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
Franchise Tax
Subscribe to Franchise Tax's Posts

Remote Retailers Held Responsible for Tax Collection in Washington

by and | Feb 6, 2024 | , , , , , ,

If there’s a lesson to be learned from the Washington Court of Appeals’ recent holding in Orthotic Shop Inc. and S&F Corporation v. Department of Revenue, No. 39321-6-III (Jan. 23, 2024), it’s that the use of a marketplace does not eliminate a remote seller’s tax responsibilities, particularly for pre-Wayfair periods.

The dispute in Orthotic Shop involved a retailing business and occupation tax (B&O tax) and a retailing sales tax assessment against two merchants for sales they made on an online retailer’s website. The audit report asserted that the merchants were “retailers” who maintained a nexus to Washington because they maintained a stock of goods in the online retailer’s warehouses located in the state. As such, the audit report concluded that the merchants were liable for retailing B&O tax and sales tax on sales to Washington customers made via the online retailer’s website.

The merchants admitted before the Court of Appeals that they sold their goods to consumers and not to the online retailer. However, the merchants challenged the assessment and argued that the online retailer’s provision of fulfillment services necessarily rendered it a “consignee” responsible for remitting retailing B&O tax and sales tax on transactions facilitated through its website in accordance with WAC 458-20-159. The merchants also asserted that the assessment was unfair because they lacked an understanding that they could incur a tax collection liability in Washington through the storage of their merchandise in an in-state warehouse.

The Court of Appeals determined that the merchants failed to show that the online retailer was a consignee with sole responsibility for tax collection. “A consignee,” the Court of Appeals explained, “makes sales on behalf of the consignor.” By contrast, the merchants’ product pages on the marketplace’s website listed the merchants as the sellers, not the online retailer. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals concluded: “[s]ince the merchants sold to buyers, they are liable for retailing B&O tax on those sales.”

The merchants’ failure to list the online retailer as the “seller” on their respective sales pages was also fatal to their argument that they were not liable for retailing sales tax on sales made via the online retailer’s website. The Department of Revenue’s administrative rules explain that while a consignee is responsible for collecting and remitting sales tax on sales made in its own name, when the consignee is selling in the name of the consignor, the consignor may instead report and remit the retail sales tax. Here, the Court of Appeals noted that while the online retailer’s agreement with the merchants provided that it would remit the sales tax if the merchants asked it to do so, neither merchant made such a request.

The Court of Appeals also was unimpressed by the merchants’ assertions that they did not understand that they could establish physical presence nexus and incur a tax liability based on the storage of their goods at a warehouse in the state. The Court of Appeals explained that ignorance of the law, was not an acceptable defense.

CASE TAKEAWAYS

Although Orthotic Shop [...]

Continue Reading



read more

New York Budget Legislation Contains Significant Tax Provisions

by , and | May 2, 2023 | , , , , ,

New York Governor Kathy Hochul and the New York State Legislature have reached an agreement on the state’s fiscal year 2024 budget legislation. Most surprisingly, the legislation grants the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance the right to petition for judicial review of New York State Tax Appeals Tribunal decisions that are “premised on interpretation of the state or federal constitution, international law, federal law, the law of other states, or other legal matters that are beyond the purview of the state legislature.” If the Department appeals a Tribunal decision, any interest and penalties that would otherwise accrue on the underlying tax liability would be stayed until 15 days after the issuance of a final judicial decision. This represents a significant change in law as currently, only taxpayers (and not the Department) may appeal Tribunal decisions.

Other notable provisions in the budget legislation include the following:

  • The False Claims Act will now apply to a person who is alleged to have knowingly or improperly failed to file a tax return.
  • The top metropolitan commuter transportation mobility tax rate on employers in New York City has been increased from 0.34% to 0.6% of payroll expense.
  • The “temporary” top corporate franchise tax rate for taxpayers with a business income base of more than $5 million will stay at 7.25% through 2026 (rather than expiring in 2024), and the scheduled expiration of the franchise tax business capital base has been delayed from 2024 to 2027.

