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
Massachusetts
Subscribe to Massachusetts's Posts

Massachusetts Court Holds Department of Revenue’s Guidance to Be Unreasonable

by and | Apr 22, 2016 | , , ,

Northeastern University, the Trustees of Boston University, Wellesley College and 131 Willow Avenue, LLC prevailed in their appeal of the Massachusetts Department of Revenue’s (the Department) rejection of their Brownfields tax credit applications in Massachusetts Superior Court. 131 Willow Avenue, LLC v. Comm’r of Revenue, 2015 WL 6447310 (2015). The taxpayers argued, and the court agreed, that the Department improperly denied their applications based on the unlawful use of Directive 13-4 issued by the commissioner of revenue (the Commissioner). At issue was the validity of Directive 13-4’s prohibition on nonprofit and transfer Brownfields tax credit applicants from receiving or transferring credits based on documentation submitted in a taxable year that commenced before the effective date of a 2006 amendment expanding the Brownfields tax credit statute to include nonprofit organizations and allow for credit transfers. The court held that the directive was “unreasonable and [the Department’s] denial of the applications based on that directive was unlawful.” (more…)



read more

Massachusetts Department of Revenue Introduces Pilot Voluntary Disclosure Program

by and | Feb 8, 2016 | , , , , ,

The Massachusetts Department of Revenue (the Department) released a draft administrative procedure introducing a pilot Voluntary Disclosure Program (the Program) for the settlement of uncertain tax issues for business taxpayers on January 19. The Department introduced this Program in response to a suggestion made by Scott Susko, an author of this article, and another practitioner, both of whom serve as taxpayer professional representatives on the Department’s Advisory Council. We commend the Department for reacting to this suggestion in such a proactive manner.

The Program will provide “a process through which uncertain tax issues may be resolved on an expedited basis, generally within four months” (All quotations in this post are from the Department’s draft administrative procedure).

We think this Program will be particularly helpful to public companies in resolving issues related to their financial statement reserves.

The Program defines an “uncertain tax issue” as an issue “for which there is no clear statutory guidance or controlling case law, and which has not been addressed by the Department in a regulation, letter ruling, or other public written statement,” and “for which a taxpayer would be required to maintain a reserve in accordance with ASC 740: Accounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxes (formerly Fin 48).” The issue also “must not have been addressed as part of a prior audit of the taxpayer, a prior application for abatement or amended return filed by the taxpayer, or a prior ruling request made by the taxpayer.”

To qualify for the Program, “any potential tax liability attributable to the uncertain tax issue(s) must be $100,000 or more, exclusive of interest and penalties.” A taxpayer that is under audit or has received notice of an impending audit is not eligible for the Program. The Department has the “discretion to determine that the Program is not appropriate for specific cases.”

The Department “will consider settlement of an uncertain tax issue(s) where: (1) the taxpayer has presented its position on the issue(s) and the Department agrees that the tax treatment of the issue(s) is uncertain; and (2) the taxpayer has fully disclosed and documented the issue(s) and the facts associated with that issue(s).”

A taxpayer may initiate the process by submitting an anonymous letter to the Department, which will respond to the taxpayer within 30 days. If the Department accepts the taxpayer into the Program, the taxpayer may submit an application, including a settlement proposal and identifying the taxpayer, within 45 days of receiving the Department’s acceptance letter.

The Department will waive penalties related to the uncertain tax issue for a taxpayer that reaches an agreement with the Department pursuant to the Program, as well as for a taxpayer that does not reach an agreement with the Department “provided the taxpayer acted in good faith.”

The Department requested practitioner comments on the draft administrative procedure by February 1, and MWE submitted two technical comments.

Our first comment was that following the initial evaluation, the Department should issue to the taxpayer a one-page technical position explaining whether it does or [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Massachusetts DOR May Lose Staff This Summer

by and | May 26, 2015 | , ,

The Massachusetts Department of Revenue (DOR) likely will have significantly less employees starting July 1, 2015, due to a Massachusetts employee retirement incentive program.  Governor Charlie Baker recently signed legislation establishing the program on May 4, 2015 (see 2015 Mass. Acts Chapter 19, An Act Relative to State Personnel).  With more than half of DOR’s employees eligible to participate in the program, DOR is the state agency with the potential to lose the highest percentage of employees.

