Allocation/Apportionment Archives - Page 4 of 9

Allocation/Apportionment

Inside the New York Budget Bill: Guidance Released Regarding Transitional Compliance and Qualified New York Manufacturers

by Emily Townsend | Mar 2, 2015 | Allocation/Apportionment, Income Tax, Interest and Penalties, New York, Tax Base

On March 31, 2014, Governor Andrew Cuomo signed into law a budget bill containing major corporate tax reform. That new law resulted in significant changes for many corporate taxpayers, including a complete repeal of Article 32 and changes to the Article 9-A traditional nexus standards, combined reporting provisions, composition of tax bases and computation of tax, apportionment provisions, net operating loss calculation and certain tax credits. Most of the provisions took effect on January 1, 2015.

Due to the sweeping nature of this corporate tax reform, taxpayers have been awaiting official guidance from the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance on many areas of the reform. On January 26, 2015, the Department started releasing Technical Memoranda on certain aspects of the corporate tax reform.

The first Technical Memoranda, TSB-M-15(2)C, provides guidance on many transitional compliance issues, including, but not limited to, (1) clarifying the filing requirements for Article 32 and Article 9-A taxpayers with fiscal years that span both 2014 and 2015, (2) addressing the inclusion in a combined report of a member with a tax year end that is different from the designated agent, (3) addressing compliance issues involving short periods and corporate dissolutions, (4) clarifying the filing dates and estimated tax payment obligations for 2015 Article 9-A taxpayers.

The second Technical Memoranda, TSB-M-15(3)C, (3)I, addresses the benefits available to qualified New York manufacturers.

Transitional Compliance Issues

Taxpayers and tax return preparers should be particularly careful when preparing 2015 Article 9-A tax returns, as the Department’s guidance on transitional compliance issues indicates that returns submitted on incorrect forms or on prior year forms will not be processed by the Department and will not be considered timely filed, which could result in the imposition of penalties.

Fiscal Years Spanning 2014 and 2015

The Department’s guidance makes it clear that for any 12-month tax year that began before January 1, 2015, taxpayers must complete the relevant 2014 return (e.g., an Article 32 taxpayer must file a 2014 Article 32 franchise tax return and, if applicable, a MTA surcharge return) according to the Tax Law that was in effect before January 1, 2015. Fiscal year taxpayers, both Article 32 and Article 9-A, with a 12-month tax year that began in 2014, but will end in 2015, will not be permitted to file short period returns solely as a result of corporate reform.

Combined Reports that Include Taxpayers with Different Year Ends

For tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2015, a taxpayer is required to file a combined report with other corporations engaged in a unitary business with the taxpayer if a more-than-50-percent common ownership (direct or indirect) test is met, with ownership being measured by voting power of capital stock. Under the Tax Law, a combined report must be filed by the designated agent of the combined group. The “designated agent” must have nexus with New York and is generally the parent corporation of the combined group. If there is no such parent corporation or if the parent [...]

Continue Reading

New Market-Based Sourcing in DC: Major Compliance Date Problem Fixed… For Now

by Diann Smith, Eric D. Carstens and Stephen P. Kranz | Feb 5, 2015 | Allocation/Apportionment, District of Columbia, Income Tax, Massachusetts, Tax Base, UDITPA

The Problem

On September 23, 2014, the District of Columbia Council enacted market-based sourcing provisions for sales of intangibles and services as part of the 2015 Budget Support Act (BSA), as we previously discussed in more detail here. Most notably the BSA adopts a single sales factor formula for the DC franchise tax, which is applicable for tax years beginning after December 31, 2014. But the market-based sourcing provisions in the BSA did not align with the rest of the tax legislation. Specifically, the BSA market-based sourcing provisions were made applicable as of October 1, 2014—creating instant tax implications on 2014 returns. Absent a legislative fix, this seemingly minor discrepancy will trigger a giant compliance burden that will require a part-year calculation for both taxpayers and the Office of Tax and Revenue (OTR) before the 2014 franchise return deadline on March 15. For example, taxpayers filing based on the new BSA provisions, as originally enacted in September, will have to use the cost-of-performance approach for the first nine months of the 2014 tax year and the new market-based sourcing approach for the remaining three.

