On December 19, 2017, DC Councilmember Mary Cheh introduced the District Tax Independence Act of 2017 (Act), which would require the Chief Financial Officer (CFO) to submit a report outlining the steps and amendments necessary to decouple the District’s tax deduction laws from federal law. As introduced, the Act would require this report by no later than April 30, 2018. The Act was referred to the Committee on Finance and Revenue the same day it was introduced and has not been taken up by the committee, which has been dormant since and is not currently scheduled to meet again until the Council returns in late January. The legislation is co-sponsored by Councilmembers Allen, Evans, McDuffie, Bonds, Gray, Nadeau, R. White, Grosso, Silverman, T. White, and Chairman Mendelson. Notably, all members of the Committee on Finance and Revenue—including Chairman Evans—are co-sponsors. Practice Note The introduction of the Act signals the Council’s overwhelming disapproval of the federal tax reform enacted by Congress and signed by President Trump on December 22, 2017. This is a process that is likely to take place across the country as states begin to assess the revenue impact of the federal tax reform legislation on their state corporate income and franchise tax regime. The District currently conforms to many federal deductions on a rolling basis for purposes of the Franchise Tax, which is imposed on both corporations and unincorporated entities. See generally DC Code Ann. § 47-1803.03. As part of the decoupling process, the CFO and Council will need to determine which deductions to alter to avoid a significant revenue loss and what the DC treatment should be. Furthermore, the CFO and Council should consider which deductions are necessary to retain due to related increases to the federal tax base, which DC utilizes as the starting point for Franchise Tax purposes. The effective dates and relation to 2017 return deadlines will be critical to monitor as this process moves forward, as several portions of the federal tax reform are effective for the 2017 tax year—meaning the corresponding District changes (if any) will need to be retroactive since returns (absent extensions) are due before the CFO’s report to the Council is. DC taxpayers with specific questions on how this process may impact their Franchise Tax liability in 2017 and going forward are encouraged to contact the authors.
Yesterday, the application period opened for the limited-time MTC Marketplace Seller Voluntary Disclosure Initiative opened and it will close October 17, 2017. Since our last blog post on the topic detailing the initiatives terms, benefits and application procedure, six additional states (listed below) have signed on to participate in varying capacities. The lookback period being offered by each of the six states that joined this week is described below.
- District of Columbia: will consider granting shorter or no lookback period for applications received under this initiative on a case by case basis. DC’s standard lookback period is 3 years for sales/use and income/franchise tax.
- Massachusetts: requires compliance with its standard 3-year lookback period. This lookback period in a particular case may be less than 3 years, depending on when vendor nexus was created.
- Minnesota: will abide by customary lookback periods of 3 years for sales/use tax and 4 years (3 look-back years and 1 current year) for income/franchise tax. Minnesota will grant shorter lookback periods to the time when the marketplace seller created nexus.
- Missouri: prospective-only for sales/use and income/franchise tax.
- North Carolina: prospective-only for sales/use and income/franchise tax. North Carolina will consider applications even if the entity had prior contact concerning tax liability or potential tax liability.
- Tennessee: prospective-only for sales/use tax, business tax and franchise and excise tax.
The MTC marketplace seller initiative is now up to 24 participating states. It is targeting online marketplace sellers that use a marketplace provider (such as the Amazon FBA program or similar platform or program providing fulfillment services) to facilitate retail sales into the state. In order to qualify, marketplace sellers must not have any nexus-creating contacts in the state, other than: (1) inventory stored in a third-party warehouse or fulfillment center located in the state or (2) other nexus-creating activities performed by the marketplace provider on behalf of the online marketplace seller.
While Missouri, North Carolina and Tennessee have signed on to the attractive baseline terms (no lookback for sales/use and income/franchise tax), Minnesota and Massachusetts are requiring their standard lookback periods (i.e., 3+ years). Thus, these two states (similar to Wisconsin) are not likely to attract many marketplace sellers. The District of Columbia’s noncommittal case-by-case offer leaves a lot to be determined, and their ultimate offer at the end of the process could range from no lookback to the standard three years.
