Local Tax
Subscribe to Local Tax's Posts

Wisconsin Court of Appeals Rules That Department Cannot Deny John Deere DRD Because of the Department’s Prior Guidance on Foreign Distributions

The Wisconsin Court of Appeals, District IV, issued its decision in Wisconsin Department of Revenue v. Deere & Company, regarding the treatment of distributions from foreign partnerships that are treated as corporations for federal tax purposes. There were two questions presented in the case. The first issue was whether distributions received by John Deere qualified as “dividends received from [the foreign partnership] with respect to its common stock” under Wis. Stat. § 71.26(3)(j). The state argued that this distribution was not made with respect to common stock because the entity was a foreign partnership. Unlike the Tax Appeals Commission, the Court of Appeals did not address this issue.

The second issue was whether previous Wisconsin Department of Revenue guidance, in effect during the period at issue, which stated that if a non-corporate entity is classified as a corporation, a non-corporate interest is treated in the same matter as stock, was binding on the Department under Wis. Stat. § 73.16(2)(a). The court held for the taxpayer, finding that the guidance applied and was binding on the Department. The Department has since modified that guidance, thus limiting the applicability of the decision to earlier tax years. This decision leaves open the issue, which will matter to taxpayers for later years, of whether similar distribution events will be eligible for dividends received deduction treatment.

The case is Wisconsin Department of Revenue v. Deere & Company, Appeal No. 2020AP726, in the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, District IV (Feb. 25, 2021).




New York Issues Much-Anticipated Guidance on Taxation of Telecommuting Employees

Since the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic and work-from-home mandates, New York employers and their nonresident employees have been waiting for the Department of Taxation and Finance to address the million-dollar question: Do wages earned by a nonresident who typically works in a New York office but is now telecommuting from another state due to the pandemic constitute New York source income? New York has historical guidance concerning the application of its “convenience of the employee/necessity of the employer” test, the test used to determine whether a telecommuting nonresident’s wages are sourced to New York, but until recently the Department had been silent as to whether or how such rule applied under the unprecedented circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic.

As many expected, in a recent update to the residency FAQs, the Department clearly stated its position that a nonresident whose primary office is in New York State is considered to be working in New York State on days that he or she telecommutes from outside the state during the pandemic unless the employer has “established a bona fide employer office at [the] telecommuting location.” The Department adopted the “bona fide employer office” test in 2006 as its way of applying the convenience of the employee rule to employees that work from home. The bona fide employer office test is a factor-based test and, for the most part, a home office will not qualify as a bona fide employer office unless the employer takes specific actions to establish the location as a company office. (See: TSB-M-06(5)I, New York Tax Treatment of Nonresidents and Part-Year Residents Application of the Convenience of the Employer Test to Telecommuters and Others.) As is apparent in the FAQ, the Department is mechanically applying this test to employees working from home as a result of the pandemic and is not providing any special rules or accommodations for employees that have been required or encouraged by New York State and local governments to telecommute.

Interestingly, the Massachusetts Department of Revenue took a similar approach to New York’s by promulgating a regulation requiring nonresidents that typically work in Massachusetts but are telecommuting from outside the state to pay tax on their wages. On October 19, 2020, New Hampshire filed a Motion for Leave to File Bill of Complaint with the United States Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of Massachusetts’ regulation. We understand that New Jersey is considering joining New Hampshire in this lawsuit based on New York’s recent guidance, which would require many New Jersey residents to pay New York income tax even though they are no longer working in New York. The US Supreme Court has twice declined to rule on the constitutionality of the convenience-of-the-employee test, so stay tuned on this important development.




Washington Surtax on “Big Banks” Struck Down as Unconstitutional

On May 8, Washington’s 1.2% surtax on “specified financial institutions” (banks with at least $1 billion a year in net revenue) was struck down by a King County Superior Court judge. Judge Marshall Ferguson ruled that the tax, which is imposed on top of all other taxes, violates the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution by discriminating against out-of-state banks in both purpose and effect.

In their briefs, attorneys for the Washington Bankers Association and American Bankers Association explained that an out-of-state bank would pay a much higher tax rate (and be at a competitive disadvantage) compared to an in-state bank because its global revenue is sufficient to trigger owing the surtax. The associations presented evidence that every bank meeting the definition of “specified financial institution” was an out-of-state bank, and that no in-state bank met the definition. Further, they pointed to statements by legislators appearing to show an intent to promote “local banks” and address a national wealth disparity and regressive taxation.

The state responded that the surtax is neutral on its face, applying to all businesses with $1 billion regardless of their headquarters location, and that none of the funds were used to subsidize or reduce tax burdens on in-state banks. They also argued that the tax should be presumed constitutional and rejected the plaintiffs’ standing to sue as associations. The actual effect of discrimination seemed especially persuasive to Judge Ferguson, who asked counsel for the state, “If the tax so clearly falls on non-Washington businesses, is that not a discriminatory effect?”