The program allows employees who already are eligible to retire but have not reached their maximum pension benefit to add up to five years onto their age, years of service or a combination of both, so they can retire immediately with a higher pension.  The program limits total workforce reductions in Massachusetts to 5,000 employees.  Eligible employees must submit an application to the State Board of Retirement between May 11 and June 12, 2015, to participate.  The retirement date and last day of work for approved employees will be June 30, 2015.  The Baker administration can use up to 20 percent of the savings from the retired employees to hire replacement staff, but it is unclear when such hiring will take place and how much funding will be allocated to DOR versus other state agencies affected by the program.

What does this mean for taxpayers and tax practitioners?  We are hearing that there may be a potential shortage of staff at DOR, particularly in the Audit Division.  Audits may be slowed and relationships that have been developed over years with auditors may end abruptly.  Consequently, taxpayers and their representatives might aim to quickly resolve any matters they have outstanding with DOR sooner rather than later as DOR may be forced to slow down following the reduction in staff this summer.

It is unclear what effect the program will have on the Litigation Bureau and other sections of DOR.  A loss of litigators could slow cases currently before the Appellate Tax Board.

Although disagreements may exist with various DOR positions, we are pleased with the institutional strength of DOR.  We hope that steps will be taken to retain the institutional knowledge of long time DOR personnel.



read more

U.S. Supreme Court’s Wynne Decision Calls New York’s Statutory Resident Scheme into Question

by and | May 21, 2015 | , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

On May 18, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Comptroller of the Treasury of Maryland v. Wynne. In short, the Court, in a five-to-four decision written by Justice Alito, handed the taxpayer a victory by holding that the county income tax portion of Maryland’s personal income tax scheme violated the dormant U.S. Constitution’s Commerce Clause.

Specifically, the Court concluded that the county income tax imposed under Maryland law failed the internal consistency test under the dormant Commerce Clause, because it is imposed on both residents and non-residents with Maryland residents not getting a credit against that Maryland local tax for income taxes paid to other jurisdictions (residents are given a credit against the Maryland state income tax for taxes paid to other jurisdictions).

The Supreme Court emphatically held (as emphatically as the Court can be in a five-to-four decision) that the dormant Commerce Clause’s internal consistency test applies to individual income taxes. The Court’s holding does create a perilous situation for any state or local income taxes that either do not provide a credit for taxes paid to other jurisdictions or limit the scope of such a credit in some way.

The internal consistency test—one of the methods used by the Supreme Court to examine whether a state tax imposition discriminates against interstate commerce in violation of the dormant Commerce Clause—starts by assuming that every state has the same tax structure as the state with the tax at issue. If that hypothetical scenario places interstate commerce at a disadvantage compared to intrastate commerce by imposing a risk of multiple taxation, then the tax fails the internal consistency test and is unconstitutional.

Although the Wynne decision does not address the validity of other taxes beyond the Maryland county personal income tax, the decision does create significant doubt as to the validity of certain other state and local taxes such as the New York State personal income tax in the way it defines “resident.” New York State imposes its income tax on residents on all of their income and on non-residents on their income earned in the state; this is similar to the Maryland county income tax at issue in Wynne.

“Resident” is defined as either a domiciliary of New York or a person who is not a domiciliary of New York but has a permanent place of abode in New York and spends more than 183 days in New York during the tax year. N.Y. Tax Law § 605. (New York City has a comparable definition of resident.) N.Y.C. Administrative Code § 11-1705. Thus a person may be taxed as a statutory resident solely because they maintain living quarters in the state and spend more than 183 days in the state, even if those days have absolutely nothing to do with the living quarters; this category of non-domiciliary resident is commonly referred to a “statutory resident.” As such, under New York’s tax scheme, a person can be a resident of two states—where domiciled and where a statutory resident—and thus [...]

Continue Reading



read more

A Year’s Review of Massachusetts Tax Cases

by and | May 14, 2015 | , , , ,

Allied Domecq Spirits & Wines USA, Inc. v. Comm’r of Revenue, 85 Mass. App. Ct. 1125 (2014)

In a unique case, the Massachusetts Appeals Court affirmed a ruling of the Appellate Tax Board (ATB) that two corporations could not be combined for corporation excise tax purposes for 1996 through 2004. The distinctive aspect of this case was that a company was found not to have nexus with Massachusetts even though it rented property in the state and had employees in the state. If the company had been found to have nexus, it could have applied its losses to offset the income of an affiliated Massachusetts taxpayer in a combined report. The Appeals Court pointed to factual findings of the ATB that the transfer of employees located in Massachusetts to the company “had no practical economic effect other than the creation of a tax benefit and that tax avoidance was its motivating factor and only purpose.” The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court denied the taxpayer further review on August 1, 2014. Although this case is notable because the sham transaction doctrine rarely, if ever, has been applied to find that a company did not have nexus, a similar factual scenario likely would not occur today because Massachusetts adopted full unitary combination in 2009.

