INSIDE SALT
INSIDE SALT
In-Depth Coverage of Issues Surrounding State and Local Tax
INSIDE SALT
In-Depth Coverage of Issues Surrounding State and Local Tax
Audits
Subscribe to Audits's Posts

Taxpayers Stand to Lose Under Chicago’s Lease Tax VDA Offer

by , and | Nov 20, 2015 | , , , , ,

Yesterday, the City of Chicago (City) Department of Finance (Department) published an Information Bulletin that provides additional guidance on the Personal Property Lease Transaction Tax (Lease Tax) and extends a new Voluntary Disclosure Agreement (VDA) offer to providers and customers. The updated guidance includes an overview of the Lease Tax, a description of the amendments included in the FY 2016 Revenue Ordinance that passed on October 28, 2015, and answers to 15 FAQs. The details on the Department’s controversial interpretation of the Lease Tax in Ruling #12 and the recent amendments to the Lease Tax have been covered by the authors in prior blog posts, available here and here. The new VDA offer is a significant development that may be enticing to certain providers and customers. However, before providers and customers rush to sign up to pay the Lease Tax for the foreseeable future, they should carefully evaluate whether any Lease Tax obligation is in fact due and whether they qualify under the loose terms outlined in the Bulletin (discussed in detail below). It should be noted at the outset that the guidance (and accompanying VDA offer) do not relate to the City’s amusement tax, which has also been of concern after a ruling was issued this summer interpreting the tax to apply to streamed digital content.

VDA Offer Terms

The most significant component of yesterday’s guidance is the VDA offer beginning on page 6 of the Bulletin. While the VDA may seem enticing, we encourage providers and customers alike to proceed with caution as the practical application of the ambiguous (and discretionary) terms are tainted with uncertainty.

As a threshold to qualifying, the provider or customers must qualify (i.e., be a qualified discloser) for the City standard voluntary disclosure program. Under the standard program, a taxpayer must not be under audit or investigation (i.e., has not received a written notice relating to an audit or investigation for the tax at issue) and must “waive their right to an administrative hearing or claim for refund or credit, and agree not to initiate or join any lawsuits for the payments made under the program.” This is significant because we believe a challenge to the Lease Tax is imminent and those that participate in the VDA program will not benefit if any such challenge is successful.

Even if a taxpayer is considered a qualified discloser under the standard program, to qualify for the more favorable Lease Tax offer providers and customers must file an application by January 1, 2016, and come into compliance with the Lease Tax Ordinance by the same date (or such later date that the Department may agree to). If all of these requirements are met, they will receive the following terms:

  1. As to charges for nonpossessory computer leases that qualified for Exemption 11 under the Department’s interpretation of the exemption before the issuance of Ruling #12, no liability for tax, interest or penalties based on those charges for [...]

    Continue Reading


read more

Precedential Cloud Victory in Michigan Court of Appeals

by , and | Oct 30, 2015 | , , , ,

On Tuesday, a three-judge panel sitting for the Michigan Court of Appeals unanimously affirmed a lower court decision finding that the use of cloud-based services in Michigan is not subject to use tax in Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Dep’t of Treasury, No. 321505 (Mich. Ct. App. Oct. 27, 2015). While there have been a number of cloud-based use tax victories in the Michigan courts over the past year and a half, this decision marks the first published Court of Appeals opinion (i.e., it has precedential effect under the rule of stare decisis). See Mich. Ct. R. 7.215(C)(2). Therefore, the trial courts and Michigan Court of Appeals are obligated to follow the holdings in this case when presented with similar facts, until the Michigan Supreme Court or Court of Appeals say otherwise. While the ultimate outcome (i.e., not taxable) of the lower court decision was affirmed, the analysis used by the Court of Appeals to get there was slightly different and the court took the time to analyze over a dozen different contracts, as discussed below. Given the fact that a petition for review is currently pending in another Court of Appeals case (Thomson Reuters) decided on similar issues in 2014, it will be interesting to see if this development increases the Michigan Supreme Court’s appetite to hear a use tax case on cloud-based services. The Department of Treasury (Department) has approximately 40 days to request that the Auto-Owners decision be reviewed by the Michigan Supreme Court.

