Massachusetts Archives

Massachusetts

Massachusetts Adopts Single-Sales-Factor Apportionment; Manufacturing Classification Becomes Less Controversial

by Stephen P. Kranz, Richard C. Call and David Jasphy | Oct 11, 2023 | Allocation/Apportionment, Massachusetts

On October 4, 2023, Massachusetts Governor Maura Healey signed House Bill 4104 into law. The most significant change it introduces is the adoption of single-sales-factor apportionment (SSF) for all corporate taxpayers, not just manufacturers and mutual fund service corporations. Massachusetts joins more than 30 other states that have adopted either mandatory or elective SSF. The law applies to tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2025.

In addition to the anticipated reduction in taxes for corporations with a relatively large Massachusetts property and payroll base, the change will end the relevance of the manufacturing and mutual fund service corporation classifications.

During the 20th century, Massachusetts was synonymous with three-factor apportionment. In fact, many called three-factor apportionment the “Massachusetts formula,” especially in the context of manufacturing. Then, in the 1990s, the state adopted SSF for manufacturers and mutual fund service corporations.

Generally speaking, under SSF, companies with a relatively large out-of-state presence had a lower apportionment percentage if they were not considered manufacturers. By contrast, companies with a large in-state presence generally had a lower apportionment percentage if they were manufacturers. Naturally, there were years of audits and litigation regarding these classifications. A company’s classification could even change from year to year depending on what ratio of its business fell within a classification. Thus, “winning” in one year did not mean that the issue would not be reexamined during the next audit cycle.

The broad adoption of SSF means that these classifications will no longer be relevant in this context, although the classifications still matter for other aspects of corporate income tax (like credits), as well as property and sales tax.

Buehler Doesn’t Get a Day Off from Double Taxation

by Charles Moll, III and Michael J. Hilkin | May 12, 2023 | California, Constitutional Issues, Income Tax, Massachusetts, State Tax, Unitary Business

The California Office of Tax Appeals (OTA) recently held that a California resident’s income tax paid to Massachusetts from the sale of his membership interest in a limited liability company (LLC) doing business in Massachusetts was not eligible for California’s other state tax credit. The OTA reached this conclusion while acknowledging that it “will result in the income” from the sale of the membership interest “being double taxed.”

The taxpayer in the case, Mr. Buehler, was one of three managing members of an LLC that had an office in Massachusetts and provided portfolio management services for pooled investment vehicles. Buehler “was actively involved in” the LLC’s management and operations. After selling his membership interest in the LLC, Buehler filed a Massachusetts nonresident tax return and reported and paid tax on a share of the net gain from the sale of the membership interest, using the LLC’s Massachusetts apportionment factors.

The OTA’s decision did not question whether Buehler properly determined, under Massachusetts law, the tax owed to Massachusetts from the sale of his LLC membership interest. At that time, the Massachusetts Department of Revenue took the position that such sales of pass-through entity interests were taxable in Massachusetts where the entity conducted business regardless of whether the seller was “unitary” with the entity. (See, e.g., VAS Holdings & Investments LLC v. Comm’r of Revenue, 489 Mass. 669 (2022).) Instead, the OTA focused on the language of California’s other state tax credit, which applies to income taxes paid to another state on “income derived from sources within that state.” As stated by the OTA, “in order for a California taxpayer to be entitled” to a credit, “income taxes paid to the nonresident state (here, Massachusetts) must be based on income sourced to that nonresident state using California’s nonresident sourcing rules.” (Emphasis in original).

The OTA determined that under Cal. Rev. & Tax. Code § 17952, the LLC interest was not sourced to Massachusetts because Buehler’s LLC membership interest had not acquired a “business situs” in Massachusetts. According to the OTA, Buehler’s activities as a managing member of the LLC did not cause the “membership interest itself” to be “integrated into the business activities” of the LLC “in Massachusetts.” (Emphasis in original). In other words, while Buehler’s “services for” the LLC “as one of its three managing partners may connect him with” the LLC’s “Massachusetts business activities, that fact alone does not show that [Buehler’s] membership interest was localized in Massachusetts.”

The OTA also rejected Buehler’s alternative argument that his active involvement in the LLC caused him to “become unitary” with the LLC’s business, allowing for combination and apportionment under California Tax Regulation § 17951-4(d). The OTA explained that Buehler did not establish that he was “operating a sole proprietorship or any kind of business activity” separate and apart from the LLC “that could be considered unitary with” the LLC.

The OTA acknowledged that its decision would lead to double taxation of income from the sale of the LLC membership interest but concluded [...]

