Illinois Archives - Page 6 of 14

Illinois

Chicago Mayor’s Tax-Heavy Budget Passes: Lease and Amusement Tax Implications

by Catherine A. Battin, Eric D. Carstens and Stephen P. Kranz | Nov 4, 2015 | Illinois

Last week the Chicago City Council approved Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s 2016 revenue ordinance as part of his tax-laden budget proposal. The revenue ordinance included noteworthy changes to the personal property lease transaction tax (lease tax) and amusement tax, both of which we have covered in-depth since the Department of Finance (Department) issued two rulings over the summer officially extending a nine percent tax to most services provided online. The portions of the revenue ordinance related to the lease tax were drafted in response to the concerns raised by the startup community. As discussed in more detail below, the lease tax amendments provide little relief for the vast majority of businesses dreading the January 1st effective date of the ruling. The amendments to the amusement tax provide no relief whatsoever.

Chicago Lease Tax Amendment

The changes to the Lease Tax Ordinance include: (1) a narrowly defined exemption for small businesses; (2) a reduction of the rate for cloud-based services where the customer accesses its own data; and (3) codification of the applicability of the Illinois mobile telecom sourcing rules. The amendments were touted by the mayor as addressing many of the concerns expressed by small businesses after the Department administratively interpreted the nine percent lease transaction tax to apply to most cloud-based services in June. In response to an outcry from the startup community, the Department subsequently delayed the effective date of the ruling to January 1, 2016. Unfortunately the mayor’s solution falls short of providing any significant relief and will not alleviate the concerns of the vast majority of customers and providers affected by the ruling.

Effective immediately upon publication, the lease transaction amendments approved yesterday will:

Exempt “small new businesses” that are lessors or lessees of non-possessory computer leases from their respective lease transaction tax collection and payment obligations. For this purpose, “small new business” is a business that (1) holds a valid and current business license issued by the city or another jurisdiction; (2) during the most recent full calendar year prior to the annual tax year for which the exemption provided by this subsection is sought had under $25 million in gross receipts or sales, as the term “gross receipts or sales” is defined for federal income tax purposes; and (3) has been in operation for fewer than 60 months. For the purpose of calculating the $25 million limit, gross receipts or sales will be combined if they are received by members of a single unitary business group. This will exclude most subsidiaries from taking advantage of the “small new business” exemption.
Reduce the rate from nine percent to 5.25 percent of the lease or rental price in the case of the non-possessory lease of a computer primarily for the purpose of allowing the customer to use the provider’s computer and software to input, modify or retrieve data or information that is supplied by the customer.
Codify the use of the sourcing rules set forth in the Illinois [...]

Continue Reading

Economic Presence Standard for Income Tax Nexus

by Mary Kay McCalla Martire | Oct 6, 2015 | Illinois, Income Tax, Nexus

In a question of first impression for Illinois, on May 12, 2015, Judge Schmidt of the Circuit Court of Sangamon County granted a summary judgment for the Illinois Department of Revenue, holding that the proper test for corporate income tax nexus is whether a “significant economic presence” exists in Illinois. Capital One Financial Corporation v. Brian Hamer, et al., 2012-TX-0001/02 (5/12/15). The substance of the court’s ruling is found in a docket entry accessible here. Citing Tax Comm’r v. MBNA, 260 S.E.2d 226 (W.Va. 2006), the circuit court found the taxpayer had a significant economic presence in Illinois because it (1) collected “millions of dollars” in fees and interest from Illinois residents, (2) “systematically and continuously” solicited Illinois customers (via telephone, email and direct mail solicitation) to apply for credit, (3) used Illinois courts to collect debts and (4) filed and enforced judgment liens in the state. The circuit court rejected the plaintiff’s argument that physical presence was required to create nexus for income tax purposes, and stated that it agreed with the Illinois Department of Revenue that the significant economic presence test was the “fairest test of corporate income tax given the current internet based world.”

A notice of appeal was filed on June 17, 2015, and the record on appeal (which triggers appellate briefing) was filed on August 6, 2015. Appellate briefing is likely to be completed over the next several months.

Illinois Appellate Court Holds City of Chicago Tax on Cars Rented Outside of but Used Within the City Valid

by Catherine A. Battin | Oct 2, 2015 | Constitutional Issues, Illinois, Local Tax, Nexus, Property Tax, Sales Tax, Transaction Taxes

An Illinois Appellate Court, in Hertz Corp. v. City of Chicago, 2015 IL App (1st) 123210 (Sept. 22, 2015), gave the City of Chicago (City) permission to require rental car companies to collect tax on vehicle rentals from locations within three miles of the City, overturning a lower court ruling that found such taxation was an extraterritorial exercise of the City’s authority. The appellate court granted summary judgment to the City and lifted the permanent injunction enjoining the City from enforcing the tax.