Facts

Auto-Owners is an insurance company based out of Michigan that entered into a variety of contracts with third-parties to provide cloud-based services. These contracts were grouped into six basic categories for purposes of this case: (1) insurance industry specific contracts, (2) technology and communications contracts, (3) online research contracts, (4) payment remittance and processing support contracts, (5) equipment maintenance and software customer support contracts and (6) marketing and advertising contracts.  The contracts all involved, at some level, software accessed through the internet. Michigan audited Auto-Owners and ultimately issued a use tax deficiency assessment based on the cloud-based service contracts it utilized.  In doing so, the Department cited the Michigan use tax statute, which like many states, provides that tax is imposed on the privilege of using tangible personal property in the state. See generally Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 205.93. The Department took the position that the software used in Michigan by Auto-Owners was “tangible personal property,” which is defined to include prewritten, non-custom, software that is “delivered by any means” under Michigan law. See Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 205.92b(o). The taxpayer paid the tax under protest and filed a refund claim, which was the focus of the Court of Claims decision being appealed.

Procedural History

At the trial court level, the Court of Claims determined that the application of use tax to the software used in Michigan by Auto-Owners would be improper. In doing so, the court issued three separate holdings—all in favor of the taxpayer. First, the court held that use tax [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Straight Outta Delaware: JLI Invest S.A. et al. v. Cook et al.

by , and | Aug 25, 2015 | , , , ,

As soon as we start to think that Delaware’s unclaimed property practices and administration couldn’t possibly get any more egregious, another lawsuit like JLI Invest S.A. et al. v. Cook et al., Case No. 11274 surfaces. The facts alleged in the complaint highlight the fundamental issue of just how much “protection” state unclaimed property laws provide to owners. In this case, Delaware apparently protected two scientists out of $12,024,148.25. Yay Delaware. The scientists are not happy (we would be crying on the floor with either (a) a vat of Graeter’s ice cream or (b) a barrel of Sancerre) and have sued Delaware for their lost value.

Facts

Dr. Gilles Gosselin and Dr. Jean Louis Imbach are the two Belgian scientists who headed the research team responsible for creating a Hepatitis B drug. Idenix Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was established to commercially develop this drug. As the creators of the drug, Dr. Gosselin and Dr. Imbach were given an ownership interest amounting to approximately 10 percent of the Idenix shares. These shares were held by JLI Invest S.A. and LIN Invest S.A. (the plaintiffs), two Belgian companies established for this purpose.

Despite the facts that (a) both Idenix and Computershare (their transfer agent) had record of the mailing address of each plaintiff and no mail was ever returned undeliverable—as required by Delaware law at the time for property to be deemed abandoned— and (b) that scientists both continued to perform professional services for Idenix, Computershare reported the Idenix shares to Delaware in November 2008 and delivered all of the shares to Delaware on January 2, 2009.  Three days later, Delaware sold the shares for a total of $1,695,851.75 (approximately $3.03 per share). At the time, Idenix had approximately 50 shareholders, and the market for the shares was illiquid.

After making an inquiry concerning the stock to Computershare three years later in 2012, the plaintiffs learned that their shares had been escheated to Delaware. Upon contacting the Delaware Office of Unclaimed Property to claim their property, the plaintiffs were forced to provide substantial documentation verifying their status as the rightful owner, which they did in October and December 2012. After over a year of “pending” status, the plaintiffs were directed to complete a “Request Form” in May 2013, at which time it was noted that a response could take another 12 weeks.

