Income Tax Archives - Page 7 of 30

Income Tax

Connecticut Responds to the Federal Repatriation Tax

by Diann Smith and Stephen P. Kranz | Feb 16, 2018 | Connecticut, Federal Tax, Income Tax

Earlier this month, Connecticut Governor Dan Malloy released his Governor’s Bill addressing the various state tax implications of the federal tax reform bill enacted by Congress in December 2017, commonly referred to as the “Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.” Among other things, the Governor’s Bill addresses Connecticut’s treatment of the foreign earning deemed repatriation tax provisions of amended section 965 of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC). While the Governor’s Bill does not explicitly provide that the addition to federal income under IRC section 965 is an actual dividend for purposes of Connecticut’s dividend received deduction, the bill does protect Connecticut’s ability to tax at least part of the income brought into the federal tax base under the federal deemed repatriation tax provisions by defining nondeductible “expenses related to dividends” as 10 percent of the amount of the dividend. (more…)

Choices for Illinois Taxpayers in Implementing the 2017 Income Tax Rate Increase

by Mary Kay McCalla Martire | Feb 15, 2018 | Allocation/Apportionment, Illinois, Income Tax

Last year, Illinois enacted a mid-year income tax rate increase. Effective July 1, 2017, Illinois increased the income tax rate for individuals, trusts and estates from 3.75 percent to 4.95 percent, and for corporations from 5.25 percent to 7 percent. The Illinois Personal Property Replacement Tax (imposed on corporations, partnerships, trusts, S corporations and public utilities at various rates) was not changed.

As we previously reported, the Illinois Income Tax Act contains a number of provisions intended to resolve questions regarding how income should be allocated between the two income tax rates applicable in 2017. 35 ILCS 5/202.5(a). The default rule is a proration based on the number of days in each period (181/184). For taxpayers choosing this method, the Department of Revenue (Department) has recommended the use of a blended tax rate to calculate tax liability. A schedule of blended rates is included in the Department’s instructions for the 2017 returns. The blended rate is 4.3549 percent for calendar year individual taxpayers and 6.1322 percent for calendar year C corporation taxpayers. (more…)

Final 2017 Tax in the City Meeting Focuses on Tax Reform

by McDermott Will & Emery | Dec 26, 2017 | Illinois, Income Tax, Uncategorized

McDermott hosted its last Tax in the City® women’s tax roundtable of the year in its Chicago office on December 14, 2017.

The Chicago Year-In-Review event featured a CLE/CPE presentation, “Key Provisions of International Tax Reform,” by Britt Haxton, Kristen Hazel and Sandra McGill, followed by a roundtable discussion on interest expense limitations, changes to net operating loss provisions, pass through tax rates and effects of tax reform on benefits.

Additionally, Catherine Battin, Mary Kay Martire and Jane May discussed the SALT perspective on the international tax reform provisions. A summary of key Illinois income tax changes is below, and a thorough explanation of the new SALT implications in the tax reform bills can be found here.

(more…)

Taxpayers May Not Prepay Income Tax to Avoid Cap on SALT Deduction

by Mary Kay McCalla Martire | Dec 22, 2017 | Illinois, Income Tax, Nationwide Importance, Property Tax

The federal tax reform package recently approved by Congress (the Bill) contains a cap on the state and local tax deduction that may be claimed by individuals on their federal income tax returns. The Bill provides that an individual may claim up to $10,000 of state and local property taxes and either income or sales taxes. The cap expires on January 1, 2026.

Individual taxpayers who have been considering prepaying their 2018 (or later) taxes in 2017 should be aware that the final version of the Bill contains a provision that prohibits individuals from prepaying their income tax for future years in 2017. As a result, any guidance issued by state revenue departments (for example, in Illinois) regarding the prepayment of 2018 income tax is no longer applicable. In certain jurisdictions, individuals may still have an opportunity to prepay their property tax assessments. For additional details, please contact your tax preparer.

New California Office of Tax Appeals Discusses Emergency Regulations

by Roy E. Crawford | Nov 15, 2017 | California, Income Tax, Procedure, Sales Tax

The New California Office of Tax Appeals (OTA) on November 6, 2017, held an interested parties meeting in Sacramento to discuss the contents of a draft of emergency regulations to guide both income tax appeals from the California Franchise Tax Board and sales and use tax appeals from the California Department of Tax and Fee Appeals (CDTFA). The meeting was chaired by Kristen Kane, the newly appointed Chief Counsel and Acting Director of the OTA, and by Zack Morazzini, the Director and Chief Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) in the Office of Administrative Hearings. Ms. Kane and Mr. Morazzini provided helpful insight on how the new OTA will operate, including the following:

The OTA is in the process of hiring 18 new ALJs.
Hearings will be held in Sacramento, Los Angeles and Fresno.
Hearings are expected to commence in late January, after a crash training program for the new ALJs.
Both Ms. Kane and Mr. Morazzini stressed the intention that the hearings be as informal and conversational as possible, bearing in mind that many, if not most, taxpayers will either appear pro per or be represented by non-attorneys.
Taxpayers will open the process by making a written submission, and the agencies will file a written brief in response. The procedures may be similar to the current practice before the State Board of Equalization, where the taxpayer submits a statement of facts and discussion of the law, and the facts as stated by the taxpayer are accepted unless the tax agency objects.
Where there is a disagreement on the facts, the burden will be on the taxpayer to come forward with supporting evidence.

