Audits Archives | Page 3 of 12

Audits

Get Ready for the Countdown: Final Delaware Unclaimed Property Regulations Published

by Eric D. Carstens, Stephen P. Kranz and McDermott Will & Emery | Oct 5, 2017 | Audits, Delaware, Unclaimed Property

On October 1, 2017, the Delaware Department of Finance published final regulations in the Register of Regulations repealing its former unclaimed property regulations and promulgating a new reporting and examination manual. See 21 DE Reg 336 (Oct. 1, 2017). The final reporting and examination regulation contains no substantive changes from the revised version that was re-proposed on August 1, 2017. As published, the regulations are set to be adopted and take effect on October 11, 2017. (more…)

Holders Beware: Delaware Department of State Notices to be Mailed in Two Weeks!

by Eric D. Carstens and Stephen P. Kranz | Sep 29, 2017 | Audits, Delaware, Unclaimed Property

In two weeks, the Delaware Secretary of State (SOS) will begin mailing notices to holders who have been identified as likely being out of compliance with Delaware unclaimed property law. Holders that do not enroll in the SOS Voluntary Disclosure Agreement Program (VDA Program) within 60 days of the mailing of this notice will be referred to the State Escheator for examination. Once an audit notice is issued, the SOS will have no legal ability to accept a holder into its VDA Program.

The VDA Program was put in place to respond to concerns about Delaware’s audit program and allow holders to come into compliance through a “self-audit” that is administered by the holder, as opposed to the State Escheator. The audit is overseen by a third-party provider that must approve the steps taken by the holder, but allows more flexibility in terms of the details and deadlines than a traditional audit. Delaware law requires that every company be provided with an opportunity to voluntarily comply prior to being issued an audit notice. For holders that receive a notice from the SOS in a little over two weeks, this letter will be their one opportunity to voluntarily come forward and enroll in the VDA Program and requires prompt decision making and evaluation, given the 60 days deadline and potentially significant implications.

It is still expected that the final Department of Finance (DOF) regulation required by SB 13 will be included in the October 1, 2017 Register of Regulations. If this holds true, companies currently under a Delaware audit authorized by the State Escheator on or before July 22, 2015, will have 60 days from October 1 (i.e., until November 30, 2017) to convert to the SOS VDA Program. Again, the same analysis and implications are at stake.

Practice Note

There is a lot for holders to consider in a very short period of time. Holders should be aware that there are may be more than the single, historic third-party provider in charge of administering the SOS VDA Program. Adding new providers creates uncertainty in the process and it is not clear how holders will be assigned to each provider.

Holders in need of advice on whether to enroll in the SOS VDA Program should reach out to the authors to discuss their options. Stay tuned for our analysis of the final DOF regulation, which will be posted shortly after publication.

Delaware (Re)Proposes Unclaimed Property Reporting and Examination Manual Regulation

by Eric D. Carstens, Stephen P. Kranz and McDermott Will & Emery | Aug 16, 2017 | Audits, Delaware, Interest and Penalties, Unclaimed Property

On August 1, the Delaware Department of Finance (DOF) published a revised version of its proposed reporting and examination manual regulation addressing audit procedures and method of estimation. See 21 DE Reg 123 (Aug. 1, 2017). The revised proposed regulation is substantially similar to the first draft proposed earlier this year, but contains a dozen or so notable differences (described in more detail below). Because the former draft of the regulation was never finalized, the 60-day time period for eligible holders to convert to the Voluntary Disclosure Agreement (VDA) Program (administered by the Secretary of State) or an expedited audit has not started to run, and will not commence until the final DOF regulation is published in the monthly Register of Regulations. Based on the fact that the DOF is accepted comments through August 31, 2017 (and likely needs at least a month to take them into consideration), the final regulation is not expected to be published before October 1, 2017, giving eligible holders at least three more months before the looming conversion deadline.

Our summary of the initial regulations proposed by the DOF and Secretary of State (SOS) on April 1, 2017 is available here. The final SOS VDA estimation regulation was published on July 1, 2017, without substantive amendments. See 21 DE Reg 50 (July 1, 2017). Below is a brief summary of the key differences between the old and new proposed DOF reporting and examination manual that holder’s should be aware of.