On June 9, 2014, Merck and Idenix announced that Merck would acquire Idenix via a cash tender offer for $24.50 per share. Because the plaintiffs’ shares had been escheated to (and immediately sold by) Delaware in 2009, they were not able to participate in the tender offer despite their desire to. Had they been able to participate, the plaintiffs would have been entitled to receive a total of $13,720,000 for their shares. Meanwhile, Delaware had still not responded regarding the status of their claim. Notably, it was not until October 2014 (over two years after their initial request) that the Delaware Office of Unclaimed Property confirmed that the plaintiffs Idenix shares were [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Uniform Law Commission Completes First Reading of the Revised Uniform Unclaimed Property Act

by , and | Jul 20, 2015 | , , ,

On Tuesday, July 14, 2015, at their Annual Meeting the Uniform Law Commission (ULC) completed their first reading of the Revised Uniform Unclaimed Property Act (RUUPA or the Act). While over half of the sections comprising the current draft of the Act were passed over due to strict time constraints imposed by the ULC President Harriet Lansing, the RUUPA Drafting Committee (Committee) did their best to focus the time they did have on sections they felt were most in need of feedback from the ULC Commissioners (Commissioners) as a whole. The Committee even went so far as to invite discussion by allowing American Bar Association (ABA) Advisors and National Association of Unclaimed Property Administrators (NAUPA) to explain their stances on hot button issues such as the derivative rights doctrine, life insurance provisions and the inclusion of a business-to-business exemption. Despite this attempt, Commissioner feedback was sparse (to non-existent) for a majority of the reading and was often technical in nature when provided. While over 250 of the 400 Commissioners were present at the Annual Meeting, only about half of those present attended the morning session of the RUUPA reading. After a lunch break, the afternoon session of the reading was even more sparsely attended, with less than 100 Commissioners present. While the turnout and participation was not ideal, the Committee provided some guidance to the Commissioners that may be useful to interested parties going forward.

Highlights

  • Committee Co-Chair Rex Blackburn made it clear that they would be considering the application of the derivative right doctrine, which generally stands for the proposition that state unclaimed property administrators cannot receive greater rights than those of the true owner, on a property-type basis (as opposed to a blanket inclusion or exclusion). Aside from the short ABA-NAUPA debate on the issue, there was no substantive discussion of the derivate rights doctrine.
  • A return to the 1981 Act’s 10-year statute of repose was discussed. Commissioner Raymond Pepe noted that the Committee reverted back to this based on the widespread abuse of statistical sampling. Several Commissioners were supportive of this change, and even encouraged the Committee to shorten this period further since the statute does not begin running until after the report was due. Nebraska Commissioner Harvey Perlman suggested that the Committee simply limit the use of abusive statistical sampling instead of establishing a statute of repose. The Committee responded that a bright-line rule is necessary here to provide certainty.
  • The Committee confessed that the current section on the conduct of audits (Section 20) needs to be broken out into four distinct sections in the next draft. A majority of the discussion in this area was on the use of contingent fee contract auditors—which is permitted in the current draft with numerous protections that seek to enhance the transparency of this process. Connecticut Commissioner David Biklen suggested that his state would not be able to audit holders without the use of contract auditors and expressed concern [...]

    Continue Reading


read more

Delaware Senate Passes Unclaimed Property Reform Bill

by , and | Jun 23, 2015 | , , , ,

On June 18, 2015, a bill (S.B. 141) was unanimously approved by the Delaware Senate that would place limits on the look-back period and permanently extend the Voluntary Disclosure Agreement (VDA) program. This represents the second bill this year that seeks to implement the recommended changes contained in the Unclaimed Property Task Force’s (Task Force) December 2014 final report (the first, S.B. 11, was signed by Governor Jack Markell on January 29, 2015). If passed by the House, the legislation would offer several additional protections to holders; however, it also contains a number of traps for the unwary that should not be overlooked.

