Income Tax Archives - Page 13 of 30

New York State Tax Department Releases Guidance on Tax Reform Legislation

by McDermott Will & Emery | Apr 8, 2015 | Income Tax, New York, Nexus

The New York State Department of Taxation and Finance (the Department) has been issuing guidance explaining the 2014 corporate tax reform legislation (generally effective on January 1, 2015) through a series of questions and answers (known as FAQs), recognizing that providing guidance through regulations is cumbersome and takes a long time. On April 1, the Department issued a new set of FAQs explaining some aspects of the legislation. Some of the highlights are discussed below.

Under the new law, related corporations may, and may be compelled to, file combined returns if they are engaged in a unitary business. The old requirement that separate filing distort the incomes of the companies, which led to much controversy, has been repealed. An issue that has been highlighted by the legislation is whether a newly acquired subsidiary can be considered to be instantly unitary with the parent so that the corporations can file combined returns beginning on the date of the acquisition. The FAQs explain that this will depend on the “facts and circumstances” of each case, which is not very informative. We understand from informal conversations with senior Department personnel that their approach, which they have not published, is that corporations will generally be considered to be instantly unitary if they had a significant business relationship before the acquisition (e.g., the subsidiary was a supplier of goods to the parent). If no such pre-existing relationship exists, the corporations will generally not be found to be unitary until the beginning of the next taxable year after the acquisition. The FAQs also clarify that corporations with different taxable years can be included in a combined return. When a related corporation does not have the same taxable year as the company designated as the group’s agent for filing purposes, the related corporation’s income and activities for its taxable year ending within the agent’s taxable year are included in the combined report for the agent’s taxable year.

The FAQs explain that the corporate tax reform legislation has not changed the method for determining the partnership income of a corporate partner in a partnership. The current approach, under which partnership items of income and expense flow through to the corporate partner, has been retained. This approach is reflected in Department regulations. The New York City Department of Finance has not adopted regulations on this subject and we understand that the City does not feel itself bound by the State approach. Taxpayers should be aware that corporations that are limited partners with limited liability and no voting rights may be able to argue successfully that they do not have nexus with New York if they have no other contacts with New York besides their limited partnership interest. Courts in other states have so held, although the case law in New York is not favorable.

Several FAQs focus on the new economic nexus rule in New York State. The FAQs indicate that franchisors that sell goods and services or licenses to franchisees located in New York [...]

Continue Reading

Inside the New York Budget Bill: New York City Tax Reform

by McDermott Will & Emery | Apr 3, 2015 | Allocation/Apportionment, Income Tax, Local Tax, Nexus, Tax Base

The New York Legislature has passed bills related to the 2015–2016 budget (S2009-B/A3009-B and S4610-A/A6721-A, collectively referred to herein as the 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 General Corporation Tax. This post is the eighth in a series analyzing the New York Budget Bill, and summarizes the amendments to reform New York City’s General Corporation Tax.

Background

In 2014, New York State enacted sweeping reforms with respect to its taxation of corporations, including eliminating the tax on banking corporations, enacting economic nexus provisions, amending the combined reporting provisions and implementing customer-based sourcing. New York City’s tax structure, however, was not changed at that time, resulting in concern among taxpayers about having to comply with two completely different sets of rules for New York State and New York City, and concern from representatives of the New York City Department of Finance, who would have lost the benefit of the joint audits that they currently conduct with New York State and the automatic conformity to any New York State audit changes resulting from separately conducted New York State audits.

Although it came down to the wire, the Budget Bill did make the necessary changes to largely conform the New York City corporate franchise tax provisions to those in place for New York State. These changes will be effective as of January 1, 2015, which is the same general effective date for the New York State corporate tax reform.