(more…)

Resistance is not Always Futile: New Decision in Ongoing Delaware Unclaimed Property Audit Litigation

by Eric D. Carstens and Stephen P. Kranz | Aug 14, 2017 | Audits, Constitutional Issues, Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Unclaimed Property

On August 9, 2017, the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (Third Circuit), overruling the US District Court for the District of Delaware (District Court), allowed a claim by a holder seeking to prevent an unclaimed property audit by Delaware on due process grounds to proceed. See Plains All American Pipeline L.P. v. Cook et al., No. 16-3631 (3d Cir. Aug. 9, 2017). The procedural due process claim challenges Delaware’s use of auditors that have a stake in the assessment. Consistent with the District Court decision, the Third Circuit held that challenges to Delaware’s estimation methodology were ruled not ripe. The case has been remanded to the District Court for further proceedings.

(more…)

House Judiciary Subcommittee to Consider Sensenbrenner Bill Tomorrow

by McDermott Will & Emery, Eric D. Carstens and Stephen P. Kranz | Jul 24, 2017 | Audits, Constitutional Issues, Income Tax, Local Tax, Nationwide Importance, Nexus, Sales Tax, Transaction Taxes

The No Regulation Without Representation Act of 2017 (NRWRA) is scheduled for a hearing before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law on Tuesday, July 25 at 10:00 am EDT in 2141 Rayburn House Office Building. The bill was introduced by Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI) last month with House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) as one of seven original co-sponsors. As described in more detail below, the bill would codify the Bellas Hess “physical presence” requirement upheld by the US Supreme Court in Quill and make that requirement applicable to sales, use and other similar transactional taxes, notice and reporting requirements, net income taxes and other business activity taxes. Extending the concept to an area far beyond state taxation, the bill would also require the same physical presence for a state or locality to regulate the out-of-state production, manufacturing or post-sale disposal of any good or service sold to locations within its jurisdictional borders.

In the last Congress, the Business Activity Tax Simplification Act of 2015 (BATSA) would have codified a physical presence requirement in the context of business activity taxes (e.g., net income and gross receipts taxes). However, the scope of NRWRA’s limitations on interstate regulation and tax differs from the standard set forth in BATSA. Specifically, under BATSA, assigning an employee to a state constitutes physical presence, whereas under NRWRA a company does not have physical presence until it employs more than two employees in the state (or a single employee if he or she is in the state and provides design, installation or repair services or “substantially assists” in establishing or maintaining a market). Under NRWRA, activities related to the potential or actual purchase of goods or services in the state or locality are not a physical presence if the final decision to purchase is made outside of the jurisdiction. (more…)

Favorable Guidance from the New Jersey Tax Court on the ‘Unreasonable’ Exception to the Related-Party Intangible Expense Add-back

by McDermott Will & Emery | Jun 29, 2017 | Audits, Income Tax, New Jersey, Nexus, Tax Base, Transfer Pricing

In a recent decision, the New Jersey Tax Court provided some long-awaited guidance on the “unreasonable” exception to the state’s related-party intangible expense add-back provision. In BMC Software, Inc v. Div. of Taxation, No 000403-2012 (2017), the Tax Court held that payments made by a subsidiary to its parent for a software distribution license were intangible expenses that were subject to the add-back provision, but that the statutory exception for “unreasonable” adjustments applied so that the subsidiary was able to deduct the expenses in computing its Corporation Business Tax (CBT). The court first determined that the expense was an intangible expense and not the sale of tangible personal property between the entities because the contract specifically called the fee a royalty, the parent reported the income as royalty income and the parent retained full ownership of the intellectual property rights indicating that no sale had taken place. Thus, the court determined that the intangible expense add-back provision did apply. The most interesting aspect of this case, however, was the court’s application of the “unreasonable” exception to the intangible expense add-back provision because that had not yet been addressed by the courts in New Jersey.