In an informal discussion after the conclusion of the meeting, Mr. Morazzini said that the Office of Administrative Hearings is proud of their long and successful run at conducting fair hearings in many contexts with flexibility being a paramount concern. At least at the outset, there will be no written rules on the presentation of evidence. Mr. Morazzini said that the Administrative Procedures Act and, generally, the rules of evidence allow ALJs to fashion orders responsive to discovery requests by either or both of the taxpayer or the agency, as required under the circumstance. Either party will have the right to request a preliminary meeting with an ALJ, or the ALJ can order a preliminary meeting. The preliminary meeting is intended to be informal, and will give taxpayers the opportunity to request the production of documents, stipulations and admissions. Note that OTA anticipates that the preliminary meeting will be attended by only one ALJ, although A.B. 102, the authorizing legislation, calls for a panel of three ALJs.

(more…)

SALT Implications of the House and Senate Tax Reform Bill

by McDermott Will & Emery | Nov 14, 2017 | Allocation/Apportionment, Constitutional Issues, Income Tax, Nationwide Importance, Transaction Taxes

Many provisions of the House and Senate tax reform proposals would affect state and local tax regimes. SALT practitioners should monitor the progress of this legislation and consider contacting their state tax administrators and legislative bodies to voice their opinions.

California’s New Office of Tax Appeals Issues Preliminary Draft of Procedural Rules that Is Silent on Discovery Matters

by Roy E. Crawford | Nov 1, 2017 | California, Income Tax, Procedure, Sales Tax

As part of Governor Jerry Brown’s 2017 budget bill, the California State Board of Equalization (SBE) was stripped of its functions that had been authorized by statute, leaving principally property tax matters deriving from the state constitution. Sales and use tax and fee functions were moved to a newly created California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA). Jurisdiction to hear appeals from the Franchise Tax Board (FTB) as well as appeals in sales and use tax and fee matters from CDTFA was vested in a new Office of Tax Appeals (OTA), to become effective January 1, 2018. The OTA is scurrying to adopt rules before opening for business on January 1, 2018. It recently released an early draft of what will become emergency regulations. An informal public discussion meeting of the draft has been scheduled for November 6, 2017, in Sacramento. (more…)

State and Local Tax Aspects of Republican Tax Reform Framework

by McDermott Will & Emery | Sep 29, 2017 | Allocation/Apportionment, Federal Tax, Income Tax, Local Tax, Nationwide Importance, Property Tax, Tax Base, Transfer Pricing

The White House and Republican congressional leadership released an outline this week to guide forthcoming legislation on federal tax reform. The states conform to the federal tax laws to varying degrees and the extent to which they will adopt any federal changes is uncertain. This memorandum outlines some of the key areas—individual taxation, general business taxation and international taxation— with which the states will be concerned as details continue to unfold.

Republican Leaders Release Tax Reform Framework

by McDermott Will & Emery | Sep 28, 2017 | Federal Tax, Income Tax, Nationwide Importance, Transaction Taxes

The White House and Republican congressional leadership released an outline this week to guide forthcoming legislation on tax reform. This outline will serve as a useful framework in structuring what will be an active, and likely contentious, phase of reform activity.

While Virginia Supreme Court Holds “Subject-To-Tax” Means “Actually Taxed,” Determination of “Actually Taxed” is Relatively Broad for Purposes of Addback Exception

by Jane Wells May | Sep 6, 2017 | Income Tax, Nationwide Importance, Tax Base, Virginia

On August 31, 2017, in a 4-3 split decision, the Virginia Supreme Court (Court) affirmed a circuit court’s ruling that in order for income to qualify for the “subject-to-tax” exception to its addback statute, the income must actually be taxed by another state. Kohl’s Dep’t Stores, Inc. v. Va. Dep’t of Taxation, no. 160681 (Va. Aug. 31, 2017). A copy of the Opinion (Op) is available here. The Court, however, did find for the taxpayer on its alternative argument, concluding that the determination of where income was “actually taxed” includes combined return and addback states, in addition to separate return states, and includes income subject to tax in the hands of the payor, not just the recipient. For our prior coverage of the subject-to-tax exception, see here.

The issue here was whether Kohl’s Department Stores, Inc. (Kohl’s), which operates retail stores throughout the United States (including Virginia), was required to “add back” to its income royalties it paid to a related party for the use of intellectual property owned by that party. Kohl’s deducted the royalty payments as ordinary and necessary business expenses in the computation of its federal income, and the recipient related party included the royalty income in its taxable income calculations in the states in which it filed returns, including both separate and combined reporting states. The Court considered whether the royalty payments paid by Kohl’s must be “added backed” to Kohl’s taxable income under Virginia law, or whether the royalties fell within Virginia’s “subject-to-tax” exception. (more…)

Older Posts »

« Newer Posts

BLOG EDITORS

Stephen P. Kranz

Mary Kay McCalla Martire

Richard C. Call

BLOG EDITORS

STAY CONNECTED

TOPICS

ARCHIVES

RECENT POSTS