The Fix

Citing to the unintended compliance burden, the Council recently enacted emergency legislation to temporarily fix the unintended compliance burden. However they have not solved the problem going forward. On December 17, 2014, Finance and Revenue Committee Chairman Jack Evans introduced identical pieces of legislation that included both a temporary and emergency amendment to quickly fix on the problem (both pieces of legislation share the name “The Market-Based Sourcing Inter Alia Clarification Act of 2014”). These legislative amendments explicitly make the applicability of market-based sourcing provisions synonymous with the other provisions of the BSA, beginning for tax years after December 31, 2014. In DC, “emergency” legislation may be enacted without the typical 30-day congressional review period required of all other legislation, but is limited to an effective period of no longer than 90 days. Because the emergency market-based sourcing legislation was signed by Mayor Muriel Bowser on January 13, it will expire on April 13. Important to DC franchise taxpayers, this date is before the September 15 deadline for extended filers.

The second piece of legislation was introduced on a “temporary” basis. Unlike emergency legislation, temporary legislation simply bypasses assignment to a committee but must still undergo a second reading, mayoral review and the 30-day congressional review period. The review period is 30 days that Congress is in session (not 30 calendar days). Because the temporary Act is still awaiting Mayor Bowser’s approval at the moment, which is due by this Friday (February 6), it will not become effective until after the 2014 DC Franchise Tax regular filing deadline of March 15—even if it is approved by the Mayor and not subjected to a joint-resolution by Congress. Neither the House nor Senate is in session the week of February 15, which pushes the 30-day review period to roughly April 1 (assuming it is immediately submitted to Congress). However, once passed, [...]

Continue Reading

Rate Reduction for D.C. QHTC Capital Gains to Begin… in 2019

by Diann Smith, Eric D. Carstens and Stephen P. Kranz | Jan 23, 2015 | Allocation/Apportionment, District of Columbia, Sales Tax

Investors keeping a close eye on pending legislation (the Promoting Economic Growth and Job Creation Through Technology Act of 2014, Bill 20-0945) promoting investments in D.C. Qualified High Technology Companies (QHTC) will be happy to know it passed—but not without a serious caveat. While the bill was originally set to allow investors to cash in their investments after being held continuously for a 24-month period, the enrolled Act (D.C. Act 20-514) was amended to make the rate reduction applicable January 1, 2019 (at the earliest).

Background

In September 2014, the D.C. Council began reviewing a proposal from Mayor Gray that would lower the tax rate to 3 percent for capital gains from the sale or exchange of eligible investments in QHTCs, as previously discussed by the authors here. As introduced, the bill was set to be applicable immediately; however, all that changed when an amendment was made on December 2 that restricts applicability of the Act to the latter of:

January 1, 2019 to the extent it reduces revenues below the financial plan; or
Upon implementation of the provisions in § 47-181(c)(17).

As noted in the engrossed amendment, this was done to “ensure that the tax cuts . . . codified by the 2015 Budget Support Act (BSA) take precedence.” These cuts, previously discussed by the authors here and here, include the implementation of a single sales factor, a reduction in the business franchise tax rate for both incorporated and unincorporated businesses, and switch from cost of performance sourcing to market-based sourcing for sale of intangibles and services.

The Act was quickly passed on December 22 with the amendment language included and a heavy dose of uncertainty regarding when the reduced rate will apply (if at all), since it is tied to the financial plan and BSA. Practically, this leaves potential investors with the green light to begin purchasing interests in QHTCs, since the Act is effective now, yet leaves these same investors with uncertainty about the applicability of the reduced rate.

Practical Questions Unresolved

The enrolled Act retains the same questionable provisions that were originally present upon its introduction, raised by the authors here. Specifically the language provides that the Act applies “notwithstanding any other provision” of the income tax statute and only to “investments in common or preferred stock.” The common or preferred stock provisions appear to arbitrarily exclude investments in pass-through entities, despite the fact that they are classified as QHTCs, disallowing investors that otherwise would be able to take advantage of the rate reduction. In addition, the Act lacks clarity regarding the practical application of basic tax calculations, such as allocation and apportionment. The Act seems to stand for the proposition that the investments should be set apart from the rest of the income of an investor, but to what extent? Absent regulations or guidance from the Office of Tax and Revenue (OTR), taxpayers [...]