Continue Reading

Massachusetts Department of Revenue Releases Guidance on a De Minimis Exception for Use Tax on Rolling Stock

by Richard C. Call, Stephen P. Kranz and Jonathan C. Hague | Mar 28, 2023 | Audits, Local Tax, Massachusetts, Nationwide Importance, Sales Tax

The Massachusetts Department of Revenue (DOR) recently released Directive 23-1, which outlines the conditions for a de minimis exception where the Commissioner will not require a taxpayer to pay the use tax for rolling stock used or stored within the state. This directive comes at a time when the DOR is auditing many companies that use trucks and trailers and is currently assessing use tax on rolling stock if no sales tax was collected at the time of sale.

Directive 23-1 provides that “the Commissioner will consider the in-state use [of rolling stock] to be de minimis and will neither impose, nor require the taxpayer to pay, use tax on the use or storage of the rolling stock” where the taxpayer can prove “that the rolling stock that it owns or leases for 12 months or longer was used or stored in Massachusetts for no more than six days during a 12-month period” (emphasis added).

Companies “can demonstrate the frequency with which rolling stock was used or stored in Massachusetts through sufficient records that show the dates of travel into and in Massachusetts, such as GPS logs.” Additionally, a credit against the Massachusetts use tax is allowed if the taxpayer has paid a sales tax legally due to another state and that state allows a corresponding credit for sales or use tax paid to Massachusetts.

Massachusetts Department of Revenue Stops Applying COVID-19 Telecommuting Policy, Returns to Location of Work Performed

by Richard C. Call and Elle Kaiser | Sep 24, 2021 | Income Tax, Local Tax, Massachusetts, Nationwide Importance

In a recently issued guidance, the Massachusetts Department of Revenue indicated that the emergency telecommuting rules it put in place during the Massachusetts COVID-19 state of emergency would cease to be in effect as of September 13, 2021. Under the telecommuting rules, which were effective beginning March 10, 2020, wages paid to a non-resident employee who worked remotely (i.e., working from home or a location other than their usual work location) because of the COVID-19 pandemic were sourced based on where the employee worked prior to the state of emergency. Effective September 13, 2021, wages will generally be sourced based on where the employee’s work is actually performed.

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Approves Sales Tax Apportionment for Software

by Stephen P. Kranz, Richard C. Call, Mark Nebergall and Jonathan C. Hague | May 25, 2021 | Allocation/Appointment, Constitutional Issues, Local Tax, Massachusetts, Nationwide Importance, Sales Tax

On May 21, 2021, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court issued a decision affirming the Massachusetts Tax Appeal Board’s decision in favor of Microsoft and Oracle, ruling that the companies may apportion sales tax to other states on software purchased by a Massachusetts company from which the software was accessed and seek a tax refund.

The case involved a claim by vendors for abatement of sales tax collected on software delivered to a location in Massachusetts but accessible from multiple states. The Massachusetts Department of Revenue (DOR) claimed that the statute gave it the sole right to decide whether the sales price of the software could be apportioned and, if so, the methods the buyer and seller had to use to claim apportionment. Under rules promulgated by the DOR, there are three methods to choose from, such as the purchaser giving the seller an exemption certificate claiming the software would be used in multiple states, none of which the purchaser used. The DOR argued that if a taxpayer did not use one of the methods specified in the rule, no apportionment was permitted. The vendors sought abatement of the tax on the portion of the sales price that could have been apportioned to other states had one of the methods specified under the rule been used. The DOR claimed the abatement procedure was not a permissible method of claiming apportionment.

The court held: (1) the statute gave the purchaser the right of apportionment and it was not up to the DOR to decide whether apportionment was permitted; (2) the abatement procedure is an available method for claiming the apportionment; and (3) the taxpayer was not limited to the procedures specified in the rule for claiming sales price apportionment.

The court’s decision was based in part on separation of powers: “Under the commissioner’s reading of [the statute], the Legislature has delegated to the commissioner the ultimate authority to decide whether to allow apportionment of sales tax on software sold in the Commonwealth and transferred for use outside the Commonwealth.” The court found such a determination represented “a fundamental policy decision that cannot be delegated.”

The Massachusetts rules reviewed by the court have their genesis in amendments to the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement (SSUTA) (that never became effective) providing special sourcing rules for, among other things, computer software concurrently available for use in more than one location. Even though Massachusetts is not a member of the SSUTA, officials from the DOR participate in the Streamlined process and apparently brought those amendments home with them and had them promulgated into the Commonwealth’s sales tax rules.

Practice Notes: This case addresses one of the issues with taxing business models in the digital space. This important decision makes clear, at least in Massachusetts, that taxpayers have post-sale opportunities to reduce sales tax liability on sales/purchases of software accessible from other states where tax on the full sales price initially was collected and remitted by the seller.

Taxpayers may have refund opportunities related to this [...]