The budget legislation containing these changes in law passed both houses of the New York State Legislature on May 1, 2023, and is expected to be signed by Governor Hochul.



read more

US Treasury Issues Guidance on the ARPA Claw-Back Provision

by , and | May 12, 2021 | , , , , , , , , ,

Earlier this week, the US Department of the Treasury (Treasury) issued formal guidance regarding the administration of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA) claw-back provision. The guidance (Interim Final Rule) provides that the claw-back provision is triggered when there is a reduction in net tax revenue caused by changes in law, regulation or interpretation, and the state cannot identify sufficient funds from sources other than federal relief funds to offset the reduction in net tax revenue. The Interim Final Rule recognizes three sources of funds that may offset a net tax revenue reduction other than federal relief funds—organic growth, increases in revenue (e.g., a tax rate increase) and certain spending cuts (i.e., cuts that are not in an area where the recipient government has spent federal relief funds). According to the Treasury, this framework recognizes that money is fungible and “prevents efforts to use Fiscal Recovery Funds to indirectly offset reductions in net tax revenue.”

The Interim Final Rule also provides guidance on what is considered a change in law, regulation or interpretation that could trigger the claw-back (called covered changes), but that point remains somewhat ambiguous. The Rule provides that:

The offset provision is triggered by a reduction in net tax revenue resulting from ‘a change in law, regulation, or administrative interpretation.’ A covered change includes any final legislative or regulatory action, a new or changed administrative interpretation, and the phase-in or taking effect of any statute or rule where the phase-in or taking effect was not prescribed prior to the start of the covered period. [The covered period is March 3, 2021 through December 31, 2024.] Changed administrative interpretations would not include corrections to replace prior inaccurate interpretations; such corrections would instead be treated as changes implementing legislation enacted or regulations issued prior to the covered period; the operative change in those circumstances is the underlying legislation or regulation that occurred prior to the covered period. Moreover, only the changes within the control of the State or territory are considered covered changes. Covered changes do not include a change in rate that is triggered automatically and based on statutory or regulatory criteria in effect prior to the covered period. For example, a state law that sets its earned income tax credit (EITC) at a fixed percentage of the Federal EITC will see its EITC payments automatically increase—and thus its tax revenue reduced—because of the Federal government’s expansion of the EITC in the ARPA. This would not be considered a covered change. In addition, the offset provision applies only to actions for which the change in policy occurs during the covered period; it excludes regulations or other actions that implement a change or law substantively enacted prior to March 3, 2021. Finally, Treasury has determined and previously announced that income tax changes—even those made during the covered period—that simply conform with recent changes in Federal law (including those to conform to recent changes in Federal taxation of unemployment insurance benefits and taxation of loan [...]

Continue Reading



read more

The US Department of the Treasury Says State IRC Conformity Bills Do Not Trigger Federal Relief Claw-Back Provision

by and | Apr 9, 2021 | , , , , , , , , , ,

As we’ve blogged about in the past, the recently enacted American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA) includes an ambiguous claw-back provision. If broadly interpreted, it could result in states losing relief funding provided under the APRA if there is any state legislative or administrative change that results in the reduction of state revenue. This provision is causing havoc in the state tax world, rightfully so.

After much yelling and screaming from state attorneys general and those in the tax world, including McDermott (see McDermott letter to Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen attached), the US Department of the Treasury issued a press release announcing forthcoming “comprehensive guidance” on this provision. Treasury also addressed a question that has been on the top of our minds since the provision was enacted: Could state legislation addressing state conformity to the Internal Revenue Code trigger the claw-back? States routinely conform to and decouple from changes to the Internal Revenue Code, so if such actions could trigger the claw-back, state legislatures would be reluctant to consider them. We were so concerned about this issue that we specifically addressed it in our letter to Secretary Yellen.

This week, we received the Treasury’s guidance on this issue: Conformity bills will not trigger the claw-back. In its press release, Treasury stated:

… Treasury has decided to address a question that has arisen frequently: whether income tax changes that simply conform a State or territory’s tax law with recent changes in federal income tax law are subject to the offset provision of section 602(c)(2)(A) of the Social Security Act, as added by the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021. Regardless of the particular method of conformity and the effect on net tax revenue, Treasury views such changes as permissible under the offset provision.

