The White House and Republican congressional leadership released an outline this week to guide forthcoming legislation on federal tax reform. The states conform to the federal tax laws to varying degrees and the extent to which they will adopt any federal changes is uncertain. This memorandum outlines some of the key areas—individual taxation, general business taxation and international taxation— with which the states will be concerned as details continue to unfold.
The Illinois Department of Revenue (Department) has issued a proposed new administrative rule addressing the nexus implications for out-of-state retailers attending trade shows in Illinois. The proposed rule, linked here, reaffirms the Department’s long-standing position that all sales made at an Illinois trade show are subject to Illinois Retailers Occupation Tax and any applicable local taxes. In a move welcomed by taxpayers, the proposed rule goes on to delineate a “safe harbor” of activities that will not create nexus for out-of-state retailers with respect to their other Illinois sales.
Under the safe harbor provision, an out-of-state retailer’s presence at an Illinois trade show will not create nexus for its other Illinois sales if each of the following conditions is met:
- The retailer attends no more than two trade shows per calendar year;
- The retailer is physically present at the two trade shows for an aggregate total of no more than eight days during any calendar year; and
- Combined gross receipts from sales made at the two trade shows during any single calendar year do not exceed $10,000.
On July 28, Circuit Judge Daniel Kubasiak dismissed the Complaint filed by the Illinois Retail Merchants Association and a group of retailers challenging the constitutionality of the Cook County, Illinois Sweetened Beverage Tax (Tax). A copy of the court’s Order is linked here (Order). The Order also dissolved the June 30 temporary restraining order which had halted the county’s imposition of the Tax, on which we have previously reported. In response to the Order, the county required Tax collection to begin on August 2. The county also announced that by September 20, retailers must remit a “floor tax” on the inventory of sweetened beverages in their possession as of August 1.
The Order rejected both of the constitutional arguments raised by the Complaint. The court held that Plaintiffs raised a good faith Illinois Uniformity Clause challenge, and thereby shifted the burden of proof to the county, because the Tax applied to pre-made, but not made-to-order sweetened beverages. The court went on to hold, however, that the county met its burden to justify this arbitrary tax classification by alleging that pre-made sweetened beverages were more widely available and therefore more likely to be purchased and consumed than made-to-order beverages (thus generating more tax revenues) and by arguing that imposing the Tax on made-to-order beverages would be administratively burdensome. The court then held that Plaintiffs had failed to meet their burden of establishing that the county’s justifications were insufficient in law or unsupported by the facts. According to the court, the “County has set forth a real and substantial difference between the people taxed, who purchase ready-to-drink, pre-made sweetened beverages, and those not taxed, who purchase on-demand, custom sweetened beverages.” (Order at 9.)
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. Continue Reading House Judiciary Subcommittee to Consider Sensenbrenner Bill Tomorrow
A legal challenge to Cook County Illinois Sweetened Beverage Tax (Tax) heads back to circuit court today for a hearing on the plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction. On June 30, Circuit Judge Daniel Kubasiak issued a temporary restraining order (TRO), halting Cook County, Illinois’ imposition of the Tax, which was to take effect on July 1. Judge Kubasiak found that the “Plaintiffs have persuaded the Court that a fair question exists as to the constitutionality” of the Tax.
Earlier this week, the plaintiff group, which includes the Illinois Retail Merchants Association and a group of retail food markets, successfully opposed the county’s emergency appeal of the TRO. In a ruling issued on Monday, July 10, the Illinois appellate court declined to set aside the TRO. While the fight is far from over, the Illinois rulings are a positive development for retailers, who have not succeeded to date in their efforts to defeat the Philadelphia sweetened beverage tax. See Opinion, Williams v. City of Phila., Nos. 2077 C.D. 2016, 2078 C.D. 2016 (Pa. Commw. Ct. June 14, 2017).
In an effort to resolve Illinois’ 20-month budget impasse, the Illinois Senate leadership (Senate Majority Leader John Cullerton and Senate Minority Leader Christine Rodogno) have jointly proposed a series of bills to increase revenue, reduce spending, and respond to the Illinois Governor’s concerns regarding pension reforms, workers compensation reform and property tax relief. A series of twelve bills have been introduced, all of which are interlinked for passage. The bills are termed the Illinois “Grand Bargain.” Most of the tax-related changes are found in Senate Bill 9. The current version of the Senate Bill 9 (Amendment 3) (“Bill”) was submitted on March 3 and includes the following proposed changes: Continue Reading Tax Highlights of Proposed Illinois “Grand Bargain”
The Illinois Supreme Court, in Hertz Corp v. City of Chicago, 2017 IL 119945 (Jan. 20, 2017) , held that the City of Chicago’s ruling requiring rental car companies located within three miles of the City to collect tax on vehicle rentals is unconstitutional under the home rule article of the Illinois Constitution. Hopefully, the court’s ruling will stymie the City’s expansive interpretation of its taxing powers.
The tax at issue is the City’s Personal Property Lease Transaction Tax (Lease Tax), which is imposed upon “(1) the lease or rental in the city of personal property or (2) the privilege of using in the city personal property that is leased or rented outside of the city.” Mun. Code of Chi. § 3-32-030(A). While the Lease Tax is imposed upon and must be paid by the lessee, the lessor is obligated to collect it at the time the lessee makes a lease payment and remit it to the City. Mun. Code of Chi. §§ 3-32-030(A), 3-32-070(A).