Continue Reading

Indiana Department of Revenue Rules Forced Disposition is Nonbusiness Income

by McDermott Will & Emery | Jan 21, 2015 | Allocation/Apportionment, Income Tax, Indiana, UDITPA

In Letter of Finding No. 02-20140306 (Dec. 31, 2014), the Indiana Department of Revenue (Department) determined that income from the sale of two operating divisions of a business pursuant to an order of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) was non-business income under Indiana law. Following the reasoning of the Indiana Tax Court in May Department Stores Co. v. Ind. Dep’t of State Revenue, 749 N.E.2d 651 (2001), the Department held that the gain constituted non-business income because the forced divestiture was not an integral part of the taxpayer’s business. Taxpayers facing the consequences of forced divestitures should consider whether similar positions can be taken, both in Indiana and in other Uniform Division of Income for Tax Purposes Act (UDITPA) jurisdictions.

Like many states that base their income apportionment provisions on UDITPA, Indiana defines “non-business income” as all income that is not business income. Indiana employs both the “functional test” and the “transactional test” to determine if a particular item of income qualifies as “business income.” Income may qualify as business income under either test; it is not required that both tests be met.

The functional test considers whether the income derives from the acquisition, management or disposition of property constituting an integral part of the taxpayer’s regular trade or business. Simply put, if a piece of property is used in the taxpayer’s regular course of business, a transaction involving that property will often result in business income. The transactional test, meanwhile, considers whether the income derives from a transaction or activity in which the taxpayer regularly engages.

In the Letter of Finding, the Department considered a taxpayer that sought to acquire, by merger, one of its competitors (“Target”), which consisted of four primary business divisions. The taxpayer and Target were part of a concentrated industry with very few competitors, so the acquisition created antitrust concerns. The taxpayer and Target sought advice from the FTC, which ordered that two of Target’s divisions be sold to a competitor if the merger were to take place. The taxpayer and Target complied with the FTC’s order, and Target sold the divisions to a competitor in 2006, prior to the merger. It classified its resulting income as non-business income. On audit, the Department reclassified the Target’s gain as business income, reducing the taxpayer’s Indiana net operating losses available for use in 2008-2010. The taxpayer appealed.

In examining the transaction, the Department first noted that the income from the sale of the divisions could not meet the transactional test because Target did not engage in the regular sale of business divisions. The Department then turned to the functional test. Arguably, the sale of the two operational business divisions should have resulted in business income because the divisions were used in the regular course of Target’s business. However, the Department observed that this fact alone was not enough to meet the functional test—“[t]he disposition too must be an integral part of the taxpayer’s regular trade or business operations.” Relying [...]

Continue Reading

Pennsylvania Unwraps Final Market-Sourcing Guidance

by Catherine A. Battin | Dec 19, 2014 | Allocation/Apportionment, Income Tax, Pennsylvania

The Pennsylvania Department of Revenue (the Department) recently finalized its Information Notice on sourcing of services for purposes of determining the appropriate net income and capital franchise tax apportionment factors. The guidance also addresses the Department’s views on the sourcing of intangibles under the income producing activity test. Since Pennsylvania is not a member of the Multistate Tax Compact, it is no surprise that the Department did not wait for the Multistate Tax Commission to complete its model market sourcing regulation before it issued its guidance.

Under the Pennsylvania statute (72 Pa. Stat. Ann. § 7401(3)(2)(a)(16.1)(C)), for tax years beginning after December 31, 2013, receipts from services are to be sourced according to the location where the service is delivered. If the service is delivered both to a location in and outside Pennsylvania, the sale is sourced to Pennsylvania based upon the percentage of the total value of services delivered to a location in Pennsylvania. In the case of customers who are individuals (other than sole proprietors), if the state or states of delivery cannot be determined for the customer, the service is deemed to be delivered at the customer’s billing address. In the case of customers who are not individuals or who are sole proprietors, if the state or states of delivery cannot be determined for the customer, the service is deemed to be delivered at the location from which the service was ordered in the customer’s regular course of operations. If the location from which the service was ordered in the customer’s regular course of operations cannot be determined, the service is deemed to be delivered at the customer’s billing address.

The statute generated more questions than it answered. Key terms such as “delivered” and “location” were not defined. The Department’s Information Notice provides answers to many of taxpayers’ questions. However, unlike the draft Information Notice released in June 2014, the final Information Notice shies away from providing a succinct definition of “delivery” and resorts to defining the term through various examples. (For our coverage of the Department’s draft Information Notice, click here.) However, the Information Notice does define “location” stating that “location” generally means the location of the customer and, thus, delivery to a location not representative of where the customer for the service is located does not represent completed delivery of the service.