This is a step in the right direction and should ease concerns of state legislatures. Passing a conformity bill will not cause any loss of federal funding. Treasury’s guidance, because it applies to all “methods of conformity,” should cover any legislation that either couples with or decouples from the Internal Revenue Code.

But our work is not done. In our letter to Secretary Yellen we also asked for guidance confirming that state actions in other areas will not trigger the claw-back. Specifically, we made concrete suggestions that actions to correcting tax statutes or rules that are either unconstitutional or barred by or violate federal law also should not trigger the claw-back. Treasury’s recent press release gives us a glimmer of hope that Treasury will exclude such actions from the clutches of the claw-back provision as well. Stay tuned for more!



read more

McDermott Provides Treasury Department with Concrete Suggestions for Guidance on the American Rescue Plan Act’s Claw-Back Provision

by and | Mar 25, 2021 | , , , , , , , , , ,

The recently enacted American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA) includes an ambiguous claw-back provision that has brought the world of state and local tax policymaking to a grinding halt. Because ARPA’s adoption occurred during the final weeks of many states’ legislative sessions, rapid issuance of guidance from the US Department of the Treasury is needed before the sessions adjourn to prevent the irreversible damage that will occur if a state foregoes enacting policies aimed at alleviating the economic disruption caused by COVID-19 out of fear of facing claw-back of federal relief.

McDermott recently sent a letter to Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, urging the issuance of guidance giving a balanced interpretation of the claw-back provision. This guidance is necessary to avoid putting state legislatures, governors and tax administrators across the country in an untenable situation where every tax change or adjustment being considered—no matter how innocuous or routine—will carry the risk of a reduction to their state’s share of federal funding for the next three years.

In the letter, we provided concrete suggestions on areas where the ARPA left room for such balanced interpretation. We suggested that Treasury interpret the claw-back provision as either inapplicable to or provide a safe harbor for:

  • Changes addressing state conformity to the Internal Revenue Code (IRC)
  • Corrections of unconstitutional tax statutes or rules
  • Corrections of tax provisions barred by or that violate federal law
  • Actions in which there is no or only a weak connection between the law change reducing net revenue and the use of federal relief funds
  • Changes in the law announced before the enactment of ARPA
  • Reductions in net revenue related to purposes that further ARPA’s objectives.

The letter pointed out that states need concrete guidance, whether formal or informal, addressing these areas. Such guidance will alleviate the concerns of state governments and allow state policymakers to function and continue the orderly administration of state taxes.



read more

Federal COVID-19 Relief Bill Brings State Tax Policy to a Grinding Halt

by , and | Mar 16, 2021 | , , , , , , , ,

On March 11, 2021, US President Joe Biden signed the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA), the COVID-19 relief bill that includes $350 billion in relief to states and localities. To prevent states from using federal relief funds to finance tax cuts, Congress included a clawback provision requiring that any relief funds used to offset tax cuts during the next three years be returned to the federal government. Here is the text of the provision:

  • A State or territory shall not use the funds provided under this section or transferred pursuant to section 603(c)(4) to either directly or indirectly offset a reduction in the net tax revenue of such State or territory resulting from a change in law, regulation or administrative interpretation during the covered period that reduces any tax (by providing for a reduction in a rate, a rebate, a deduction, a credit or otherwise) or delays the imposition of any tax or tax increase.

This language broadly prohibits states from taking legislative or administrative action through the end of 2024 that reduces state tax revenues by any means (deduction, credit, delay, rate change, etc.) if doing so could be characterized as the use of federal relief funds to offset, directly or indirectly, the tax reduction. Practically speaking, this limitation will completely hamstring state and local governments from the normal ebb and flow of tax policy changes, adjustments and interpretations. Taken to its logical conclusion, this language freezes state legislative and administrative tax policy development out of fear anything they may do would require the return of federal relief funds. We expect the US Department of the Treasury will issue guidance clarifying this provision in the coming weeks.

Practice Note: This provision of ARPA is, in our view, the most significant federal pre-emption of state tax policy in history. For the next three years, legislators and tax administrators alike will be scrutinized as their tax policy decisions are evaluated through the lens of this prohibition. This level of congressional control over state tax policy decisions and fiscal autonomy likely violates the Tenth Amendment of the US Constitution and would dismay the framers’ basic notions of federalism.