The tax at issue is the City’s Personal Property Lease Transaction Tax (Lease Tax), which is imposed upon “(1) the lease or rental in the city of personal property, or (2) the privilege of using in the city personal property that is leased or rented outside of the city.” Mun. Code of Chi. § 3-32-030(A). While the Lease Tax is imposed upon and must be paid by the lessee, the lessor is obligated to collect it at the time the lessee makes a lease payment and remit it to the City. Mun. Code of Chi. §§ 3-32-030(A), 3-32-070(A).

The subject of this litigation is the City’s application of the Tax in its Personal Property Lease Transaction Tax Second Amended Ruling No. 11 (eff. May 1, 2011) (Ruling 11). The plaintiffs argued that Ruling 11 is an extraterritorial exercise of the City’s authority because the City lacks nexus with the rental transactions. The Ruling “concerns [short-term] vehicle rentals to Chicago residents, on or after July 1, 2011, from suburban locations within 3 miles of Chicago’s border … [excluding locations within O’Hare International Airport] by motor vehicle rental companies doing business in the City.” Ruling 11 § 1. The Ruling explains that “‘doing business’ in the City includes, for example, having a location in the City or regularly renting vehicles that are used in the City, such that the company is subject to audit by the [City of Chicago Department of Finance] under state and federal law.” Ruling 11 § 3. As for taxability of leased property, the Ruling cites the primary use exemption, exempting from Tax “[t]he use in the city of personal property leased or rented outside the city if the property is primarily used (more than 50 percent) outside the city” and stating the taxpayer or tax collector has the burden of proving where the use occurs. Ruling 11 § 2(c) (quoting Mun. Code of Chi. § 3-32-050(A)(1)).

Ruling 11 contains a rebuttable presumption that motor vehicles rented to customers who are Chicago residents from the suburban locations of rental companies that are otherwise doing business in Chicago are subject to the Lease Tax. The Ruling applies to companies with suburban addresses located within three miles of the City. The presumption may be rebutted by any writing disputing the conclusion that the vehicle is is used more than 50 percent of the time in the City. The opposite is assumed for non-Chicago residents. Ruling 11 § 3. The [...]

Continue Reading

Illinois Department of Revenue Issues Proposed Amendments to Shipping and Handling Regulations

by Catherine A. Battin and Mary Kay McCalla Martire | Sep 14, 2015 | False Claims Act, Illinois

The Illinois Department of Revenue (Department) recently proposed amendments to its regulations governing the taxability of shipping and handling charges. The Proposed Amendments to 86 Ill. Admin Code §§ 130.415 and 130.410 (Proposed Amendments) are intended “to incorporate the holding of the Illinois Supreme Court in Kean v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 235 Ill. 2d 351 (2009) … [and to] clarif[y] when transportation and delivery charges are considered part of ‘gross receipts’ subject to the Retailers’ Occupation Tax Act or the Use Tax Act.” The Proposed Amendments state that they are retroactive to November 19, 2009, the date of the Kean decision.

Delivery charges taxable when they are “inseparably linked” to the taxable sale of property

In Kean, the Court held that delivery charges for products purchased over the internet and shipped to Illinois customers are taxable when “an ‘inseparable link’ exists between the sale and delivery of the merchandise plaintiffs purchased.”… 235 Ill. 2d at 376. Citing Kean, the Proposed Amendments adopt that rule (Prop. 86 Ill. Admin. Code § 130.415(b)(1)(B)(i)) and provide two examples of an “inseparable link”:

When delivery charges are not separately identified to the customer in the contract or invoice; or
When delivery charges are separately identified to the customer, “but the seller does not offer the purchaser the option to receive the tangible personal property in any manner except by delivery from the seller (g., the seller does not offer the purchaser the option to pick up the tangible personal property).”

Prop. § 130.415(b)(1)(B)(ii)

The Proposed Amendments provide that if a product can be sold without rendering the delivery service, the service is not taxable. Prop. §130.415(b)(1)(B)(ii). Although this language is not limited to a circumstance in which a pickup option is offered, all of the examples provided by the Department focus on that fact pattern. Notably, the pickup option need not be at an in-state location. This is consistent with the Department’s recent private letter rulings concluding that when a pick up option is offered, even if it is out-of-state, the delivery charges are not taxable. ST-15-0011-PLR (7/16/15); ST-15-0012-PLR (7/27/15).

