Connecticut
Subscribe to Connecticut's Posts

Connecticut Bill Aims to Address the Impact of Telecommuting during the Pandemic

As we continue to face growing concerns because of the nationwide impact of COVID-19, taxpayers should be mindful of the potential impacts that the continued rise in telecommuting may have on their state personal income tax liabilities.

A bill was recently introduced in Connecticut that partially addresses this situation. Connecticut House Bill No. 6513 (HB 6513) clarifies that Connecticut residents will not face double taxation on their 2020 taxes and will instead receive a credit against their Connecticut personal income taxes for taxes paid in other states even if the resident, because of COVID-19, was working remotely from Connecticut rather than from their usual out-of-state office. HB 6513 further states that the Connecticut Department of Revenue Services, in determining whether an employer has nexus with Connecticut for purposes of the imposition of any Connecticut tax, shall not consider the activities of an employee who worked remotely from Connecticut solely because of COVID-19.

HB 6513 passed in the 151-member Connecticut House of Representatives on February 24, 2021, and passed in the 36-member Connecticut State Senate on March 1, 2021. The bill now heads to the state governor’s desk for signature. While it is expected that the Governor will sign the bill, passage of the bill still leaves taxpayers with uncertainty for 2021. Many taxpayers nationwide are likely to continue working remotely (from states other than where their usual offices are located) for the foreseeable future, and absent Congressional legislation or a Supreme Court decision, this state income tax issue does not seem likely to abate any time soon.




Maryland Sued over Digital Advertising “Tax”

Today, McDermott Will & Emery filed suit in Maryland federal court on behalf of a number of leading trade associations against Maryland Comptroller Peter Franchot, challenging the state’s recently enacted 10% gross receipts “tax” applicable to digital advertising revenue. The plaintiffs in the suit are the US Chamber of Commerce, the Internet Association, NetChoice and the Computer and Communications Industry Association. The suit asks that the court invalidate Maryland’s punitive imposition as violating several provisions of the US Constitution and the Internet Tax Freedom Act.

A file-stamped copy of the complaint is available below:



The complaint alleges that Maryland’s focus on internet advertising services (the tax does not apply to traditional advertising) discriminates against the internet, violating the Internet Tax Freedom Act. Next, because Maryland’s new law burdens and penalizes conduct occurring outside Maryland, it violates the Commerce and Due Process Clauses of the US Constitution. The complaint alleges that the characteristics of the imposition and the circumstances surrounding its enactment demonstrate a clear purpose and intent to punish out-of-state digital advertising companies for their extraterritorial activities.

The case is Civil No. 21-cv-410 (D. Md., filed February 18, 2021). Michael B. Kimberly, Paul W. Hughes, Stephen P. Kranz and Sarah P. Hogarth of McDermott, Will & Emery’s Washington, DC, office represent the plaintiffs.

Practice Note: The filing of this suit sends a signal to other states, like New York, Connecticut and Montana, where similar proposals are under consideration. Policymakers in those other states should recognize that following Maryland’s lead will only lead to the courthouse.




Maryland Enacts First Digital Advertising Services Gross Receipts Tax: Now What?

General Assembly Veto Override

On February 12, 2021, the Maryland General Assembly overrode Governor Larry Hogan’s veto of HB 732 (2020) (the Act), a bill enacting a first-of-its-kind digital advertising services tax on the annual gross receipts from the provision of digital advertising services in Maryland. The tax only applies to companies having annual gross revenues (without deduction of any expenses) from all sources of $100 million or more. The rate of the tax varies, depending on the level of global annual gross revenues, from 2.5% (for companies with $1 billion or less in global annual gross revenues) to 10% (for companies with more than $15 billion in global annual gross revenue). The rate applies to gross revenues from the performance of digital advertising services in Maryland. For instance, a company subject to the 10% rate having $100 million of revenue attributable to the performance of digital advertising services in Maryland would owe an annual tax of $10 million that will be reported and paid on a quarterly basis throughout the year.



Effective Date

Even though the legislation says the tax is effective July 1, 2020, under the Maryland Constitution, vetoed legislation becomes effective the later of the effective date in the bill or 30 days after the veto is overridden. Based on today’s veto override, the bill should become effective on or about March 14, 2021. However, because the legislation is “applicable to all taxable years beginning after December 31, 2020,” the digital advertising services tax will be retroactive to the beginning of this year.

Looming Compliance Deadlines

The digital advertising services tax applies on an annual basis with a return due on or before April 15 of the following year. However, the tax also requires quarterly filing and payment for certain taxpayers. On or before April 15 of the current year, persons subject to the tax are required to file a declaration of estimated tax showing how much Maryland digital advertising services tax they expect they will owe for the calendar year. As part of the declaration and quarterly with returns filed thereafter, the Act requires that they pay at least 25% of the estimated annual tax shown on the declaration. There is a penalty of up to 25% of the amount of any underestimate of the tax. The Act also creates a fine of up to $5,000 and criminal penalties of up to five years’ imprisonment for willfully failing to file the annual return.