The Information Notice is chock full of examples to guide taxpayers. The Department’s views relating to various scenarios when services are performed remotely on tangible personal property owned by customers are of interest. If a customer ships a damaged cell phone to a repair facility that repairs and returns it, the Department deems the service to be delivered at the address of the customer. Contrast that with a situation when a customer drops a car off for repair at a garage and later returns to pick it up. One may conclude that the service should also be deemed to be delivered at the address of [...]

Continue Reading

Demystifying the Sales Factor: Conduit Receipts

by Catherine A. Battin | Dec 17, 2014 | Allocation/Apportionment, Income Tax, Nationwide Importance

This is the sixth article in a series on the composition of the sales factor and the potential tax saving opportunities hidden within state statutes and regulations. As more states shift to a single or more heavily weighted sales factor, it is important for taxpayers to understand the intricacies of the sales factor and the opportunities that exist in computing it. This article will focus on issues that could arise and opportunities that may be available for conduit receipts.

Read the full article.

Take Two: Massachusetts Department of Revenue Releases Revised Market-Based Sourcing Regulation

by Catherine A. Battin | Nov 7, 2014 | Allocation/Apportionment, Income Tax, Massachusetts

Late last week, the Massachusetts Department of Revenue (the Department) released a revised draft regulation on Massachusetts’s new market-based sourcing law. The changes made by the Department to purportedly address practitioner and taxpayer concerns were relatively modest. The rules remain lengthy, complex and cumbersome. There are still various assignment rules that apply to each of the following types of transactions: (1) in-person services, (2) professional services, and (3) services delivered to the customer, or through or on behalf of the customer (described in the new regulation as services delivered to the customer, on behalf of the customer, or delivered electronically through the customer, hereinafter “sales delivered to, by, or through a customer”). For a more detailed discussion of these rules see our State Tax Notes article on market-based sourcing.

The most noteworthy changes from the initial draft relate to the taxpayer’s ability to use a “reasonable approximation” method. The initial draft regulation provided taxpayer’s with the ability to use a “reasonable approximation” when “the state or states of assignment” could not be determined. The new regulation clarifies that a taxpayer must, in good faith, make a reasonable effort to apply the primary rule applicable to the sale (e.g., the specific assignment rules for in-person services, professional services, or sales to, by, or through a customer) before it may reasonably approximate. Additionally, the regulation explicitly states that a method of reasonable approximation “must reflect an attempt to obtain the most accurate assignment of sales consistent with the regulatory standards set forth in [the regulation], rather than an attempt to lower the taxpayer’s tax liability.” There is no guidance as to how a taxpayer would demonstrate that its reasonable approximation attempt was made to “obtain the most accurate assignment of sales.” This raises a number of questions–for example, if a taxpayer determines that there are two equally reasonable methods by which it can reasonably approximate its Massachusetts sales, can it use the method that results in less tax? Additionally, there does not seem to be any converse requirement that the Department make a similar demonstration (i.e., that any modifications to a taxpayer’s sourcing methodology not be an attempt to increase a taxpayer’s liability) when exercising its authority to adjust a taxpayer’s return (as discussed below).

In an attempt to make the regulation more even-handed, the Department’s revisions provide that neither a taxpayer nor the Department may adjust a “proper” method of assignment, including a method of reasonable approximation, unless it is to correct factual or calculation errors. However, the revision isn’t all that meaningful because there are still a broad number of scenarios in which the Department can make changes, one of which is when a taxpayer uses a method of approximation and the Commissioner determines that the method of approximation employed by the taxpayer is not “reasonable.” Additionally, when a taxpayer excludes a sale from both the numerator and denominator of its sales factor because it has determined that the assignment of the sale cannot be reasonably approximated, [...]