First Marblehead Corp. v. Comm’r of Revenue, 470 Mass. 497, 23 N.E.3d 892 (2015)

In a case that attracted the attention of, and an amicus brief from, the Multistate Tax Commission, the Supreme Judicial Court addressed how the property factor of a taxpayer subject to the Financial Institution Excise Tax (FIET) should be apportioned. The taxpayer, Gate Holdings, Inc. (Gate), had its commercial domicile in Massachusetts and held interests in a number of Delaware statutory trusts that purchased student loan portfolios. Below, the ATB held that Gate’s loans should be assigned to Massachusetts, resulting in a 100-percent property factor for apportionment purposes. The Supreme Judicial Court agreed and interpreted the Massachusetts sourcing provisions at issue, which are based on a model from the Multistate Tax Commission and incorporate the Solicitation, Investigation, Negotiation, Approval and Administration (SINAA) rules, as sourcing Gate’s loans to Massachusetts where Gates had its commercial domicile. The Supreme Judicial Court’s decision may be of interest in Massachusetts and other states because several states have adopted sourcing rules for financial institutions that are based on the Multistate Tax Commission’s model.

Genentech, Inc. v. Comm’r of Revenue, Mass. App. Tax Bd., Docket No. C282905, C293424, C298502, C298891 (2014)

The ATB held that Genentech, Inc., a biotechnology company, was engaged in substantial manufacturing and thus required to use single sales factor apportionment. Genentech is appealing the ruling.

National Grid Holdings, Inc. v. Comm’r of Revenue, Mass. App. Tax Bd., Docket No.  C292287; C292288; C292289 (2014); National Grid USA Service v. Comm’r of Revenue, Mass. App. Tax Bd., Docket No. C314926 (2014)

The ATB addressed whether an international utility corporation’s deferred subscription arrangements constituted debt for corporate excise purposes. The ATB held that it did not. In reaching its decision, [...]

Continue Reading



read more

New Market-Based Sourcing in DC: Major Compliance Date Problem Fixed… For Now

by , and | Feb 5, 2015 | , , , , ,

The Problem

On September 23, 2014, the District of Columbia Council enacted market-based sourcing provisions for sales of intangibles and services as part of the 2015 Budget Support Act (BSA), as we previously discussed in more detail here.  Most notably the BSA adopts a single sales factor formula for the DC franchise tax, which is applicable for tax years beginning after December 31, 2014.  But the market-based sourcing provisions in the BSA did not align with the rest of the tax legislation.  Specifically, the BSA market-based sourcing provisions were made applicable as of October 1, 2014—creating instant tax implications on 2014 returns.  Absent a legislative fix, this seemingly minor discrepancy will trigger a giant compliance burden that will require a part-year calculation for both taxpayers and the Office of Tax and Revenue (OTR) before the 2014 franchise return deadline on March 15.  For example, taxpayers filing based on the new BSA provisions, as originally enacted in September, will have to use the cost-of-performance approach for the first nine months of the 2014 tax year and the new market-based sourcing approach for the remaining three.

The Fix

Citing to the unintended compliance burden, the Council recently enacted emergency legislation to temporarily fix the unintended compliance burden.  However they have not solved the problem going forward.  On December 17, 2014, Finance and Revenue Committee Chairman Jack Evans introduced identical pieces of legislation that included both a temporary and emergency amendment to quickly fix on the problem (both pieces of legislation share the name “The Market-Based Sourcing Inter Alia Clarification Act of 2014”).  These legislative amendments explicitly make the applicability of market-based sourcing provisions synonymous with the other provisions of the BSA, beginning for tax years after December 31, 2014.  In DC, “emergency” legislation may be enacted without the typical 30-day congressional review period required of all other legislation, but is limited to an effective period of no longer than 90 days.  Because the emergency market-based sourcing legislation was signed by Mayor Muriel Bowser on January 13, it will expire on April 13.  Important to DC franchise taxpayers, this date is before the September 15 deadline for extended filers.