The state may appeal the case, Washington Bankers Association et al. v. State of Washington et al., No. 19-2-29262-8, to the Washington Supreme Court.

Practice Note: The structure of the tax struck down in this case, a surtax imposed only if the company’s global income exceeds a high threshold, has been on the rise. San Francisco’s gross receipts tax on businesses with over $50 million in receipts, Portland’s clean energy surcharge on businesses with over $1 billion in national gross revenue, and Maryland’s proposed digital advertising tax based on a sliding scale of global revenue all come to mind. This ruling may be the first sign that judges will not be afraid to subject such taxes to scrutiny under Commerce Clause analysis.




Taxes, Like Temperatures, Going Up: California COVID-19 Budget “Revenue Solutions”

Yesterday Governor Gavin Newsom turned to a familiar gambit from California’s playbook to help tackle the budgetary hole wrought by COVID-19. In January, the Governor proposed his budget for the 2020-2021 fiscal year, which projected a $5.6 billion surplus. Indeed, revenues through March are reported as having run $1.35 billion above projections. But, as the Governor says in his May Revision to his January Budget, “[t]he COVID-19 pandemic and the resulting recession has changed the fiscal landscape significantly.” Without the various changes proposed by the May Revision, which includes the “revenue solutions” described below, the Governor’s Budget projects a $54 billion deficit.

The May Revision proposes two significant changes to business taxation. The Governor proposes suspending net operating losses for 2020, 2021, and 2022 for medium and large businesses. The Governor also proposes limiting business incentive tax credits from offsetting more than $5 million of tax liability per year for 2020, 2021, and 2022.

While it is not known what parameters were used for the May Revision revenue estimates, and the actual threshold for being a medium or large business subject to NOL suspension will be set during the legislative process should the Governor’s proposal be enacted, standards used for prior NOL suspension periods may provide a guide. For taxable years beginning in 2008 and 2009, California suspended the NOL carryover deduction for taxpayers with a net business income of $500,000 or more. For taxable years beginning in 2010 and 2011, California’s NOL suspension affected taxpayers with a modified adjusted gross income of $300,000 or more. In neither case were disaster losses affected by the NOL suspension rules.

The May Revision also includes two proposals to address the sales and use tax gap: (1) Used car dealers would have to remit sales tax to the Department of Motor Vehicles with the registration fees, and (2) Market value will be used to determine the price paid in private auto sales.

Also tagged as “revenue solutions” in the May Revision are three General Fund proposals from the Governor’s January Budget Proposal: (1) Extending the sales tax exemption for diapers and menstrual products through the end of 2022-23; (2) Extending the carryover period for film credits awarded under Program 2.0 from six years to nine years; and (3) Extending the current exemption from the minimum tax for first year corporations to first year LLCs, partnerships and LLPs. The May revision also maintains a new tax on e-cigarettes based on nicotine content and will be deposited in a new special fund.

Overall, the revenue solutions in the May Revision are projected to net $4.4 billion in 2020-21, $3.3 billion in 2021-22 and $1.4 billion in 2022-23. The Governor states, “These tax measures as a whole are intended to raise revenue, stimulate economic growth, and help those in need.”

He explains that his May Revision revenue solutions “recognize the disproportionate tax relief that has been provided to larger corporations, compared to small businesses, which has resulted in relatively lower tax payments.” And he adds that [...]

Continue Reading




Last Minute Relief for Filers of Business Property Statements

Once again, San Francisco has shown leadership in addressing property tax relief during the COVID-19 pandemic. On Monday, May 4, 2020, the San Francisco County Assessor announced that she was moving the deadline for businesses to file their Business Property Statements (Form 571-L) to June 1 of this year, due to physical office closure of the San Francisco Office of Assessor-Recorder.

Normally, under state law, a 10 percent penalty automatically attaches when a taxpayer’s business property statement is filed after May 7. But, if May 7 falls on a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday, then a property statement that is mailed and postmarked on the next business day is deemed to have been timely filed. Under the applicable statue, legal holidays include days when the county’s offices are closed for the entire day.

(more…)




Tax Commissioners: Please Drop Unnecessary or Dangerous Tax Administration Requirements

This week we wrote a letter to state tax administrators, sharing five key suggestions for relieving undue tax administration burdens in the wake of this difficult COVID-19 situation. As explained, “at a time when many people are working from home and should not or cannot go to post offices or banks, a business-as-usual attitude for tax administration would be inexcusable.” The five suggestions:

  1. Postpone deadlines for tax filing and payment. The federal government and many states have already taken this needed step. When many Americans, including business tax professionals and tax administrators and their staffs, are fearing for their own health and unable, prohibited or unadvised to leave their own house, this is not the time for pulling records and preparing tax filings.
  1. Waive requirements to file hard copy, notarized, and/or wet-signature documents. Waive requirements to mail documents by certified mail. Allow automated-clearing-house (ACH) electronic transfers of funds instead of requiring hard checks. In a time of social distancing and shelter-in-place orders, it is dangerous to require that business representatives go outside to banks or Post Offices, stand in line, and purchase services from one particular provider. While the US Postal Service (USPS) has valiantly endeavored to keep all post offices operating and mail delivery uninterrupted, new reports on the enormous financial difficulties of the USPS and the growing impact of the virus on the USPS’s public-facing workforce surely give all of us pause. Digital signatures and electronic document delivery, and electronic forms of payment, are widely adopted, affordable, secure, and instantaneous. It is time for tax authorities to dispense with – or suspend – the requirements of physical copies, wet signatures, notarization, physical checks and mailing. Furthermore, tax agencies and hearing tribunals should adopt temporary procedures to either automatically acknowledge receipt of electronic documents or waive stringent proof of delivery in situations in which missing a deadline would preclude a taxpayer from obtaining further review of agency action.

(more…)




Cities Providing Local Tax Relief Efforts for Small Businesses Impacted by COVID-19

From coast to coast, both state and local tax authorities are rapidly responding to the Coronavirus (COVID-19). And while many of the relief efforts are appropriately aimed at supporting individuals who have been impacted by COVID-19, recent pronouncements from local leaders demonstrate that cities are also eager to implement measures supporting small businesses within their communities.

(more…)




BREAKING NEWS: New York Considers 5% Gross Receipts Tax on Almost Every Corporation

On January 21, A. 9112 was introduced in the New York Assembly. An identical Senate companion bill, S. 6102, has been referred to the Senate Budget & Revenues Committee after being introduced in May 2019. The bills would impose an additional 5% tax on the gross income of “every corporation which derives income from the data individuals of this state share with such corporations.” The bills do not provide further detail or limitation on the scope of the proposed new imposition language.

The bills would also establish a six-member Data Fund Board, to invest the tax revenue collected and distribute net earnings “to each taxpayer of the state” in a manner determined by the Board. If enacted without amendment, the bills would take effect 180 days after being signed into law.

As written, the proposed New York tax would unconstitutionally apply to all income worldwide earned by a company deriving income from data from New Yorkers. A state tax on a multistate business must “be fairly apportioned to reflect the business conducted in the State.”

The tax as written is so broad it would apply to essentially every business. Every business collects data and uses it to market or complete a sale, and any corporation with data-derived income from New York customers would be subject to the new tax on their total revenue. “Data” is a broad term. If a company collects zip codes or phone numbers at checkout, asks for email address to join a mailing list, counts customers coming in or out of the store, collects website click or open data, or asks for information from customers, such as their size or shipping address, before making a sale, it apparently would be subject to this tax. For many such businesses, a gross receipts tax at a 5% rate would wipe out all profits, equivalent to an over 100% corporate income tax. At that point, a tax for engaging in data collection might become so punitive it violates the Due Process Clause. Another obvious due process problem is that the lack of definitions and the broad sweep of this proposal could invalidate it on void for vagueness grounds.

Any meaningful attempts to address these constitutional issues, such as by specifically applying the tax only on big tech companies, would add new problems under the Permanent Internet Tax Freedom Act (PITFA). A tax on digital use of data while the non-digital use of data is not similarly taxed would run afoul of PITFA’s ban on tax discrimination against electronic commerce.

First Maryland, then Nebraska, now New York. The repeated introduction of targeted taxes on digital companies early in 2020 seems to be the start of an alarming trend of legally suspect tax proposals that we are keeping a close eye on.




Gross Receipts Taxes Face Policy and Legal Challenges

“Generally, the only places with gross receipts taxes today are U.S. states and developing countries.” –Professor Richard Pomp, University of Connecticut

As the economy shifts to a digital one, we are finding that states are turning toward unconventional revenue options. One trend we’re seeing is the surprising comeback of the gross receipts tax (GRT):

  • Oregon’s new Commercial Activity Tax (CAT) takes effect January 1, 2020. Oregon officials are currently writing rules to implement it. Portland, Oregon also adopted a 1% gross receipts tax, imposed only on big businesses, starting January 1, 2019.
  • San Francisco voters imposed an additional gross receipts tax on businesses with receipts of more than $50 million beginning January 1, 2019. This is on top of the gross receipts tax that was phased in from 2014 to 2018 to replace the city’s payroll tax.
  • Nevada’s Commerce Tax took effect July 1, 2015, imposing differing tax rates on 26 categories of business with over $4 million in receipts. Part of the revenue was to reduce the state’s MBT payroll tax, but legislators suspended those reductions this year; it’s now in court.
  • Serious proposals to adopt a statewide gross receipts tax keep coming, with the last three years including Louisiana, Missouri, Oklahoma, West Virginia and Wyoming. A San Jose, California gross receipts tax proposal was approved to gather petition signatures in 2016 but eventually morphed into a business license tax overhaul.

(more…)




An Uneven Playing Field: Judicial Deference to State Tax Administrator Interpretations

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.




STAY CONNECTED

TOPICS

ARCHIVES