The Multistate Tax Commission (MTC) is moving quickly to implement a multistate amnesty program through its current National Nexus Program (NNP) for sellers making sales through marketplaces. The new MTC marketplace seller amnesty program is limited to remote sellers (3P sellers) that have nexus with a state solely as the result of: (1) having inventory located in a fulfillment center or warehouse in that state operated by a marketplace provider; or (2) other nexus-creating activities of a marketplace provider in the state. Other qualifications include: (1) no prior contact/registration with the state; (2) timely application during the period of August 17, 2017 through October 17, 2017; and (3) registration with the state to begin collecting sales and use tax by no later than December 1, 2017, and income/franchise tax (to the extent applicable) starting with the 2017 tax year.
The baseline guarantee is prospective-only (beginning no later than Dec. 1, 2017) tax liability for sales and use and income/franchise tax, including waiver of penalties and interest. The program also attempts to ensure confidentiality of the 3P seller’s participation by prohibiting the states and MTC from honoring blanket requests from other jurisdictions for the identity of taxpayers filing returns. Note, however, that the confidentiality provision would still allow for disclosure of the content of the agreement in response to: (1) an inter-government exchange of information agreement in which the entity provides the taxpayer’s name and taxpayer identification number; (2) a statutory requirement; or (3) a lawful order.
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”
With many state legislatures wrapping up session within the past month or so, there has been a flurry of last-minute tax amnesty legislation passed. Nearly a half-dozen states have authorized upcoming tax amnesty periods. These tax amnesties include a waiver of interest and, in some circumstances, allow taxpayers currently under audit or with an appeal pending to participate. This blog entry highlights the various enactments that have occurred since the authors last covered the upcoming Maryland amnesty program.
On April 27, 2015, Governor Jay Nixon signed a bill (HB 384) that creates the first Missouri tax amnesty since 2002. The bill creates a 90-day tax amnesty period scheduled to run from September 1, 2015, to November 30, 2015. The amnesty is limited in scope and applies only to income, sales and use, and corporation franchise taxes. The amnesty allows taxpayers with liabilities accrued before December 31, 2014, to pay in full between September 1, 2015, and November 30, 2015, and be relieved of all penalties and interest associated with the delinquent obligation. Before electing to participate in the amnesty program, taxpayers should be aware that participation will disqualify them from participating in any future Missouri amnesty for the same type of tax. In addition, if a taxpayer fails to comply with Missouri tax law at any time during the eight years following the agreement, the penalties and interest waived under the amnesty will be revoked and become due immediately. Finally, taxpayers who are the subject of civil or criminal state-tax-related investigations, or are currently involved in litigation over the obligation, are not eligible for the amnesty.
According to the fiscal note provided in conjunction with the bill, the state estimates that 340,000 taxpayers will be eligible for the amnesty and that the program will raise $25 million.
On May 20, 2015, Governor Mary Fallin signed a bill (HB 2236) creating a two-month amnesty period from September 14, 2015, to November 13, 2015. The bill allows taxpayers that pay delinquent taxes (i.e., taxes due for any tax period ending before January 1, 2015) during the amnesty period to receive a waiver of any associated interest, penalties, fines or collection costs.
Taxes eligible for the amnesty include individual and corporate income taxes, withholding taxes, sales and use taxes, gasoline and diesel taxes, gross production and petroleum excise taxes, banking privilege taxes and mixed beverage taxes. Notably, franchise taxes are not included in this year’s amnesty (they were included in the 2008 Oklahoma amnesty).
In May, Governor Mike Pence signed a biennial budget bill (HB 1001) that included a provision authorizing the Department of Revenue (Department) to implement an eight-week tax amnesty program before 2017. While the Department must promulgate emergency regulations that will specify exact dates and procedures, several sources have indicated that the amnesty is expected to occur sometime this fall. The upcoming amnesty will mark the second-ever amnesty offered by Indiana (the first occurred in 2005). Taxpayers that participated in the 2005 program will be disappointed to know that the authorizing legislation specifically prohibits them from participating in the upcoming amnesty.