The Tax Court established two critical points with respect to the add-back of related-party intangible expenses: first, that the “unreasonable” exception does not require a showing that the related-party recipient paid CBT on the income from the taxpayer; and secondly, that a showing that the related-party transaction was “substantively equivalent” to a transaction with an unrelated party is sufficient evidence that the add-back is “unreasonable.” (more…)

BREAKING NEWS: Expanded “Physical Presence” Codification Bill Introduced in House

by McDermott Will & Emery, Eric D. Carstens and Stephen P. Kranz | Jun 13, 2017 | Audits, Constitutional Issues, Nationwide Importance, Nexus, Sales Tax, Transaction Taxes

On, June 12, 2017, the No Regulation Without Representation Act of 2017 was introduced by Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI) with House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) as one of seven original co-sponsors. As described in detail below, the scope and applicability of the “physical presence” requirement in the 2017 bill is significantly broader than the first iteration of the bill that was introduced last year. Not only does the bill expand the physical presence rule to all taxes, it expands the rule to all regulations.

2016 Bill

In July 2016, Congressman Sensenbrenner introduced the No Regulation Without Representation Act of 2016 (H.R. 5893) in the US House of Representatives. The bill provided that states and localities could not: (1) obligate a person to collect a sales, use or similar tax; (2) obligate a person to report sales; (3) assess a tax on a person; or (4) treat the person as doing business in a state or locality for purposes of such tax unless the person has a physical presence in the jurisdiction during the calendar quarter that the obligation or assessment is imposed. “Similar tax” meant a tax that is imposed on the sale or use of a product or service.

Under the 2016 bill, persons would have a physical presence only if the person: (1) owns or leases real or tangible personal property (other than software) in the state; (2) has one or more employees, agents or independent contractors in the state specifically soliciting product or service orders from customers in the state or providing design, installation or repair services there; or (3) maintains an office in-state with three or more employees for any purpose. The bill provided that “physical presence” did not include the following: (1) click-through referral agreements with in-state persons who receive commissions for referring customers to the seller; (2) presence for less than 15 days in a taxable year; (3) product delivery provided by a common carrier; or (4) internet advertising services not exclusively directed towards, or exclusively soliciting in-state customers.

The bill did not define the term “seller,” but did provide that “seller” did not include a: (1) marketplace provider (specifically defined); (2) referrer (specifically defined); (3) carrier, in which the seller does not have an ownership interest, providing transportation or delivery of tangible personal property; or (4) credit card issuer, transaction billing processor or other financial intermediary. Under the 2016 bill, persons not considered “sellers” (e.g., marketplace providers) were protected as well because the bill provided that a state may not impose a collection or reporting obligation or assess tax on “any person other than a purchaser or seller having a physical presence in the State.”

2017 Bill

The scope of the 2017 bill is significantly broader than the bill introduced in 2016 and would require a person to have “physical presence” in a state before the state can “tax or regulate [the] person’s activity in interstate commerce.” (emphasis added) The new bill applies the “physical presence” requirement to sales and [...]

Continue Reading

Substitute Alert ‒ Delaware Technical Corrections Bill

by Eric D. Carstens and Stephen P. Kranz | Jun 6, 2017 | Audits, Delaware, Interest and Penalties, Unclaimed Property

Last Friday, the Delaware Senate released a substituted version of the bill (Senate Bill 79) introduced last month as a technical corrections bill to Senate Bill 13—the unclaimed property rewrite legislation enacted earlier this year.

The Senate substitute differs from the introduced version of Senate Bill 79 as follows:

It does not strike § 1147(a)—the provision that limits the ability of a holder to assign or otherwise transfer its obligation to pay or deliver property or to comply with the unclaimed property law to others (aside from a parent, subsidiary or affiliate of the holder).
It would delay the timeline that Delaware must promulgate regulations to December 1, 2017.
It would make changes to the State Escheator’s authority to grant waivers of interest and penalties under § 1185 as follows:
1. Removes the language in the introduced bill that made the discretionary waiver of penalties only applicable to late filed property remitted while under examination.
2. Gives State Escheator the following waiver authority for property remitted before January 1, 2019:
  1. Waive, in whole or in part, the calculable interest under § 1183 of this title for unclaimed property remitted to the State with a required report under § 1142 (the general holder report section) or § 1170 (the compliance review section) of this title.
  2. Waive, in whole or in part, the calculable interest under § 1183 of this title for unclaimed property remitted to the State as a result of securities examinations in which estimation is not required under §§ 1171 and 1172 of this title.
  3. Waive up to 50 percent of the calculable interest under § 1183 of this title for all unclaimed property remitted to the State and not provided for in paragraphs (b)(1) or (b)(2) of this section.
3. Gives State Escheator the following waiver authority for property remitted on or after January 1, 2019:
  1. Waive, in whole or in part, the calculable interest under § 1183 of this title for unclaimed property remitted to the State with a required report under § 1142 (the general holder report section) or § 1170 (the compliance review section) of this title.
  2. Except for examinations expedited under § 1172(c) of this title, waive up to 50 percent of the calculable interest under § 1183 of this title for all unclaimed property remitted to the State and not provided for in paragraph (c)(1) of this section.