Differences Between New York State and City Tax Laws

Even after passage of the Budget Bill, there remain some differences in the tax structures of New York State and New York City. Some examples include the following:

New York State has economic nexus provisions, but New York City does not (except for credit card banks).
New York State will phase out its alternative tax on capital (with rate reductions implemented until the rate is 0 percent in 2021; different, lower rates apply for qualified New York manufacturers), and the maximum amount of such tax is capped at $5 million (for corporations that are not qualified New York manufacturers). Not only will New York City not phase out such alternative tax, it has increased the cap to $10 million, less a $10,000 deduction. Also, New York City will not have a lower cap for manufacturers.
Under New York State’s corporate tax reform, a single tax rate is imposed on the business income base for all taxpayers (except for favorable rates for certain taxpayers, such as qualified New York manufacturers), with the amount of such rate being decreased from 7.1 percent to 6.5 percent in 2016. Qualified New York manufacturers are subject to a 0 percent tax rate on the business income base. In the Budget Bill implementing New York City’s tax reform, there is no similar rate reduction. Furthermore, instead of using a single rate for all taxpayers (except [...]

Continue Reading

Inside the New York Budget Bill: Net Operating Losses and Investment Tax Credit

by McDermott Will & Emery | Apr 3, 2015 | Incentives, Income Tax, New York, Tax Base

The New York Legislature has passed bills related to the 2015–2016 budget (S2009-B/A3009-B and S4610-A/A6721-A, collectively referred to herein as the 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 General Corporation Tax. The Budget Bill’s technical corrections to last year’s corporate income tax reform include changes to the economic nexus, tax base and income classification, tax rate (including clarifications to rules applicable to certain taxpayers, such as qualified New York manufacturers), apportionment, combined reporting, net operating loss and tax credit provisions. The technical corrections are effective on the same date as last year’s corporate income tax reform, which was generally effective for tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2015.

This post is the sixth in a series analyzing the New York Budget Bill, and discusses changes to the net operating loss (NOL) and investment tax credit provisions.

Net Operating Losses – Prior NOL Conversion Subtraction

For tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2015, the calculation of the New York NOL deduction has changed dramatically. As a result, the Tax Law provides for a transition calculation, a prior NOL Conversion Subtraction, for purposes of computing the allowable deduction for NOLs incurred under the prior law.

To calculate the Conversion Subtraction, the taxpayer first must determine the amount of NOL carryforwards it would have had available for carryover on the last day of the “base year”—December 31, 2014, for calendar year filers, or the last day of the taxpayer’s last taxable year before it is subject to the new law—using the former (i.e., 2014) Tax Law, including all limitations applicable under the former law. This amount is referred to as the “unabsorbed NOL.” Second, the taxpayer must determine its apportionment percentage (i.e., its BAP) for that base year (base year BAP), again using the former (i.e., 2014) Tax Law; this is the BAP reported on the taxpayer’s tax report for the base year. Third, the taxpayer must multiply the amount of its unabsorbed NOL by its base year BAP, then multiply that amount by the tax rate that would have applied to the taxpayer in the base year (base year tax rate). The resulting amount is divided by 6.5 percent (qualified New York manufacturers use 5.7 percent). The result of these computations is the prior NOL Conversion Subtraction pool.

A taxpayer’s Conversion Subtraction will equal a portion of its Conversion Subtraction pool computed as outlined above. The standard rule provides that one-tenth of the Conversion Subtraction pool, plus, in subsequent years, any amount of unused Conversion Subtraction from prior years, may be deducted as the Conversion Subtraction. The Tax Law as originally drafted also provided that any unused Conversion Subtraction could be carried forward until tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2036 (tax year 2035 for calendar year filers). The technical corrections include slight changes to that carryforward provision. Now, any unused Conversion [...]

Continue Reading

Inside the New York Budget Bill: Combined Reporting

by McDermott Will & Emery | Apr 3, 2015 | Income Tax, New York

The New York Legislature has passed bills related to the 2015–2016 budget (S2009-B/A3009-B and S4610-A/A6721-A, collectively referred to herein as the 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 General Corporation Tax. The Budget Bill’s technical corrections to last year’s corporate income tax reform include changes to the economic nexus, tax base and income classification, tax rate (including clarifications to rules applicable to certain taxpayers, such as qualified New York manufacturers), apportionment, combined reporting, net operating loss and tax credit provisions. The technical corrections are effective on the same date as last year’s corporate income tax reform, which was generally effective for tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2015.

This post is the fifth in a series analyzing the New York Budget Bill, and summarizes the technical corrections to New York’s combined reporting provisions.