The amnesty program is applicable to all “listed taxes” collected by the Department, including sales and use taxes, corporate and personal income taxes, financial institutions tax and gas taxes. See Indiana Code § 6-8.1-1-1 for the complete list. Unlike several of the other amnesty programs discussed that apply to more recent liabilities, the Indiana amnesty is only statutorily authorized for liabilities due before January 1, 2013 (i.e., 2012 or earlier). While the Department is not prevented from settling more recent liabilities incurred in 2013 and 2014, such an arrangement would be outside the scope of the statutory amnesty provisions.
The benefits of the upcoming program include abatement of interest, penalties, collection fees and costs that would otherwise be applicable, release of any liens and no civil or criminal prosecution. Indiana taxpayers should be aware that if an eligible liability is not paid during the amnesty period (and is subsequently discovered by the Department) penalties are doubled under the statute.
On March 12, 2015, Governor Doug Ducey approved a budget package that included a bill (SB 1471) creating a tax recovery (amnesty) program for taxpayers with outstanding liabilities. The program is scheduled to run from September 1, 2015, through October 31, 2015, and applies to all taxes administered by the Department of Revenue, except withholding and luxury taxes. Taxpayers that come forward with tax liabilities that could have been assessed before 2014 (or before 2015 in the case of non-annual filers) will receive abatement of all civil penalties and interest. Taxpayers that were a party to a closing agreement with the Department during the liability period are not eligible for the program; however, nothing in the statute would appear to prevent a taxpayer that is currently under audit from participating in the program.
As a consequence of applying to the program, the inclusion of the outstanding debt in a taxpayer’s application is considered to be a waiver of the taxpayer’s administrative and judicial appeal rights.
On June 8, 2015, Governor Nikki Haley signed a bill (S. 526) giving the Department of Revenue (Department) authority to schedule and execute a three-month tax amnesty period at their discretion. The bill specifically allows the Department to waive all penalties and interest (or a portion of them at its discretion) for taxpayers that voluntarily file delinquent returns and pay all taxes owed (i.e., the Department cannot waive penalties and interest on a period-by-period basis). Taxpayers with an appeal pending may only participate in the program if they pay all the taxes owed. While payment of the liability is required to participate, it will not constitute an admission of liability or a waiver of the appeal.
Taxpayers should note that any debts not fully paid within an agreed-upon post-amnesty period will be subject to a 10 percent collection and assistance fee, in addition to the penalties and interest otherwise owed. The bill grants authority for imposition of this fee for up to one year after the close of the extended amnesty period.
Now is the time for taxpayers with outstanding tax obligations in any of the state’s offering amnesty (including Maryland) to consider whether the issues can and should be resolved through the amnesty program. In deciding whether to avail oneself of the amnesty offerings, taxpayers should be aware that failure to participate in many states (including Indiana and South Carolina) can lead to increased penalties and fees (the infamous “amnesty hammer”) if the delinquent obligation subsequently surfaces.
A New York State Division of Tax Appeals administrative law judge (ALJ) recently determined that a banking corporation was not required to hypothetically use a net operating loss (NOL) deduction to decrease its entire net income in a year in which its banking corporation franchise tax liability under Article 32 of the New York Tax Law (bank tax) was not measured by the entire net income base. Matter of TD Holdings II, Inc., DTA No. 825329 (N.Y. Div. Tax App. Jan. 22, 2015). This case is a sterling example of how long-held and long-applied state tax audit policies can be successfully challenged. Taxpayers – in several states at least – can rely on the state’s adjudicatory process to ensure that logical results that are consistent with legislative intent are ultimately applied. McDermott represented the taxpayer in this case.
Though the bank tax has been repealed effective January 1, 2015, during the years at issue, the tax was imposed on one of four alternate bases, whichever resulted in the highest tax:
- A tax on entire net income;
- A tax on taxable assets;
- A tax on alternative entire net income; or
- A minimum tax.
Note that New York’s current general business franchise tax is similarly imposed on a number of alternative bases, and that banking corporations are now subject to that tax. See N.Y. Tax Law § 210.