(more…)

Delaware Proposes Unclaimed Property Regulations – No April Fools

by Eric D. Carstens and Stephen P. Kranz | Apr 7, 2017 | Audits, Constitutional Issues, Delaware, Nationwide Importance, Procedure, Unclaimed Property

On Saturday, April 1, 2017, the Delaware Department of Finance (DOF) promulgated two regulations that would repeal all existing unclaimed property regulations and replace them with a single DOF regulation containing a revised Reporting and Examination Manual. The Secretary of State (SOS) also promulgated a regulation that outlines the method of estimation to be used for participants in the Voluntary Disclosure Agreement (VDA) Program. These promulgations are in accordance with the General Assembly’s instructions to do so in Senate Bill 13, which was passed in January and enacted by Governor John Carney on February 2, 2017. Any written submission in response to these regulations must be sent to the respective agency by Wednesday, May 3, 2017 at 4:30PM EST. (more…)

New York State FY 2018 Budget Bill: Sales Tax Highlights

by McDermott Will & Emery and McDermott Will & Emery | Jan 31, 2017 | Audits, Constitutional Issues, New York, Nexus, Procedure, Transaction Taxes

On January 16, Governor Cuomo introduced the 2018 New York State Executive Budget Legislation. The bill proposes a number of changes to the New York State sales tax law. Below is a summary of the highlights.

Sales and Use Tax

“Marketplace Providers”

The governor’s bill proposes to impose sales tax registration and collection requirements, traditionally imposed on vendors, on “marketplace providers.” This provision is essentially an effort to obtain sales tax on sales to New York customers that make purchases over the internet from companies that have no physical presence in New York and do not collect sales tax in New York when those companies make sales through online marketplaces. In the governor’s Memorandum of Support of this bill, he affirmatively states that “the bill does not expand the rules concerning sales tax nexus”. Although, as noted below, this claim may not be true.

The bill effectively shifts the sales tax collection burden from the traditional vendor to the marketplace provider. The bill defines marketplace provider as “a person who, pursuant to an agreement with a marketplace seller, facilitates sales of tangible personal property by such marketplace seller or sellers.”

A person “facilitates a sale of tangible personal property” if the person meets both of the following conditions:

(i) such person provides the forum by which the sale takes place, including a shop, store, or booth, an internet website, a catalog, or a similar forum; and

(ii) such person or an affiliate of such person collects the receipts paid by a customer to a marketplace seller for a sale of tangible personal property.

The bill caveats that “a person who facilitates sales exclusively by means of the internet is not a marketplace provider for a sales tax quarter when such person can show that it has facilitated less than one hundred million dollars of sales annually for every calendar year after [2015].”

Unlike the definition of the term “vendor” in the current Tax Law, the definition of “marketplace provider” does not contain a doing business or physical presence component. Accordingly, despite the governor’s assertion that the bill does not expand the rules concerning sales tax nexus, this provision may expand the sales tax nexus rules by potentially imposing a sales tax collection obligation on marketplace providers that do not have a physical presence in New York.

In an effort to minimize the number of entities with a collection requirement, the bill provides that if a marketplace seller obtains a certificate of collection from the marketplace provider, it is not required to collect sales tax as a vendor. The bill caveats that if the marketplace provider and the marketplace seller are affiliated parties, and the marketplace provider fails to collect the tax, the marketplace seller will remain liable for the sales tax. For such purposes, parties are affiliated if they have as little as five percent of common ownership.

The proposed legislation would not permit marketplace sellers that sell to customers in New York through a [...]

Continue Reading