In a change from the Department’s prior practice, the Proposed Amendments provide that separately stated shipping charges not found to be inseparably linked to the sale of goods are not taxable even if they include a profit component (i.e., exceed the actual cost of shipping). Cf. the current regulation, at 86 Ill. Admin. Code §130.415(d), with Prop. §§ 130.415(b)(1)(C) and (b)(1)(D)(iv).

Practice Note:

Sub-part (b)(1)(B)(ii) of the Proposed Amendments supports the conclusion that offering customers free standard shipping evidences that any other shipping service for which a seller charges customers (i.e., expedited shipping) are separately contracted for and thus nontaxable. Arco Industrial Gas Division, The BOC Group, Inc. v. Department of Revenue, 223 Ill. App. 3d 386, 392 (4th Dist. 1991), which is cited in the Proposed Amendments, also supports this conclusion. Several defendants have successfully raised this defense in response to Illinois False Claims Act litigation alleging a failure to collect [...]

Continue Reading

In Chicago, Taxing the Cloud Will Wait (Mostly) Until 2016

by Catherine A. Battin | Aug 12, 2015 | Illinois, Local Tax, Nexus, Sales Tax, Transaction Taxes

The City of Chicago has announced that it will be delaying the effective date for its recent ruling under the Personal Property Lease Transaction Tax until January 1, 2016. Personal Property Lease Transaction Tax Ruling #12 takes a broad view of how the 9 percent tax applies to cloud-based services. It was scheduled to come into effect on September 1, 2015, but after an outcry from the startup community, Chicago has pushed back the date on which it expects cloud-based providers to begin collecting and remitting tax. The additional time will allow the city to further consider potential exemptions for small businesses. Providers of information services, software as a service (SaaS), platform as a service (PaaS), and some forms of infrastructure as a service (IaaS) that have nexus with the city will now have until January 1, 2016, to begin collecting the tax. (See a detailed discussion of Ruling #12 and its implications in a previous post.) The delay could backfire for the city because taxpayers will now have more time to launch challenges to the tax.

Ruling #12 is only part of Chicago’s two-pronged approach to taxing the cloud. The city had at the same time issued Amusement Tax Ruling #5, which provides that charges for video streaming, audio streaming, computer game subscriptions and other forms of online entertainment, as well as temporary download rentals, are subject to the 9 percent Amusement Tax—not the Lease Transaction Tax. That ruling also was issued with a September 1, 2015, effective date. This effective date for the Amusement Tax Ruling has not been changed, and the city has indicated that no such extension is currently under consideration.

Chicago, Searching for Tax, Taxes Searchable Websites

by Catherine A. Battin | Jul 1, 2015 | Illinois, Sales Tax, Transaction Taxes

Taxpayers providing services over the internet need to carefully consider two recent City of Chicago rulings: Lease Transaction Tax Ruling #12 and Amusement Tax Ruling #5. Issued together on June 9, 2015, the rulings extend a 9 percent tax to most services provided online. Charges for video streaming, audio streaming, computer game subscriptions, and other forms of online entertainment are subject to the 9 percent amusement tax. Charges for essentially any other kind of interactive website or online service, with only a handful of exceptions, are subject to the 9 percent lease transaction tax. The lease transaction tax is supposed to be a municipal sales and use tax on the leasing of tangible personal property, but the City is stretching the tax to encompass the deemed use of the provider’s computer in accessing a website or program over the internet. As detailed in this On the Subject, providers of information services and cloud-based services need to evaluate the applicability of the City’s guidance and consider whether to comply or challenge the imposition of tax.

Read the full article.

Illinois Circuit Court Dismisses Challenge to Retained Job EDGE Credits

by Scott M. Susko | May 20, 2015 | Illinois, Incentives, Income Tax

Corporations with Illinois Economic Development for a Growing Economy (EDGE) credit agreements giving credit for retained jobs can breathe a sigh of relief: The litigation challenging the state’s ability to grant EDGE credits for retained jobs has been dismissed by an Illinois Circuit Court.

Illinois EDGE credits are discretionary income tax credits awarded by the Illinois Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity (DCEO). The credits are generated as a percentage of employee wage withholding. Sometimes DCEO has awarded credits for retained jobs as well as new jobs.