The subject of this litigation is the City’s application of the Tax in its Personal Property Lease Transaction Tax Second Amended Ruling No. 11 (eff. May 1, 2011) (Ruling 11). The plaintiffs argued that Ruling 11 extends the reach of the tax ordinance beyond Chicago’s borders in violation of the home rule provision of the Illinois Constitution and violates the federal due process and commerce clauses. The Ruling “concerns [short-term] vehicle rentals to Chicago residents, on or after July 1, 2011, from suburban locations within 3 miles of Chicago’s border … [excluding locations within O’Hare International Airport] by motor vehicle rental companies doing business in the City.” Ruling 11 § 1. The Ruling explains that “‘doing business’ in the City includes, for example, having a location in the City or regularly renting vehicles that are used in the City, such that the company is subject to audit by the [City of Chicago Department of Finance] under state and federal law.” Ruling 11 § 3. As for taxability of leased property, the Ruling cites the primary use exemption, exempting from Tax “[t]he use in the city of personal property leased or rented outside the city if the property is primarily used (more than 50 percent) outside the city” and stating the taxpayer or tax collector has the burden of proving where the use occurs. Ruling 11 § 2(c) (quoting Mun. Code of Chi. § 3-32-050(A)(1)).
Ruling 11 contains a rebuttable presumption that motor vehicles rented to customers who are Chicago residents from the suburban locations of rental companies that are otherwise doing business in Chicago are subject to the Lease Tax. The Ruling applies to companies with suburban addresses located within three miles of the City. The presumption may be rebutted by any writing disputing the conclusion that the vehicle is used more than 50 percent of the time in the City. The opposite is assumed for non-Chicago residents. Ruling 11 § 3. The Ruling provides that such a writing can be as simple as a customer’s initialing a statement that the vehicle will be used more than 50 percent outside the City (Ruling 11 § 3), but it must be part of the lease agreement or otherwise kept in the company’s business records. Companies that do not wish to comply with the record keeping requirements may opt to pay tax on 25 percent of its rental charges from Chicago customers.
Plaintiffs Hertz Corporation and Enterprise Leasing Company of Chicago LLC, filed separate actions against the City seeking declaratory and injunctive relief from the application of Ruling 11. The cases proceeded in tandem in circuit court and the court granted summary judgment to the companies. The circuit court declared Ruling 11 facially unconstitutional and permanently enjoined the City from enforcing the ordinance with respect to vehicle rental transactions occurring outside the City. The appellate court reversed and held that there is a sufficient nexus between the plaintiffs and the taxable activity (the use of the cars in the City) to permit the tax to be imposed and collection duties placed on plaintiffs. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal and allowed the Illinois Chamber of Commerce and the Taxpayers’ Federation of Illinois to file amicus briefs on behalf of the car rental companies.
The Supreme Court held that the imposition of the Lease Tax on rentals of cars taking place outside the City limits has an extraterritorial effect and is therefore an improper exercise of the City’s home rule powers. The court was seemingly troubled by the fact that the Lease Tax is imposed not on the actual use within the City’s borders but on the lessee’s stated intent to use the property in Chicago or, failing any statement of intent, on presumed used based on the lessee’s home address. The court noted that at the time of the lease transactions, the use of the vehicle has not yet taken place and may, in fact, never take place within Chicago’s borders. The court said that “unrestrained extraterritorial exercise of home rule powers in zoning, taxation, and other areas could create serious problems, given the number of home rule units in Illinois, particularly in the Chicago area.” 2017 IL 119945 at ¶ 30. Thus, the court held that Ruling 11 exceeds the scope of the City’s home rule authority. In light of its holding that the ruling violates the Illinois Constitution, the court did not address the plaintiffs’ arguments that it also violates the federal due process and commerce clauses.
Hopefully, the court’s ruling will invite further challenges to the City’s expansive imposition of the Lease Tax. The City’s recent extension of the Lease Tax to cloud computing in Lease Tax Ruling #12 is now particularly susceptible to challenge given that the providers of those services are often located outside Chicago’s borders.
The recently released final regulations under Internal Revenue Code Section 385, addressing the circumstances under which related company debt will be classified as equity for federal income tax purposes, will have a significant impact on state and local taxes. Federal tax practitioners, as well as state and local tax practitioners, must address their implications.
Read the full article here.
After the highly publicized administrative lease transaction and amusement tax expansions in Chicago last year, more cities around the country are taking steps to impose transaction taxes on the sale or rental of digital content. Unlike tax expansion efforts at the state level (such as the law recently passed in Pennsylvania), which have almost all been tackled legislatively, the local governments are addressing the issue without clear legislative authority by issuing administrative guidance and taking aggressive positions on audit. As the local tax threat facing digital providers turns from an isolated incident to a nationwide trend, we wanted to highlight some of the more significant local tax developments currently on our radar.
On April 4, 2016, without warning, the US Department of the Treasury proposed a new set of comprehensive regulations under section 385. There had been no advance indication that regulations were even under consideration. Although the Treasury indicated that the proposed regulations were issued in the context of addressing corporate inversions, their application went well beyond the inversion space and they apply to inter-corporate debt regardless of whether it occurs in an international context. The following is a discussion of the state and local tax consequences of the proposed regulations; for a detailed discussion of the proposed regulations themselves, see this previous article.