Filing and Guidance TBD

At the time of writing, the Maryland Office of the Comptroller has not published any of the forms necessary for making the declaration of estimated tax or the return due on April 15 of the current year. The comptroller’s office also has not adopted regulations as required by the Act, providing guidance on when advertising revenue is derived in Maryland, likely a daunting and complicated task since this is a novel question that other states have not addressed. Many aspects of the Act are vague at best [...]

Continue Reading




Batten Down the Hatches: Digital Tax Nor’easter Coming This Fall

Recently passed budget legislation in both Connecticut and Rhode Island included tax increases on sales of digital goods and services. The Connecticut bill has been signed into law. The Rhode Island bill passed late last night awaits executive action. Below are brief summaries of the impacts of these bills on the sales taxation of digital goods and services (assuming the Rhode Island governor signs the bill) beginning October 1, 2019.

(more…)




Connecticut Responds to the Federal Repatriation Tax

Earlier this month, Connecticut Governor Dan Malloy released his Governor’s Bill addressing the various state tax implications of the federal tax reform bill enacted by Congress in December 2017, commonly referred to as the “Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.” Among other things, the Governor’s Bill addresses Connecticut’s treatment of the foreign earning deemed repatriation tax provisions of amended section 965 of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC). While the Governor’s Bill does not explicitly provide that the addition to federal income under IRC section 965 is an actual dividend for purposes of Connecticut’s dividend received deduction, the bill does protect Connecticut’s ability to tax at least part of the income brought into the federal tax base under the federal deemed repatriation tax provisions by defining nondeductible “expenses related to dividends” as 10 percent of the amount of the dividend. (more…)




Connecticut Will Make You Disclose Personal Customer Data!

The Connecticut Department of Revenue Services (DRS) recently issued demand letters to many remote sellers requiring that they either: (a) provide electronic sales records for all individual sales shipped to a Connecticut address over the past three calendar years; or (b) register to collect and remit Connecticut sales and use tax. This action is consistent with statements made by DRS Commissioner, Kevin Sullivan, via a press release in March and more recently at a Federation of Tax Administrator’s (FTA) presentation on the topic two weeks ago. Sullivan’s comments at the FTA meeting indicated that state tax administrators “will move from hoping Congress will help” to taking action into their own hands.

For remote sellers with no physical presence in Connecticut that don’t wish to voluntarily collect and remit sales and use tax (consistent with the US Supreme Court’s precedent in Quill and Bellas Hess), they are given only one option–provide DRS with a semi-colon delimited text file containing 16 fields of data–including customer names, customer addresses, ship to addresses, item descriptions and quantities sold. But supplying such personal data about customers intrudes upon the privacy and First Amendment rights of the customer, and unconstitutionally deprives remote sellers of their property right in the data set without due process of law. Of equal concern, some sellers question whether DRS is appropriately limited in its ability to disclose or share the customer data it seeks.

First, disclosure of the records DRS is requesting from remote sellers would be a significant intrusion on their customers’ privacy. The records requested include disclosure of customer names, addresses, shipping state, sales price and specific product(s) purchased. This can be highly sensitive information. Merely linking a particular online retailer to a specific customer may reveal information about the customer’s health issues, political leanings, sexual orientation, personal tastes and financial circumstances. By collecting shipping addresses, DRS will learn when an individual has a gift purchase delivered to a different address, revealing what could be a personal (and highly private) relationship. Moreover, some sellers question whether Connecticut law adequately protects the confidentiality of the information DRS is attempting to collect, leaving the possibility that the information could be shared with other government agencies and potentially used for purposes other than collection of sales and use tax.

Second, for remote sellers that offer books, music, videos and other forms of expressive content, the DRS request violates the customers’ First Amendment protections. In 2010, a US District Court held that an online retailer’s North Carolina customers’ First Amendment rights were implicated by a similar content disclosure requirement on audit. See Amazon.com LLC v. Lay, 758 F. Supp. 2d 1154, 1169 (W.D. Wash. 2010). The First Amendment protects a buyer from having the expressive content of that buyer’s purchase of books, music and audiovisual material disclosed to the government. Thus, First Amendment rights are implicated when the government seeks disclosure of reading, listening and viewing habits. As a result, the North Carolina Department of Revenue was enjoined from [...]