Continue Reading

New York Issues Much-Anticipated Guidance on Taxation of Telecommuting Employees

by Richard C. Call and Arthur R. Rosen | Oct 23, 2020 | Income Tax, Local Tax, Massachusetts, Nationwide Importance, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York

Since the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic and work-from-home mandates, New York employers and their nonresident employees have been waiting for the Department of Taxation and Finance to address the million-dollar question: Do wages earned by a nonresident who typically works in a New York office but is now telecommuting from another state due to the pandemic constitute New York source income? New York has historical guidance concerning the application of its “convenience of the employee/necessity of the employer” test, the test used to determine whether a telecommuting nonresident’s wages are sourced to New York, but until recently the Department had been silent as to whether or how such rule applied under the unprecedented circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic.

As many expected, in a recent update to the residency FAQs, the Department clearly stated its position that a nonresident whose primary office is in New York State is considered to be working in New York State on days that he or she telecommutes from outside the state during the pandemic unless the employer has “established a bona fide employer office at [the] telecommuting location.” The Department adopted the “bona fide employer office” test in 2006 as its way of applying the convenience of the employee rule to employees that work from home. The bona fide employer office test is a factor-based test and, for the most part, a home office will not qualify as a bona fide employer office unless the employer takes specific actions to establish the location as a company office. (See: TSB-M-06(5)I, New York Tax Treatment of Nonresidents and Part-Year Residents Application of the Convenience of the Employer Test to Telecommuters and Others.) As is apparent in the FAQ, the Department is mechanically applying this test to employees working from home as a result of the pandemic and is not providing any special rules or accommodations for employees that have been required or encouraged by New York State and local governments to telecommute.

Interestingly, the Massachusetts Department of Revenue took a similar approach to New York’s by promulgating a regulation requiring nonresidents that typically work in Massachusetts but are telecommuting from outside the state to pay tax on their wages. On October 19, 2020, New Hampshire filed a Motion for Leave to File Bill of Complaint with the United States Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of Massachusetts’ regulation. We understand that New Jersey is considering joining New Hampshire in this lawsuit based on New York’s recent guidance, which would require many New Jersey residents to pay New York income tax even though they are no longer working in New York. The US Supreme Court has twice declined to rule on the constitutionality of the convenience-of-the-employee test, so stay tuned on this important development.

MTC Marketplace Seller Voluntary Disclosure Initiative Underway

by McDermott Will & Emery, Eric D. Carstens and Stephen P. Kranz | Aug 18, 2017 | District of Columbia, Incentives, Income Tax, Interest and Penalties, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, Nationwide Importance, Nexus, North Carolina, Sales Tax, Tennessee, Transaction Taxes

Yesterday, the application period opened for the limited-time MTC Marketplace Seller Voluntary Disclosure Initiative opened and it will close October 17, 2017. Since our last blog post on the topic detailing the initiatives terms, benefits and application procedure, six additional states (listed below) have signed on to participate in varying capacities. The lookback period being offered by each of the six states that joined this week is described below.

District of Columbia: will consider granting shorter or no lookback period for applications received under this initiative on a case by case basis. DC’s standard lookback period is 3 years for sales/use and income/franchise tax.
Massachusetts: requires compliance with its standard 3-year lookback period. This lookback period in a particular case may be less than 3 years, depending on when vendor nexus was created.
Minnesota: will abide by customary lookback periods of 3 years for sales/use tax and 4 years (3 look-back years and 1 current year) for income/franchise tax. Minnesota will grant shorter lookback periods to the time when the marketplace seller created nexus.
Missouri: prospective-only for sales/use and income/franchise tax.
North Carolina: prospective-only for sales/use and income/franchise tax. North Carolina will consider applications even if the entity had prior contact concerning tax liability or potential tax liability.
Tennessee: prospective-only for sales/use tax, business tax and franchise and excise tax.

Practice Note

The MTC marketplace seller initiative is now up to 24 participating states. It is targeting online marketplace sellers that use a marketplace provider (such as the Amazon FBA program or similar platform or program providing fulfillment services) to facilitate retail sales into the state. In order to qualify, marketplace sellers must not have any nexus-creating contacts in the state, other than: (1) inventory stored in a third-party warehouse or fulfillment center located in the state or (2) other nexus-creating activities performed by the marketplace provider on behalf of the online marketplace seller.

While Missouri, North Carolina and Tennessee have signed on to the attractive baseline terms (no lookback for sales/use and income/franchise tax), Minnesota and Massachusetts are requiring their standard lookback periods (i.e., 3+ years). Thus, these two states (similar to Wisconsin) are not likely to attract many marketplace sellers. The District of Columbia’s noncommittal case-by-case offer leaves a lot to be determined, and their ultimate offer at the end of the process could range from no lookback to the standard three years.

