Exempt Sales/Purchases from the prior year (broken down by period)
  10. Number of QHTC employees hired
  11. Number of QHTC employees hired who are District residents
  12. Schedules detailing QHTC employee credits
  13. Number of QHTC jobs created in the past year
  14. Gross revenue
  15. Gross revenue earned from QHTC activities in the District

Practice Note: Companies that have historically claimed one or more of the tax benefits available to QHTCs and wish to continue to do so in 2019 need to carefully review the amended regulation and OTR guidance to ensure the new certification process (including providing a laundry list of data not required historically) is understood and submitted in a timely manner. Those with questions about the new QHTC certification process or timing are encouraged to contact the authors.

We greatly appreciate our readers over the past year and are pleased to share that we were recently recognized by Law360 as the Tax Group of the Year.

In 2018, McDermott’s tax practice made headlines with its various high-profile state and local, US federal and international matters. Through our blogs, thought leadership pieces and tax-focused events, we are dedicated to maintaining our position as a leading firm for tax work and keeping clients abreast of significant and relevant topics in the industry.

If the Delaware Office of Unclaimed Property believes that a person may have filed an “inaccurate, incomplete, or false report,” the State Escheator may authorize a “compliance review” under Del. Code Ann. tit. 12, § 1170(b). This is not a standard audit and as a result, the target is not entitled to the option of entering the state’s voluntary disclosure program rather than being subject to the audit. Nevertheless, the compliance review can result in a finding of liability.

Correspondence between the Unclaimed Property Professionals Organization and the Delaware State Escheator’s Office acknowledges that several holders have been selected for this review. According to the Escheator’s Office, if a holder has no report or a negative report, the state will typically request a copy of the holder’s unclaimed property policies and procedures that would support the lack of property due to the state. By statute, the state may review the filed reports and “all supporting documents related to such reports.” The scope of the concept of “supporting documents” is not clear.

Practice Note: Companies, particularly those domiciled in Delaware, not filing Delaware unclaimed property reports or filing reports showing no liability, should review their policies and procedures related to unclaimed property, including how voided checks and unidentified remittances are handled. Furthermore, recent audits have included an expanded Automated Clearing House (ACH) payment review request, so a company should also review its treatment of failed ACH payments. Such a review should take place in an environment that will protect the attorney-client privilege – so, including internal counsel and/or external counsel is critical. Such an internal review should: (a) verify that the holder is in compliance with its policies and procedures; and (b) provide any necessary policy or operational changes. Conducting such a review and maintaining attorney-client privilege for appropriate elements of the review is especially important given recent false claims act developments in the unclaimed property space.

On December 19, 2018, the US District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled in favor of McDermott’s client, the Healthcare Distribution Alliance (HDA), the trade association for pharmaceutical distributors. In Healthcare Distribution Alliance v. Zucker, the court granted summary judgment and enjoined enforcement of the New York Opioid Stewardship Act, which imposed a $600 million surcharge on manufacturers and distributors of opioid pharmaceutical products. The first $100 million installment was due on January 1, 2019. Continue Reading Court Strikes Down New York Opioid Surcharge on Manufacturers and Distributers