Investment Income

Last year’s corporate reform provisions provided that (1) the election to reduce investment income or other exempt income by 40 percent in lieu of attributing interest expenses to that income and (2) the election to apportion income and gains from qualifying financial instruments using the 8 percent rule apply to all members of a combined group. The Budget Bill provides that the following elections also apply to all members of the combined group: the election to waive the net operating loss carryback period and the election to deduct up to one-half of the prior year net operating loss conversion subtraction pool over a two-year period beginning with the tax year beginning on or after January 1, 2015.

The Budget Bill also provides that the new 8 percent cap on investment income (for more information about this cap see our prior post, Inside the New York Budget Bill: Tax Base and Income Classifications) applies by comparing the investment income of the combined group (before the deduction of attributable interest expenses) to the entire net income of the combined group.

Designated Agent

Under current law, each combined group must have one designated agent, and that designated agent must be a New York taxpayer (i.e., must have nexus with New York). The Budget Bill eliminates the requirement that the designated agent be the parent corporation of the combined group (taxpayers were permitted to choose another designated agent only if there was no parent corporation included in the combined group or the parent was not a taxpayer). This change gives combined groups greater flexibility in selecting the designated agent for the combined group.

The Budget Bill made a few additional clarifying amendments to the combined reporting provisions:

When computing the combined business income base, the apportioned business income of the group is reduced by any prior net operating loss conversion subtraction as well as any net operating loss deduction (the original reform provision referred to only the net operating loss deduction).
A combined net operating loss is composed of net [...]

Continue Reading

Inside the New York Budget Bill: Apportionment

by McDermott Will & Emery | Apr 2, 2015 | Allocation/Apportionment, Income Tax, New York

The New York Legislature has passed bills related to the 2015–2016 budget (S2009-B/A3009-B and S4610-A/A6721-A, collectively referred to herein as the “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 General Corporation Tax. The Budget Bill’s technical corrections to last year’s corporate income tax reform include changes to the economic nexus, tax base and income classification, tax rate (including clarifications to rules applicable to certain taxpayers, such as qualified New York manufacturers), apportionment, combined reporting, net operating loss and tax credit provisions. The technical corrections are effective on the same date as last year’s corporate income tax reform, which was generally effective for tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2015.

This post is the fourth in a series analyzing the New York Budget Bill, and summarizes the technical corrections to New York’s apportionment provisions.

Treatment of Excess Investment Income

As discussed in a previous blog post, the Budget Bill includes a “cap” whereby investment income cannot exceed 8 percent of a corporation’s (or a combined group’s) entire net income. A follow-up issue is the impact of this cap and the “excess” investment income that it creates on the apportionment factor that will be applied to a taxpayer’s business income, assuming that inclusion of the excess investment income is Constitutional.

As a preliminary matter, the excess investment income will not be eligible for the 8 percent fixed sourcing election since such income cannot be considered income from qualified financial instruments (QFIs); a financial instrument that qualifies as investment capital cannot also qualify as a QFI. Even though through operation of the cap excess investment income will be treated as business income and not investment income, there is no corresponding provision in the statute specifying that the character of investment capital that gave rise to such excess investment income will switch to business capital. Thus, a taxpayer’s election to use the 8 percent fixed sourcing election will not apply to any excess investment income. Instead, the excess investment income will need to be sourced under the general customer sourcing rules for financial instruments. Under those general rules, dividends and net gains from sales of stock are not included in either the numerator or denominator of the apportionment formula, unless the Commissioner determines that inclusion is necessary to properly reflect the business income or capital of the taxpayer. The Commissioner’s determination is governed by the Tax Law’s general provision on alternative apportionment, meaning that taxpayers can request factor representation to the extent necessary to properly reflect their business income or capital. Interestingly, in those cases where the excess investment income is properly included in business income, inclusion in the apportionment formula should be required on Constitutional grounds (factors used in an apportionment formula must reasonably reflect how income is earned).

Description of QFI

The rule concerning what will qualify as a QFI for purposes of the 8 percent [...]