The second piece of legislation was introduced on a “temporary” basis.  Unlike emergency legislation, temporary legislation simply bypasses assignment to a committee but must still undergo a second reading, mayoral review and the 30-day congressional review period.  The review period is 30 days that Congress is in session (not 30 calendar days).  Because the temporary Act is still awaiting Mayor Bowser’s approval at the moment, which is due by this Friday (February 6), it will not become effective until after the 2014 DC Franchise Tax regular filing deadline of March 15—even if it is approved by the Mayor and not subjected to a joint-resolution by Congress.  Neither the House nor Senate is in session the week of February 15, which pushes the 30-day review period to roughly April 1 (assuming it is immediately submitted to Congress).  However, once passed, [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Take Two: Massachusetts Department of Revenue Releases Revised Market-Based Sourcing Regulation

by | Nov 7, 2014 | , ,

Late last week, the Massachusetts Department of Revenue (the Department) released a revised draft regulation on Massachusetts’s new market-based sourcing law.  The changes made by the Department to purportedly address practitioner and taxpayer concerns were relatively modest.  The rules remain lengthy, complex and cumbersome.  There are still various assignment rules that apply to each of the following types of transactions: (1) in-person services, (2) professional services, and (3) services delivered to the customer, or through or on behalf of the customer (described in the new regulation as services delivered to the customer, on behalf of the customer, or delivered electronically through the customer, hereinafter “sales delivered to, by, or through a customer”).  For a more detailed discussion of these rules see our State Tax Notes article on market-based sourcing. 

The most noteworthy changes from the initial draft relate to the taxpayer’s ability to use a “reasonable approximation” method.  The initial draft regulation provided taxpayer’s with the ability to use a “reasonable approximation” when “the state or states of assignment” could not be determined.  The new regulation clarifies that a taxpayer must, in good faith, make a reasonable effort to apply the primary rule applicable to the sale (e.g., the specific assignment rules for in-person services, professional services, or sales to, by, or through a customer) before it may reasonably approximate.  Additionally, the regulation explicitly states that a method of reasonable approximation “must reflect an attempt to obtain the most accurate assignment of sales consistent with the regulatory standards set forth in [the regulation], rather than an attempt to lower the taxpayer’s tax liability.”  There is no guidance as to how a taxpayer would demonstrate that its reasonable approximation attempt was made to “obtain the most accurate assignment of sales.”  This raises a number of questions–for example, if a taxpayer determines that there are two equally reasonable methods by which it can reasonably approximate its Massachusetts sales, can it use the method that results in less tax?  Additionally, there does not seem to be any converse requirement that the Department make a similar demonstration (i.e., that any modifications to a taxpayer’s sourcing methodology not be an attempt to increase a taxpayer’s liability) when exercising its authority to adjust a taxpayer’s return (as discussed below).

In an attempt to make the regulation more even-handed, the Department’s revisions provide that neither a taxpayer nor the Department may adjust a “proper” method of assignment, including a method of reasonable approximation, unless it is to correct factual or calculation errors.  However, the revision isn’t all that meaningful because there are still a broad number of scenarios in which the Department can make changes, one of which is when a taxpayer uses a method of approximation and the Commissioner determines that the method of approximation employed by the taxpayer is not “reasonable.”  Additionally, when a taxpayer excludes a sale from both the numerator and denominator of its sales factor because it has determined that the assignment of the sale cannot be reasonably approximated, [...]

Continue Reading



read more

New “Job Creation Project” EDIP Credits to Boost Tech Jobs in Massachusetts

by | Sep 22, 2014 | ,

In the battle for tech jobs, Massachusetts has added a significant new element to its arsenal of incentives in the form of “job creation project” Economic Development Incentive Program (EDIP) credits.  EDIP is a tax incentive program designed to foster job creation and foster business growth in Massachusetts.  The new initiative has been enacted as part of H. 4377, an economic development bill that is now Chapter 287 of the Acts of 2014. Job creation project EDIP credits address a gap in the existing EDIP credit program.  Previously the State required a significant capital investment to qualify for credits — a requirement that some technology companies found hard to satisfy. Although the amount of the credits – either $1,000 or $5,000 per new job (offset against the Massachusetts corporate excise tax) – is not as generous as some states’ tax credits for new jobs, this is a promising move to attract up-and-coming technology companies to the state.