Look-back Period Shortened

First, and most significantly, the bill would limit the examination look-back period in Delaware to 22 years, starting in 2017. For periods before 2017, the bill would limit the look-back period to 1986 (if currently under examination) or 1991 (for any examinations initiated after enactment).  While this proposed look-back period decrease would be a significant improvement from the status quo (which allows Delaware to look-back to any period after 1980), it would still represent one of the longer look-back periods in the country. Notably, the proposed 22-year look-back period would remain over twice as long as most state unclaimed property look-back periods (which are usually 10 years or less).

Permanent VDA Program

Second, the VDA program is amended to authorize the Secretary of State to request that any potential holder enter into an unclaimed property VDA. If the potential holder does not agree to the VDA within 60 days, they will be referred to the State Escheator for examination. The bill provides for a 19-year (reduced) look-back period for any holder than enters the VDA program on or after January 1, 2017, and allows two years to complete the VDA process. Additionally, S.B. 141 would strike the sunset provision for the VDA program, which is currently scheduled to expire July 1, 2016. Certain holders are not permitted to participate in the VDA program, including those that: (1) formally withdrew from the voluntary disclosure agreement program, or (2) were removed from the VDA program for failure to work in good faith to complete the VDA program as soon as practicable.

Interest

The bill would also amend the governing statute to allow interest of 0.5 percent per month (up to 25 percent of the amount due) to accrue from the due date for any late-filed unclaimed property reported and remitted on or after March 1, 2016. The current unclaimed property statute in Delaware does not have a provision permitting the accrual of interest (former interest provisions were repealed in June 2014 with the enactment of S.B. 228). Even before their repeal, the interest provisions were largely unenforced. Because the look-back period would remain over 20 years in Delaware, the added costs associated with the proposed interest increase (and actual enforcement) will likely be more than the amounts no longer owed due to the proposed look-back period reduction.

Mandatory Holder Contact

One procedural change [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Remote Transactions Parity Act Introduced in the U.S. House

by , and | Jun 15, 2015 | , , , , ,

Today, Representative Jason Chaffetz introduced H.R. 2775, the Remote Transactions Parity Act of 2015 (RTPA), in the United States House of Representatives (House).

The RTPA addresses the Internet sales tax issue using the structure of the Marketplace Fairness Act (MFA), which passed the Senate in 2013 and was re-introduced earlier this year. Although the RTPA retains many of the features of the MFA, it adds protections for remote sellers and certified software providers.

MFA Authorization Framework Retained

Like the MFA, the RTPA creates two paths for states to impose sales and use taxes on remote sellers. Through the first path, states that are members of the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement (SSUTA) are authorized to impose sales and use tax collection requirements on remote sellers. Under the second path, a state that is not a member state under the SSTUA would also be authorized to collect and remit sales and use taxes on remote transactions if it implements certain simplification requirements and protections for remote sellers and certified software providers. Many of these are carried over from the MFA, notably: (1) destination sourcing for interstate transactions; (2) a single entity for administration of sales and use tax; (3) a single audit of remote sellers per state; (4) a single return per state; (5) uniform tax base for all state and local sales taxes within the state; and (6) relief for errors, including remote sellers being relieved of errors made by a certified software provider or the state itself, and certified software providers being relieved of errors made by a remote seller or the state itself. Like the MFA, the RTPA would be effective one year from enactment, but not during the period from October through December in the year following enactment.

Changes

The RTPA contains several notable differences from the MFA, discussed below.

Small Seller Exception

Under the MFA, there is a fixed exception for small sellers and states are not authorized to impose a sales and use tax on small sellers, defined as remote sellers making sales of $1 million or less.

Under the RTPA, the small seller exception starts off larger, and subsequently phased out. In the first year, the exception applies for sellers making sales of $10 million or less. In the second and third year, the threshold is $5 million and $1 million, respectively. The exception goes away in the fourth year. Furthermore, under the RTPA sellers utilizing an electronic marketplace are not considered small sellers and are not entitled to the exception, no matter the year.