Continue Reading




Connecticut Limits New Tax Haven Law

In June of 2015, Connecticut passed legislation that implements combined reporting for tax years beginning on, or after January 1, 2016. Part of the new regime, which is codified by Conn. Gen. Stat. P.A. 15-5, § 144 (2015), requires water’s-edge combined groups to include entities incorporated in tax havens in the combined group. Just before the holidays, the Connecticut General Assembly passed legislation that narrowed the definition of a “tax haven” from the originally adopted definition. Under the originally passed combined reporting law, the determination of whether a jurisdiction was a “tax haven” was made using five different definitions. If any one definition was satisfied, the jurisdiction was a “tax haven.” None of the five definitions is entirely clear and each generally required an analysis of facts related to the jurisdiction’s government rather than the activities of a taxpayer in the jurisdiction. The original definition of tax haven was similar, but not identical to the Multistate Tax Commission Proposed Model Statute for Combined Reporting. The new law required the commissioner of revenue to publish a list of jurisdictions determined to be tax havens by September 30, 2016. In December, the Connecticut General Assembly convened a special session and passed Public Act 15-1, which amends the newly enacted tax haven law in section 37. As amended, the Connecticut statute still contains the five different definitions. However, the amended law excludes from the definition of a tax haven “a jurisdiction that has entered into a comprehensive income tax treaty with the United States” and which meets certain other requirements. Additionally, the December legislation also repealed the requirement for the commissioner to publish a list of tax havens. In sum, the limiting amendment to the tax haven law should provide taxpayers with some clarity, although that will be somewhat offset by the lack of a formal list. Connecticut is one of four New England states that considered and/or passed legislation adding tax haven provisions to their combined reporting regimes. Tax haven legislation passed in Rhode Island in 2015, as part of Rhode Island’s adoption of combined reporting effective for tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2015. The Maine and Massachusetts legislatures considered tax haven provisions, but ultimately did not pass such laws in 2015.




U.S. Supreme Court’s Wynne Decision Calls New York’s Statutory Resident Scheme into Question

On May 18, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Comptroller of the Treasury of Maryland v. Wynne. In short, the Court, in a five-to-four decision written by Justice Alito, handed the taxpayer a victory by holding that the county income tax portion of Maryland’s personal income tax scheme violated the dormant U.S. Constitution’s Commerce Clause.

Specifically, the Court concluded that the county income tax imposed under Maryland law failed the internal consistency test under the dormant Commerce Clause, because it is imposed on both residents and non-residents with Maryland residents not getting a credit against that Maryland local tax for income taxes paid to other jurisdictions (residents are given a credit against the Maryland state income tax for taxes paid to other jurisdictions).

The Supreme Court emphatically held (as emphatically as the Court can be in a five-to-four decision) that the dormant Commerce Clause’s internal consistency test applies to individual income taxes. The Court’s holding does create a perilous situation for any state or local income taxes that either do not provide a credit for taxes paid to other jurisdictions or limit the scope of such a credit in some way.

The internal consistency test—one of the methods used by the Supreme Court to examine whether a state tax imposition discriminates against interstate commerce in violation of the dormant Commerce Clause—starts by assuming that every state has the same tax structure as the state with the tax at issue. If that hypothetical scenario places interstate commerce at a disadvantage compared to intrastate commerce by imposing a risk of multiple taxation, then the tax fails the internal consistency test and is unconstitutional.

Although the Wynne decision does not address the validity of other taxes beyond the Maryland county personal income tax, the decision does create significant doubt as to the validity of certain other state and local taxes such as the New York State personal income tax in the way it defines “resident.” New York State imposes its income tax on residents on all of their income and on non-residents on their income earned in the state; this is similar to the Maryland county income tax at issue in Wynne.

“Resident” is defined as either a domiciliary of New York or a person who is not a domiciliary of New York but has a permanent place of abode in New York and spends more than 183 days in New York during the tax year. N.Y. Tax Law § 605. (New York City has a comparable definition of resident.) N.Y.C. Administrative Code § 11-1705. Thus a person may be taxed as a statutory resident solely because they maintain living quarters in the state and spend more than 183 days in the state, even if those days have absolutely nothing to do with the living quarters; this category of non-domiciliary resident is commonly referred to a “statutory resident.” As such, under New York’s tax scheme, a person can be a resident of two states—where domiciled and where a statutory resident—and thus [...]

Continue Reading




Connecticut Hires Chainbridge Software LLC for Transfer Pricing Training

On July 15, 2014, the Connecticut Department of Revenue Services awarded Chainbridge Software LLC a contract worth $50,000 for on-site and remotely supported training for transfer pricing audits.  Chainbridge is infamous for being the contract auditor hired by the District of Columbia Office of Tax and Revenue to manufacture transfer pricing-based assessments.  In 2012, the District of Columbia Office of Administrative Hearings denounced Chainbridge’s methodology in Microsoft Corp. v. Office of Tax and Revenue.  Numerous other cases are in litigation following D.C.’s refusal to abide by that decision.

We have reviewed the Connecticut request for proposal drafted by the Department of Revenue Services.  While we do not yet have access to the final contract, it will likely be similar to the request for proposal.  The solicitation requests two to three days of training per week over the course of three months.  According to the RFP, Chainbridge will teach the Department’s employees about transfer pricing principles and methodologies, taxpayer planning, economic analysis of transactions between related parties, pre- and post-audit planning, and other related topics.

In light of the Connecticut Department of Revenue Services’ expected contract with Chainbridge, we anticipate that the Department will become more active in evaluating transfer pricing.  What is not certain is whether the analysis will follow the debunked method still being used in D.C.




STAY CONNECTED

TOPICS

ARCHIVES