While Congress has the ability to limit the use of federal funds in ensuring its policy goals are accomplished, the overly broad state tax limitation adopted by Congress goes far beyond its stated purpose and prevents states from furthering ARPA’s goals by using tax policy to craft their own COVID-19 relief measures. Any regulation or administrative interpretation that reduces state tax revenue or delays the implementation of a tax is, effectively, barred by the unprecedented intrusion into state tax policy-making.

The effects of ARPA’s state tax limitation are immediate and far-reaching. It will chill continuing state efforts to couple/decouple state tax codes to or from the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017. Additionally, ARPA already stalled legislation pending in Maryland that would delay, for one year, implementation of its digital advertising services gross receipts tax, restoring return filing and tax [...]

Continue Reading



read more

California Bill Would Make Taxpayer Information Available to the Public (Seriously!)

by | Jun 15, 2020 | , , ,

A concerning bill is pending in the California Senate. SB-972 would require the California State Controller’s Office (the Controller) to make taxpayer information publicly available. The bill would require that the Controller post on its website a list of all taxpayers subject to the California corporation tax with gross receipts of $5 billion or more and information about each taxpayer, including the tax liability of taxpayer and the amount of tax credits claimed by the taxpayer in the previous calendar year. We are hearing that the California Senate is likely to pass the bill. If the bill does pass in the Senate, it will head to the Assembly.

This bill is surprising (and alarming) because the usual policy of states and tax departments is to protect the confidentiality of taxpayer information. In fact, most states have statutory provisions ensuring that taxpayer information obtained through tax filings and audits is kept confidential, and disclosure is criminal in most states. If SB-972 is adopted, California will be one of the only states (if not the only state) to proactively make taxpayer information public. There does not appear to be a public benefit to releasing this historically confidential information, making the bill’s infringement on taxpayers’ privacy expectations concerning.

We understand that California may be looking to increase tax on corporations (possibly by repealing certain tax credits) as a means to raise revenue, and it seems likely that this bill is related to that goal, or at least embarrassing taxpayers who do not pay significant funds to the state. However, the bill simply goes too far; releasing information that is universally treated as confidential eviscerates taxpayer privacy and should not be permitted. The legislation is simply an effort to weaponize taxpayer information and shame taxpayers based on what they owe or do not owe to the state.



read more

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

by and | May 15, 2020 | , , , ,

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



read more

DC and New Jersey Join Mississippi in Disregarding Coronavirus-Caused Remote Work for Tax Purposes

by and | Apr 14, 2020 | , , , , , , ,

As part of our open letter to state tax administrators urging relief of undue tax administration burdens in light of COVID-19, we urged the disregarding of remote work for tax purposes. The public health necessity for businesses to close central operations and direct employees to work from home should not be used as an “opportunity” to create nexus for affected businesses.

(more…)



read more

Illinois Amnesty Programs Now Underway

by and | Oct 1, 2019 | , , , , ,

As previously announced, the Illinois Department of Revenue has begun a new amnesty program, running October 1 through November 15, 2019. All taxes paid to the Illinois Department of Revenue for taxable periods ending after June 30, 2011, and prior to July 1, 2018, are eligible for amnesty with relief from penalties and interest. Unlike prior Illinois programs, taxpayers who do not participate in amnesty will not be subject to double interest or penalty charges on subsequent audit assessments for taxes that were eligible for amnesty. A link to the Illinois Department of Revenue forms for its amnesty program is attached here.

The Illinois Secretary of State also offers an amnesty program running from October 1 through November 15, 2019, for corporate franchise taxes related to periods ending after March 15, 2008, and on or before June 30, 2019. In light of the phase-out of the corporate franchise tax by January 1, 2024 (enacted by Public Act 101-9), participants in the amnesty program should proceed with extreme caution. For more information, the Secretary of State has published a Fact Sheet and form of Petition on its website: https://www.cyberdriveillinois.com/departments/business_services/home.html.



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

Legal Notices  |  Privacy & Cookies Policy

Attorney Advertising © 2024 McDermott Will & Emery

Contact Us: info@mwe.com

Attorney Advertising ©2020 McDermott Will & Emery