Continue Reading

Inside the New York Budget Bill: Tax Rates and Qualified New York Manufacturers

by McDermott Will & Emery | Apr 2, 2015 | Incentives, Income Tax, New York

The New York Legislature has passed bills related to the 2015–2016 budget (S2009-B/A3009-B and S4610-A/A6721-A, collectively referred to herein as the “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 General Corporation Tax. The Budget Bill’s technical corrections to last year’s corporate income tax reform include changes to the economic nexus, tax base and income classification, tax rate (including clarifications to rules applicable to certain taxpayers, such as qualified New York manufacturers), apportionment, combined reporting, net operating loss and tax credit provisions. The technical corrections are effective on the same date as last year’s corporate income tax reform, which was generally effective for tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2015.

This post is the third in a series analyzing the New York Budget Bill, and discusses changes to the tax rates and to the qualified New York manufacturer provisions.

Qualified New York Manufacturers

Effective for tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2014, qualified New York manufacturers are subject to a 0 percent business income tax rate and to beneficial rates for purposes of the tax on business capital and the fixed dollar minimum tax.

Under the original corporate tax reform provisions enacted in 2014, a “qualified New York manufacturer” is a manufacturer (either a single taxpayer or a combined group) that meets two qualifications. First, it has property in New York that is described in section 210-B.1 of the Tax Law (i.e., property that is eligible for the investment tax credit), and either (1) the adjusted basis of such property for federal income tax purposes at the close of the taxable year is at least $1 million, or (2) all of its real and personal property is located in New York. Second, it is principally engaged in qualifying activities (e.g., manufacturing, processing or assembling) (the “principally engaged” test).

A taxpayer—or, in the case of a combined report, a combined group—that does not satisfy the principally engaged test may still be a qualified New York manufacturer if the taxpayer or the combined group employs during the taxable year at least 2,500 employees in manufacturing in New York, and has property in the state used in manufacturing, the adjusted basis of which for federal income tax purposes at the close of the taxable year is at least $100 million.

The technical corrections in the 2015 Budget Bill restrict the types of property eligible for consideration in the principally engaged test to property mentioned in Tax Law section 210-B.1(b)(i)(A) (property that is principally used by the taxpayer in the production of goods by manufacturing, processing, assembling, refining, mining, extracting, farming, agriculture, horticulture, floriculture, viticulture or commercial fishing), rather than property described in the entirety of section 210-B.1. This correction mirrors the definition of eligible property before the 2014 law changes.

The technical corrections also contain an important clarification with respect to the application of the qualified New [...]

Continue Reading

Inside the New York Budget Bill: Tax Base and Income Classifications

by McDermott Will & Emery | Apr 2, 2015 | Allocation/Apportionment, Income Tax, New York, Tax Base

The New York Legislature has passed bills related to the 2015–2016 budget (S2009-B/A3009-B and S4610-A/A6721-A, collectively referred to herein as the 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 General Corporation Tax. The Budget Bill’s technical corrections to last year’s corporate income tax reform include changes to the economic nexus, tax base and income classification, tax rate (including clarifications to rules applicable to certain taxpayers, such as qualified New York manufacturers), apportionment, combined reporting, net operating loss and tax credit provisions. The technical corrections are effective on the same date as last year’s corporate income tax reform, which was generally effective for tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2015.

This post is the second in a series analyzing the New York Budget Bill, and summarizes the technical corrections to New York’s tax base and income classifications.

Although the modifications are described as “corrections” to last year’s corporate tax reform provisions, the Budget Bill makes a number of substantive changes with respect to the income classification rules.

Investment Capital

Last year’s corporate tax reform narrowed the definition of investment capital to mean investments in stocks held by a taxpayer for more than six consecutive months but not held for sale to customers in the regular course of business, and excluding stock that is a “qualified financial instrument” for which the taxpayer has elected to use the 8 percent apportionment sourcing rule, stock in a unitary business, stock in a business that is included in a combined report with the taxpayer, and stock issued by the taxpayer.