Back in January 2015, the Liberty Justice Center, acting on behalf of several taxpayers, filed a complaint alleging that it was illegal for Illinois to give credits for retained jobs. Jenner v. Illinois Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity, No. 15-MR-16 (Cir. Ct. 7th Jud. Cir., Sangamon Cty.). The plaintiffs’ theory was that the EDGE credit statute authorized awards only for new jobs, and thus DCEO’s regulation allowing credits for retained jobs exceeded statutory authorization.

In March 2015, the state moved to dismiss for lack of standing. The plaintiffs claimed that they had standing as taxpayers challenging illegal use of state funds, but the Circuit Court now has agreed with the Attorney General: on May 12, 2015, the motion to dismiss was granted. The plaintiffs plan to appeal the decision.

This ruling is in line with the general trend of rejecting taxpayer standing in challenges to tax credit programs, including economic development tax credits. See, e.g., DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332 (2006); Arizona Christian School Tuition Org. v. Winn, 131 S. Ct. 1436 (2011).

One Down, One to Go: Illinois Senate Passes Captive Insurance Exemption to Illinois Self-Procurement Tax

by Mary Kay McCalla Martire | Apr 22, 2015 | Illinois, Insurance Tax

On April 21, 2015, the Illinois Senate unanimously passed Senate Bill 1573, as amended. As we have previously covered, the amended Bill creates an exemption from the 3.5 percent self-procurement tax and 0.2 percent Surplus Lines Association of Illinois stamping fee (and the up to 1.0 percent fire marshal tax, if applicable) for “contracts of insurance with a captive insurance company.” The amendment defines a “captive insurance company” broadly to include “any affiliated insurance company … or special purpose financial captive insurance company formed to insure the operational risks of the company’s parent or affiliates, risks of a controlled unaffiliated business, or other risks approved by the captive insurance company’s board or other regulatory body.” The definition also enumerates several kinds of captive insurance companies as specifically included. Insurance directly procured from a nonadmitted commercial carrier—or any other person not meeting the definition of “captive insurance company”—would continue to be subject to the tax.

The bill now goes to the Illinois House of Representatives, where it has been assigned to the House Rules Committee. The bill’s supporters are hopeful that the House could pass it as a standalone bill. There also is a possibility that the bill could be included in a broader package of tax legislation at the end of the legislative session.

Practice Notes

1. Even if enacted, the bill would not provide immediate relief to Illinois captive insureds. The bill’s effective date is January 1, 2016. Thus, insurance transacted with a qualifying captive in 2015 would still be subject to the tax.

2. The bill does not change the increased qualification requirements to be an “industrial insured” eligible to self-procure insurance from unadmitted carriers, which came into effect together with the tax on January 1, 2015. An industrial insured must still meet the requirements of an “exempt commercial purchaser” under 215 ILCS 5/445(1), which include having nationwide commercial property and casualty insurance premiums in excess of $100,000 annually and having any of (a) net worth of more than $20 million, (b) more than $50 million of annual revenues, (c) more than 500 full time employees or more than 1,000 employees in an affiliated group, (d) a nonprofit organization with at least a $30 million budget or (e) a municipality with a population in excess of 50,000 persons.

Illinois Appellate Court Affirms Dismissal of State Tax Qui Tam Lawsuit

by Mary Kay McCalla Martire | Apr 14, 2015 | False Claims Act, Illinois, Sales Tax

On March 31, 2015, the Illinois Appellate Court issued an opinion affirming the dismissal of a qui tam lawsuit filed by a law firm acting as a whistleblower on behalf of the State of Illinois against QVC, Inc., under the Illinois False Claims Act. The opinion affirmed an important precedent previously set by the court regarding the standard for dismissal of such claims when the State moves for dismissal, and established favorable precedent for retailers by holding that use tax voluntarily paid after the filing of a qui tam action does not qualify as “proceeds” of the action within the meaning of the Illinois False Claims Act.

Read the full article.

Decoding Combination: What Is a Unitary Business

by Catherine A. Battin | Apr 14, 2015 | Allocation/Apportionment, California, Constitutional Issues, Illinois, Income Tax, Nationwide Importance, Tax Base

This article is the first of our new series regarding common issues and opportunities associated with combined reporting. Because most states either statutorily require or permit some method of combined reporting, it is important for taxpayers to understand the intricacies of and opportunities in combined reporting statutes and regulations.

In this article, we will explore the foundation for combined reporting – the unitary business principle.

Read the full article.