Massachusetts Department of Revenue Repeals Directive 17-1

by Arthur R. Rosen and Richard C. Call | Jun 29, 2017 | Constitutional Issues, Massachusetts, Nexus, Procedure, Sales Tax, Transaction Taxes

The Massachusetts Department of Revenue (Department) has just issued Directive 17-2 revoking Directive 17-1 which adopted an economic nexus standard for sales tax purposes. Directive 17-2 states that the revocation is in anticipation of the Department proposing a regulation that would presumably adopt the standards of Directive 17-1. It appears that the Department took seriously, perhaps among other concerns, internet sellers’ arguments that Directive 17-1 was an improperly promulgated rule. Internet sellers that recently received letters from the Department regarding Directive 17-1 (see our previous blog post) may need to reconsider their approach.

Massachusetts DOR Sending Letters to Sellers Regarding July 1 Effective Date of Economic Nexus Directive

by Arthur R. Rosen and Richard C. Call | Jun 28, 2017 | Constitutional Issues, Massachusetts, Nexus, Procedure, Sales Tax, Transaction Taxes

Recently, the Massachusetts Department of Revenue (Department) sent letters to several companies regarding Directive 17-1. The Directive announces a “rule” requiring remote internet sellers to register for and begin collecting Massachusetts sales and use tax (sales tax) by July 1, 2017, if they had more than $500,000 in Massachusetts sales during the preceding year. The legal premise behind the rule is that the Department believes sellers with more than $500,000 in annual Massachusetts sales must have more than a de minimis physical presence so that requiring sales tax collection would not be prohibited by Quill Corp v. North Dakota, 504 US 298 (1992). The Directive’s examples of such physical presence include the presence of cookies on purchasers’ computers, use of third-party carriers to make white-glove deliveries and the use of online marketplaces to sell products. The Directive also states that sellers who fail to collect tax beginning July 1, 2017 will be subject to interest and penalties (plus, of course, any uncollected taxes).

We think the Directive is contrary to law on three main grounds. First, we believe that the items that the Department asserts create physical presence are insufficient to establish more than a de minimis physical presence. For example, the presence of cookies on computers in a state appears to be less of a physical presence than the floppy disks the seller in Quill sent into North Dakota (which were used by its customers to place orders) that the United States Supreme Court viewed as de minimis. Second, the Directive violates the state administrative procedures act because it constitutes an administrative rule that was not validly adopted. Third, the Directive’s rule violates the Internet Tax Freedom Act, a federal statute, because the rule discriminates against internet sellers.

By its own terms, the Directive applies only prospectively. The Directive does not assert a blanket rule that internet sellers are liable for sales tax for periods prior to July 1, 2017, if they met a certain sales threshold. The risks from non-collection for such periods are dependent on a company’s specific facts. The letters advise sellers that they may be eligible for voluntary disclosure for such prior periods.

Companies have two general options: (1) register and begin collecting or (2) not register or collect. Litigation has been brought on behalf of a number of sellers to challenge the Directive on the grounds identified above. One important aspect of that litigation is the request for an injunction barring the enforcement of the Directive pending a court decision; an injunction would likely prompt many sellers to take a “wait and see” approach. Ultimately, sellers must make a business decision based on their own facts and business circumstances.

Massachusetts’ First Really Good Amnesty Program Since 2002

by Richard C. Call and Scott M. Susko | May 5, 2016 | Audits, Interest and Penalties, Massachusetts, Procedure

The Massachusetts Department of Revenue (Department) is widely promoting a new amnesty program with significant taxpayer benefits. Our experience with Massachusetts amnesty suggests that this is the broadest program offered by the Department since 2002.

Individual and business taxpayers may participate in the program for taxes due on or before December 31, 2015. To participate in the program, taxpayers must complete an amnesty return online and submit payment for the full amount of tax and interest electronically by Tuesday, May 31, 2016.

The amnesty program, which waives most types of penalties, offers three special features for taxpayers to consider.

Taxpayers in Audit Can Participate

First, unlike many other state amnesty programs, the current Massachusetts program is available to taxpayers who are under audit. The Department’s auditors have been notifying taxpayers of the program, and Department personnel have confirmed with us that taxpayers under audit are eligible for the program. Department personnel have asked that taxpayers who wish to participate in the program simply notify their auditor.

Refunds Permitted

Second, unlike many other amnesty programs, taxpayers who participate in the Massachusetts program do not lose appeal rights or otherwise forfeit their right of refund for amounts that are disputed in the audit or that they later conclude were mistakenly paid under amnesty. A recent Technical Information Release provides that participation in the amnesty program and the payment of any tax and interest “does not constitute a forfeiture of statutory rights of appeal or an admission that the tax paid is the correct amount of liability due.”

Non-Filers Can Participate

Third, for the first time since 2002, non-filers may participate in the amnesty program. Participating taxpayers will receive a three-year limited look-back period.

Taxpayers with eligible liabilities should seriously consider whether to participate in the program.