In the case at issue, TD Holdings II, Inc., and certain of its disregarded subsidiaries (collectively, TD) had approximately $9 million of New York NOLs available to carry forward to its 2006 tax year. However, for 2006, TD’s bank tax liability on its asset base was greater than its bank tax liability computed using its entire net income base—even without application of an NOL deduction. Therefore, because TD was not required to pay tax based on the income base, it argued that it should not have to hypothetically use any portion of its available New York NOLs to reduce its entire net income base in the 2006 tax year, thereby reducing its New York NOLs available for carry forward to later years.
The Division of Taxation, arguing that because the Tax Law provided that a corporation’s New York NOL deduction in a given tax year is “presumably the same as” its federal NOL deduction for that same year, asserted that TD had to take a New York NOL deduction in 2006 that equaled its federal NOL deduction despite the fact that TD was not required to pay bank tax on the income base.
The ALJ agreed with TD, holding that TD “was not required by the plain language of the statute to hypothetically apply [its] New York NOL to an entire net income that was already sufficiently low enough to cause the use of an alternative tax base,” and that there is no statutory prohibition against a taxpayer using a New York NOL deduction that is less than its corresponding federal deduction notwithstanding statutory language that prevents a taxpayer from taking a New York NOL deduction that exceeds its federal deduction. The ALJ also agreed with TD’s application of the legislative history and policy behind New York’s NOL deduction, which is “to ensure that taxpayers with fluctuating earnings would not be punished compared to those with steady earnings.” TD argued and the ALJ agreed that to accomplish the legislature’s goal of allowing a taxpayer to offset its high tax liability in profitable years with losses incurred in unprofitable years, “the applicability of a NOL deduction must be tied to a taxpayer’s income.” The ALJ concluded that because “income” was not used as a basis for computing TD’s bank tax, it was unnecessary for TD to claim a hypothetical New York NOL deduction in the 2006 tax year.
ALJ determinations are non-precedential; however, by expressly providing that the maximum amount of NOL that can be carried over and deducted in a taxable year is the amount that reduces the taxpayer’s tax on allocated business income (the former entire net income base) to the higher of the tax on capital or the fixed dollar minimum, the TD Holdings II decision is important for taxpayers to consider when computing the pool from which their “prior NOL conversion subtraction” will be computed. Under the new law, taxpayers are afforded a “prior NOL conversion subtraction” for NOLs generated in tax years beginning before January 1, 2015. As a result of the TD Holdings II case, taxpayers subject to the bank tax or the corporation franchise tax imposed under Article 9-A for tax years beginning before January 1, 2015, may have a larger pool of pre-reform NOLs from which to compute their prior NOL conversion subtraction.
For more detailed information see McDermott Will & Emery’s On the Subject regarding this case.
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.
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, temporary legislation in the District may remain in effect for up to 225 days.
Practice Note: Given the apparent intent of the Council to fix this problem, we are confident that a more permanent solution is on the way to correct the disconnect within the BSA provisions. The Council should act sooner rather than later to ensure taxpayers have a sense of clarity prior to the September filing deadline. While the Council appears to have their bases temporarily covered, any mishap in the passage of the temporary Act will leave DC taxpayers and the OTR with a significant compliance burden beginning on April 13. We are closely monitoring the temporary Act, the likely introduction of a permanent fix and the much-anticipated release of market-based sourcing regulations by the OTR (discussed below). We will update readers with any significant development in this area.
Additional Developments – Regulations Pending
Legislative mishap aside, OTR is nearing completion on a set of market-based sourcing regulations that are modeled off of the recently finalized Massachusetts guidance, but with fewer examples. The Multistate Tax Commission (MTC) Uniformity Committee is also working to develop model-market sourcing rules and is using the Massachusetts rules as its starting draft. As with similar uniformity efforts in the past, it will be interesting to see how uniform the DC regulations and MTC model regulations turn out to be. For example, if the final product in DC substantially conforms to the Massachusetts model, taxpayers may be able to cite to the extended examples provided in the Massachusetts or MTC regulations when taking a tax position. If history holds true, the one thing that is certain is that the uniformity effort won’t be entirely uniform.