This year’s Budget Bill further narrows the definition of investment capital by extending the holding period from six months to one year, by tying the definition of investment capital to certain Internal Revenue Code provisions, and by requiring taxpayers to separately identify stock held as investment capital in their books and records. Investment capital now means investments in stocks that meet the following criteria:

Satisfy the definition of a “capital asset” under section 1221 of the Internal Revenue Code at all times the taxpayer owned the stock during the taxable year;
Are held for investment for more than one year;
The dispositions of which are, or would be, treated by the taxpayer as generating long-term capital gains or losses under the Internal Revenue Code;
For stocks acquired on or after January 1, 2015, have never been held for sale to customers in the regular course of business at any time after the close of the day on which they are acquired; and
Before the close of the day on which the stock was acquired, are clearly identified in the taxpayer’s books and records as stock held for investment in the same manner as required under section 1236(a)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code for the stock of a dealer in securities to be eligible for capital gain treatment (for [...]

Continue Reading

Inside the New York Budget Bill: Economic Nexus

by McDermott Will & Emery | Apr 2, 2015 | Income Tax, New York, Nexus

The New York Legislature has passed bills related to the 2015–2016 budget (S2009-B/A3009-B and S4610-A/A6721-A, collectively referred to herein as the “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 General Corporation Tax. The Budget Bill’s technical corrections to last year’s corporate income tax reform include changes to the economic nexus, tax base and income classification, tax rate (including clarifications to rules applicable to certain taxpayers, such as qualified New York manufacturers), apportionment, combined reporting, net operating loss and tax credit provisions. The technical corrections are effective on the same date as last year’s corporate income tax reform, which was generally effective for tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2015.

This post is the first in a series analyzing the New York Budget Bill, and summarizes the technical corrections to New York’s economic nexus provisions.

The New York Tax Law provides that a corporation is subject to corporate income tax if it is “deriving receipts from activity in [New York].” A corporation is deemed to be “deriving receipts from activity in [New York]” if it has $1 million or more of receipts included in the numerator of its apportionment factor, as determined under the Tax Law’s apportionment sourcing rules (New York receipts). Furthermore, a credit card company is deemed to be doing business in New York if it has issued credit cards to 1,000 or more New York customers; has contracts covering at least 1,000 merchant locations; or has at least 1,000 New York customers and New York merchant locations. The Tax Law also has special rules (aggregation rules) for corporations included in combined reporting groups. This year’s Budget Bill slightly modified those aggregation rules.

Under the Tax Law as originally amended by last year’s corporate income tax reform, if a corporation did not meet the $1 million threshold itself, but had at least $10,000 of New York receipts, the $1 million test was to be applied to that corporation by aggregating the New York receipts of all members of the corporation’s combined reporting group having at least $10,000 of New York receipts. Similarly, a credit card corporation that did not meet the 1,000 customer and/or merchant location threshold by itself, but had at least 10 New York customers, at least 10 New York merchant locations or at least 10 New York customers plus merchant locations, would have been subject to tax in New York if all members of its combined reporting group with 10 such customers and/or locations, on an aggregated basis, had at least 1,000 New York customers, 1,000 New York merchant locations or 1,000 New York customers plus merchant locations.

As a result of the technical corrections, the $1 million New York receipts and 1,000 New York customers/merchant locations aggregation tests now apply to a corporation that is part of a unitary group meeting the ownership test of Tax Law section 210-C (more [...]

Continue Reading

U.S. Tax Court Finds Refundable State Credits Result in Taxable Income

by McDermott Will & Emery | Mar 17, 2015 | Incentives, Income Tax, New York, Property Tax

The United States Tax Court recently determined that certain refundable tax credits issued by New York in connection with economic development activities (EZ Credits) constituted taxable income to the recipients for federal tax purposes. Maines v. Comm’r, 144 T.C. No. 8 (Mar. 11, 2015). In reaching this determination, the Court noted that the characterization of certain of the EZ Credits as refundable taxes for New York purposes “is not necessarily controlling for federal tax purposes;” instead, the Court looked at the substance of the EZ Credits and determined that the credits were not actually a refund of previously paid state taxes, and, instead, the credits were a taxable accession to wealth since they were “just transfers from New York to the taxpayer—subsidies essentially.” The Court also considered one other refundable tax credit (the QEZE Credit), which was a credit against income tax liability for the amount of real property taxes paid, and determined that, while the amount of QEZE Credits refunded did not constitute a “taxable accession to wealth” as did the EZ Credits, the application of the tax benefit rule mandated that the refundable portion was subject to federal taxable income.