Protections to Sellers and Certified Software Providers

The RTPA provides additional protections for remote sellers and certified software providers.  The RTPA contains a mechanism to make sure that a state is not authorized to impose a sales and use tax collection requirement on remote sellers until it has certified multiple software providers, and those providers are certified in all other states seeking to impose authorization requirements. This is to ensure that a remote seller can [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Tax Amnesty Hits the Midwest (and Beyond)

by , and | Jun 12, 2015 | , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

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.

Missouri

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.

Oklahoma

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).

Indiana

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 [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Massachusetts DOR May Lose Staff This Summer

by and | May 26, 2015 | , ,

The Massachusetts Department of Revenue (DOR) likely will have significantly less employees starting July 1, 2015, due to a Massachusetts employee retirement incentive program.  Governor Charlie Baker recently signed legislation establishing the program on May 4, 2015 (see 2015 Mass. Acts Chapter 19, An Act Relative to State Personnel).  With more than half of DOR’s employees eligible to participate in the program, DOR is the state agency with the potential to lose the highest percentage of employees.

The program allows employees who already are eligible to retire but have not reached their maximum pension benefit to add up to five years onto their age, years of service or a combination of both, so they can retire immediately with a higher pension.  The program limits total workforce reductions in Massachusetts to 5,000 employees.  Eligible employees must submit an application to the State Board of Retirement between May 11 and June 12, 2015, to participate.  The retirement date and last day of work for approved employees will be June 30, 2015.  The Baker administration can use up to 20 percent of the savings from the retired employees to hire replacement staff, but it is unclear when such hiring will take place and how much funding will be allocated to DOR versus other state agencies affected by the program.

What does this mean for taxpayers and tax practitioners?  We are hearing that there may be a potential shortage of staff at DOR, particularly in the Audit Division.  Audits may be slowed and relationships that have been developed over years with auditors may end abruptly.  Consequently, taxpayers and their representatives might aim to quickly resolve any matters they have outstanding with DOR sooner rather than later as DOR may be forced to slow down following the reduction in staff this summer.

It is unclear what effect the program will have on the Litigation Bureau and other sections of DOR.  A loss of litigators could slow cases currently before the Appellate Tax Board.

Although disagreements may exist with various DOR positions, we are pleased with the institutional strength of DOR.  We hope that steps will be taken to retain the institutional knowledge of long time DOR personnel.



read more

D.C. Proposes Law to Allow Indefinite Suspension of Limitation Period for Assessment and Collection

by , and | May 6, 2015 | , , , , ,

The Fiscal Year 2016 Budget Support Act of 2015 (BSA), introduced by the Washington, D.C. Council at the request of Mayor Muriel Bowser on April 2, 2015, contains a subtitle (see Title VII, Subtitle G, page 66-67) that would give the Office and Tax and Revenue (OTR) complete discretion to indefinitely suspend the period of limitation on assessment and collection of all D.C. taxes—other than real property taxes, which contain a separate set of rules and procedures. The change to the statute of limitation provision would eliminate a fundamental taxpayer protection that exists today in all states. Those concerned should reach out to members of the D.C. Council to discourage adoption of this subtitle of the BSA.

Current Law

Under current law, the amount of tax imposed must be assessed (in other words, a final assessment must be issued) within three (3) years of the taxpayer’s return being filed. See D.C. Code § 47-4301(a). Practically speaking, this requires the mayor to issue a notice of proposed assessment no later than two (2) years and 11 months after the return is filed—to allow the taxpayer the requisite 30 days to file a protest with the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH). See D.C. Code § 47-4312(a). As the law reads today, the running of the period of limitation is suspended between the filing of a protest and the issuance of a final order by OAH, plus an additional 60 days thereafter. See D.C. Code § 47-4303. The District has 10 years after the final assessment to levy or begin a court proceeding for collections. See D.C. Code § 47-4302(a).