Continue Reading

D.C. Bill Ostensibly Lowers Tax on Capital Gains from QHTC Investments… But How?

by Diann Smith, Eric D. Carstens and Stephen P. Kranz | Oct 9, 2014 | Allocation/Apportionment, District of Columbia, Income Tax, Nationwide Importance, Tax Base

On September 23, District of Columbia Council Chairman Mendelson introduced the Promoting Economic Growth and Job Creation Through Technology Act of 2014 (Bill 20-0945 , hereinafter the “Act”) at the request of Mayor Vincent Gray. This marks the second time that the Council has considered the introduced language; it was originally included as part of the Technology Sector Enhancement Act of 2012 (Bill 19-747), but was deleted prior to enactment. The Act would add a new provision to the D.C. Code (§ 47-1817.07a) to impose a lower tax rate on capital gains from the sale of an investment in a Qualified High Technology Company (QHTC) beginning in 2015. The rate would be 3 percent as compared with the current rate of 9.975 percent for business taxpayers. Notably the proposed provision is limited in scope and only applies when the following three elements are satisfied:

The investment was held by the investor for at least 24 continuous months;
The investment is in common or preferred stock or options of the QHTC Company; and
During the taxable year, the investor disposed or exchanged of some or all of his or her investment in the QHTC.

As introduced, the proposed tax is explicitly applied “notwithstanding” any provision of the income tax statutes.

Good Thought, Poor Drafting

The intent of this legislation is clear, but the practical application is not. As a threshold matter, the second element requires the investment to be “in common of preferred stock or options,” which by definition excludes partnerships and limited liability companies since only corporations can issue stock. On its face, the language of the bill appears to be limited to investments in a QHTC organized as a corporation, despite the fact that other entities are eligible for QHTC status under D.C. law. Therefore, limited partners and members investing in pass-through QHTC’s appear to fall outside the scope of the proposed legislation.

Second, by imposing a different rate on only a certain type of income and by taxing the gains notwithstanding any other provision of the income tax statute, the proposal fails to account for basic tax calculations necessary to arrive at taxable income in the District for a business taxpayer. For example, the allocation and apportionment provisions would seem to be negated both practically and legally. What part of a multistate taxpayer’s gain from a QHTC is subject to the 3 percent rate? Is it all of the gain; an apportioned part of the gain – and if so, based on whose apportionment percentage? What if the gain would have been categorized as non-business income and the taxpayer is a non-resident? The answer is certainly not obvious from the legislation. Similarly, how do a taxpayer’s losses, both in the current year and carried over, affect the amount of gain available to tax? Can all of the losses be used against other types of income first? Can the losses be used at all against the QHTC gain?

Third, how is a taxpayer [...]

Continue Reading

Can Taxpayers Find an Advantage in Vodafone Nowhere Income Argument?

by Diann Smith, Eric D. Carstens and Stephen P. Kranz | Sep 29, 2014 | Allocation/Apportionment, Tennessee, UDITPA

It is difficult, but not impossible (and quite satisfactory), to find a silver lining for taxpayers in the alternative apportionment opinion Vodafone Americas Holdings Inc. v. Roberts, M2013-00947-COA-R3CV, 2014 WL 2895900 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 23, 2014). In this much discussed case, the Tennessee Court of Appeals affirmed a variance from the statutory cost of performance sourcing method for the apportionment formula on the basis that this method failed to meet the higher goal of fairly representing the business Vodafone derives from Tennessee. As part of the rationale for the variance, the Commissioner and Court of Appeals relied on the need to avoid “nowhere income.” As long as each state has independent sovereign authority to adopt the apportionment methodology of its choice, using the risk of nowhere income as a reason to support application of discretionary authority to vary from a statutory formula is contrary to the law and policy supporting alternative apportionment authority as well as basic concepts of our federal system. However, until this case is overturned, looking to how other states tax income is relevant in Tennessee in determining whether Tennessee’s statutory formula should be applied. The horse has left the hen house and taxpayers should take advantage of this. Specifically, if a taxpayer finds that, based on the existing statutory formulas, its receipts are included in the numerator of both Tennessee and another state, the taxpayer should seek relief to remove these receipts from the Tennessee numerator. This avoids the double taxation burden that is the flip side of Tennessee’s nowhere income fears.

It is useful to look specifically at what the court said. In Vodafone, the court noted that:

“Because [the Commissioner’s authority to issue a variance] applies when the statutory formula does not ‘fairly represent the extent of the taxpayer’s business activities in this state,’ the variance can apply where the state is entitled to receive more taxes as well as a situation where the taxpayer is entitled to pay less taxes. The fact that other states do not tax the Tennessee receipts indicates that it is not unfair for Tennessee to do so.” Id. at 23.