The taxpayers received the EZ Credits from New York for engaging in specific economic development activities in the state through their pass-through business entities. As the Court noted, New York labels the EZ Credits “credits” and treats them as refunds for “overpayments” of state income tax; the taxpayers in Maines received refunds of their state income tax based on their claim for the EZ Credits. Despite New York’s characterization of the EZ Credits, the Commissioner asserted that they were nothing more than cash subsidies, and thus should be treated as taxable income to the taxpayers. On the other hand, the taxpayers argued that New York’s label of the EZ Credits as overpayments was binding for purposes of federal law. The Court, noting President Lincoln’s famous quip that “if New York called a tail a leg, we’d have to conclude that a dog has five legs in New York as a matter of federal law. . . . Calling the tail a leg would not make it a leg,” agreed with the Commissioner, observing that federal law looks to the substance of legal interests created by state law, not to the labels the state affixes to those interests.

As for the QEZE Credit, the Tax Court agreed that it did not result in a taxable accession to wealth since it was really a refund of real property taxes that the taxpayer had paid to the state. However, the Court still determined that the refunded amounts would be taxable due to the tax benefit rule to the extent that a deduction had been claimed for the real property taxes paid. Under the tax benefit rule, to the extent a taxpayer obtains a refund of payments for which it received a tax benefit (such as a deduction), such refund should be taxable.

The Maines decision is one of the first Tax [...]

Continue Reading

Let the Training Begin: MTC Transfer Pricing Audits Draw Near

by McDermott Will & Emery, Diann Smith, Eric D. Carstens and Stephen P. Kranz | Mar 6, 2015 | Income Tax, Nationwide Importance, North Carolina, Tax Base, Transfer Pricing

Deputy Executive Director Greg Matson (a nice guy at heart) announced this week that the Multistate Tax Commission (MTC) has hired its first transfer pricing training consultant and is scheduled to begin training state auditors. The training, titled “Identifying Related Party Issues in Corporate Tax Audits” will be hosted by the North Carolina Department of Revenue from March 31 to April 1, 2015 in Raleigh, North Carolina. While the much anticipated Arm’s Length Adjustment Service (ALAS, discussed in more depth in our February 6, 2015 blog post, available here) is still pending approval of the MTC Executive Committee and ratification at the annual meeting this summer, it has not stopped MTC officials from moving forward with training state auditors on transfer pricing. This training (and any subsequent training offered before the annual meeting) will be conducted as part of the MTC’s “regular training” schedule (and is not directly tied to the ALAS program since authority to train for that program has not vested). Nonetheless, Executive Director Joe Huddleston made it clear in a recent letter to the states that “[t]his course will preview the training to be provided through the Arm’s-Length Adjustment Service.”

The kickoff training session at the end of this month will be conducted by former Internal Revenue Service Office of Chief Counsel senior economic advisor, Ednaldo Silva. He is the founder of RoyaltyStat LLC, one of the transfer pricing consulting firms that is being considered by the MTC to provide their services for the ALAS. During yesterday’s teleconference of the ALAS Advisory Group, Matson and Huddleston were optimistic that additional training sessions would be offered by the MTC before the ALAS is finalized. It remains to be seen whether this training will be offered by Silva or another participant from the October 2014 Advisory Group meeting that has submitted a bid to be the contract firm for the ALAS. Because these trainings are a fundamental threshold step to commencing ALAS audits (projected to begin December 2015), they provide a strong signal that the MTC is optimistic that they will have sufficient support from the states to continue the ALAS program.

Too Soon?

In a letter distributed to 46 states and Washington, D.C. in February 2015, the MTC officially solicited state commitments to the ALAS program. States were given until the end of March 2015 to respond. By the terms of the ALAS proposal, the MTC will need a commitment from at least seven states for the program to move forward. MTC officials announced at yesterday’s Advisory Group teleconference that the current count is zero (with one state declining). While there is still time to respond, several revenue department officials voiced concern about making a commitment without more detailed estimates of costs. Others voiced uncertainty about the ability to enter into a contract for such a long period under state law (the program requests that each state commit to four years). While there was no significant undertone of opposition to [...]

Continue Reading

BLOG EDITORS

STAY CONNECTED

TOPICS

ARCHIVES

RECENT POSTS