Proposed Changes

The BSA would extend the limitation period for assessment and collection, as follows:

  1. The BSA would add a new provision to statutorily require the chief financial officer (CFO, the executive branch official overseeing the OTR) to send a notice of proposed audit changes at least 30 days before the notice of proposed assessment is sent; and
  2. The BSA would toll the running of the statute of limitation on assessment and collection during the period after the CFO/OTR issues the aforementioned notice of proposed audit changes until the issuance of a final assessment or order by OAH.

The BSA does not indicate an applicable date for these changes. As a result, the provision likely would be applicable to any open tax period, effectively making the change retroactive to returns already filed.

Effect

By changing the law to toll the statute of limitation for the period after OTR issues a notice of proposed audit changes, the BSA would allow OTR to unilaterally control whether the three-year statute of limitation is running. The current statute requires that OTR issue its notice of proposed assessment before the expiration of the three-year statute—and gives taxpayers the ability to protest such notices before the OAH. By tolling the statute upon issuance of a notice of proposed audit changes, which is not subject to review by OAH, the BSA would strip taxpayers of the [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Reporting Audit Changes – New York City Amends Provision on Apportionment

by | May 6, 2015 | , , , ,

On April 13, 2015, Governor Andrew Cuomo signed into law two bills related to the 2015-2016 budget (S2009-B/A3009-B and S4610-A/A6721-A) (Budget Bill), containing several significant “technical corrections” to the New York State corporate income tax reform enacted in 2014, along with sales tax provisions and amendments to reform New York City’s (the City’s) General Corporation tax.  For additional information regarding these changes see our Special Report.

One of the less-publicized changes to the New York City Administrative Code involves an amendment to the provision that prohibits changes to the City allocation percentage during the additional period of limitation that is initiated by the reporting of federal or New York State corporate income tax or certain sales and use tax changes to the City where a taxpayer is not conceding the reported changes for New York City purposes.  N.Y. Admin. Code § 11-674(3)(g).  Under the former rule, if the general three-year statute of limitations had expired (i.e., the three-year period from the date the City return was filed), neither the taxpayer nor the City could make changes to the taxpayer’s allocation percentage due to the reporting of federal or New York State changes.  (This same prohibition on changes to the allocation percentage applied (a) when the taxpayer had not notified the City as to a federal or New York State change, but in such situation there would be no limitation on the time period during which the City can issue an assessment and (b) when a deficiency was attributable to the application of a net operating loss or capital loss carry back.)

In the past, the Commissioner has argued that the language in section 11-674(3)(g) was only intended to bar the City from making its own audit adjustments to a taxpayer’s allocation percentage and did not bar the City from making changes to a taxpayer’s allocation percentage that track or reflect State changes to such percentage.  A 1991 Department of Finance Hearing Decision agreed with this interpretation.  See Matter of C.I.C. International Corporation, FHD(390)-GC-9/91(0-0-0) (Sept. 13, 1991).  However, in 1999, the New York City Tax Appeals Tribunal held that the limitation imposed by section 11-674(3)(g) barred the City from making any changes to a taxpayer’s allocation percentage during the additional two-year period of limitation following a report of a State change, even if those changes were merely employed to mirror State changes.  Matter of Ethyl Corporation, New York City Tax Appeals Tribunal, TAT(E)93-97(GC) (June 28, 1999).

In this year’s Budget Bill, the limitation provision was amended with respect to taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2015 (the provision was not changed for taxable periods beginning before January 1, 2015).  For taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2015, the City may adjust the allocation percentage within the additional period of limitation when the New York City assessment is based on the reporting of a New York State change.  (The prohibition on changes to the allocation percentage still remains with respect to the reporting of federal [...]

Continue Reading



read more

BLOG EDITORS

Stephen P. Kranz

Mary Kay McCalla Martire

Richard C. Call

STAY CONNECTED

Subscribe

TOPICS

ARCHIVES

jd supra readers choice top firm 2023 badge