In the accompanying footnote, the Court of Appeals notes that the goal of UDITPA (the model statute which Tennessee’s variance statute is based) is to ensure that no more than 100 percent of a businesses’ corporate income is subject to tax in all jurisdictions and positing that “[t]axing otherwise untaxed income does not run afoul of this goal.” Id. at fn. 20.

Thus, in the same paragraph, the court both acknowledges that the variance should equally be used to reduce Tennessee taxes when appropriate and uses a reference to whether other states tax the Tennessee receipts as a relevant benchmark.

As of the drafting of this post, Vodafone is in the process of seeking review of the decision by the Tennessee Supreme Court. Assuming the decision of the Court of Appeals is precedential going forward, taxpayers in Tennessee should consider holding the Commissioner to his [...]

Continue Reading

How Will Michigan Courts Analyze a Legal Challenge to the Michigan Legislature’s Retroactive Repeal of the Multistate Tax Compact?

by Mary Kay McCalla Martire | Sep 18, 2014 | Allocation/Apportionment, Income Tax, Michigan, Nationwide Importance, UDITPA

In recent days, the state tax world has focused on the State of Michigan’s retroactive repeal of the Multistate Tax Compact (Compact). Last week, the Michigan Legislature passed and Governor Snyder signed into law a bill (P.A. 282) that nullifies the effect of the state Supreme Court’s July 14, 2014 decision in International Business Machines v. Dep’t of Treasury, Dkt. No. 146440. In IBM, the state Supreme Court held that IBM may apportion its business income tax base and modified gross receipts tax base under the Michigan Business Tax (MBT) using the three-factor apportionment formula provided in the Compact, rather than the sales-factor apportionment formula provided by the MBT. Reflective of the urgency with which he views the situation, Michigan’s Governor Snyder signed the bill into law within twenty-four hours after its passage, with a statement that the state’s actions were an effort to ensure that “Michigan businesses are not penalized for investing in the State.” The Michigan Department of Treasury (MDOT) made no attempt to sugar coat its statements in language that would reflect support for Michigan business interests. Rather, it loudly proclaimed that the Legislature must act because the revenue impact to the State of the IBM decision was $1.1 billion.

The new law repeals L. 1969, P.A. 343, which enacted the Compact, retroactive to January 1, 2008, allegedly in order to express the original intent of the legislature regarding the application of M.C.L.A. §208.1403 of the MBT. (Section 208.1403 specifies that a multistate taxpayer must apportion its tax base to Michigan using the sales factor.) The law goes on to provide that the Legislature’s original “intended effect” of §208.1403 was to eliminate the ability for taxpayers to use the Compact’s three factor apportionment election provision in computing their MBT, and to “clarify” that the election provision included in the Compact is not available to the Michigan Income Tax Act, which replaced the MBT in 2012.

The actions of the state are perhaps not surprising, given MDOT’s revenue estimate and the number of related claims (more than 130) that are reported to be pending before MDOT and/or the Michigan courts on this issue. Earlier this week, the Michigan Court of Appeals issued an unpublished decision holding that the IBM ruling was dispositive on the issue of whether Lorillard Tobacco Company could elect to use a three-factor apportionment formula in computing its MBT for 2008 and 2009. Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Dep’t of Treasury, No. 313256 (Sept. 16, 2014). Critics of the new law make strong arguments about the unfairness of the state’s recent actions, and tax pundits predict that the retroactivity of the law will soon be the subject of a court challenge. What do Michigan court’s prior rulings on retroactivity teach us about how the Michigan courts are likely to address this issue?

This is not the first time in recent memory that the state has acted to retroactively repeal legislation with the potential for large, negative implications to Michigan’s revenue stream. In General Motors Co. v. [...]

Continue Reading

read more

Older Posts »

« Newer Posts

Search for:

BLOG EDITORS

Stephen P. Kranz

Mary Kay McCalla Martire

Richard C. Call

STAY CONNECTED

Subscribe

TOPICS
TOPICS

ARCHIVES
ARCHIVES

RECENT POSTS

Maryland sales tax multiple points of use exemptions: Is the juice worth the squeeze?

What to know about Illinois’s 2025 amnesty programs

Washington’s Digital Ad Tax Enacted: Is Litigation Now Inevitable?

Washington’s Digital Ad Tax: A Lawsuit Waiting To Happen?

Let the Shakedowns Begin: Tax False Claims Legislation in California