EDIP credits are discretionary deal-closing incentives. Businesses apply for credit allocations through the Massachusetts Office of Business Development (MOBD), and credit allocations are awarded by the Economic Assistance Coordinating Council (EACC), which has an annual credit cap “budget” of $25 million. Under the existing EDIP credits, after a credit allocation has been awarded, a business still has to earn the credit by demonstrating the required capital investment, based on a percentage of the value of property placed in service. While this approach works well for industrial projects, it is not as good a fit for technology businesses.  Such businesses may struggle to place enough property in service to qualify for credits.  Even if they meet the capital investment requirement, tech businesses may be unable to demonstrate a sufficient increase in the value of the real property to allow the local tax increment financing (TIF) incentive match that is typically awarded to EDIP projects.

The new “job creation project” track fills the gap by allowing credit generation and awards for expanding businesses that do not involve large capital investments. In order to be eligible for an award, a business must (1) be in the Massachusetts, (2) generate “substantial sales” from outside of Massachusetts, (3) not involve a significant investment in constructing or expanding a facility and (4) generate at least 100 new jobs within two years and maintain those jobs over the following five years. See 2014 Mass. Acts ch. 287, § 13 (providing a new definition of “job creation project” in M.G.L. ch. 23A, § 3A).

The application process for an award is basically the same as that for other EDIP credits. No single project can receive more than a $1 million award. Additionally, no local TIF is required for job creation project EDIP credits.

Once an allocation is awarded, job creation project EDIP credits still have to be generated, based on a demonstration of new job growth. Credits are generated in the year after the job is created, and ordinarily will be awarded at $1,000 per job. Credits can grow [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Massachusetts Early Mediation Program Changing the Tax Appeals Landscape

by , and | Aug 4, 2014 | ,

The Massachusetts Department of Revenue’s new Early Mediation Program (EMP) is off to a very promising start.  The EMP expedites the normal appeals process and offers hope to taxpayers that desire to resolve tax disputes without prolonged litigation.  The Department indicated at a recent Boston Bar Association meeting that eight of the first 11 cases have resulted in settlements.  Commissioner Amy Pittner announced publicly earlier this year that the Department’s goal is that one-third of all eligible disputes will be mediated.

Only controversies with $250,000 or more of tax at stake are currently allowed into the program (this is down from the original $1 million threshold).  Either the taxpayer or the Audit Division may suggest participation in the EMP.  Early mediation can be initiated any time a controversy has been fully developed in the course of the audit, but in no event later than 30 days after the issuance of a Notice of Intent to Assess.  A taxpayer interested in the EMP must either submit a joint application with the Audit Division or one on its own.  The Department retains discretion to determine that the EMP is not appropriate.

Once accepted into the EMP, the parties need to reach a resolution within four months or they must reenter the normal appeals process.  The way the program works is that both the taxpayer and the Department must exchange position papers on the issues in controversy and submit them to the mediator (a representative of the Office of Appeals) prior to the mediation.  Any supplemental information needs to be provided prior to the mediation.  At the mediation, the parties present oral arguments on the issues and the mediator helps facilitate a settlement.  The mediation is not binding on either party.  The key to the success of the program is that both parties are required to have a person with settlement authority present at the mediation.



read more

Allied Domecq: Nexus-Combined Reporting

by and | Jul 16, 2014 | , , ,

In Allied Domecq Spirits & Wines USA, Inc. v. Commissioner of Revenue, the Massachusetts Court of Appeals held that the parent company of a Massachusetts taxpayer could not be included in the taxpayer’s Massachusetts nexus-combined returns because the parent’s nexus with Massachusetts was a sham.  Regardless of the validity of the parent’s presence in the state, an argument exists that the nexus limitation on filing combined returns as it existed during the tax years discriminated against interstate commerce in violation of the Commerce Clause.

The parent company, ADNAC, was incorporated in Delaware and headquartered in Canada.  ADNAC carried substantial losses.  Beginning in August 1996, ADNAC engaged in activities to create a Massachusetts presence, such as reimbursing an affiliate with Massachusetts nexus for the salaries of insurance and tax employees and renting Massachusetts office space from the affiliate to house the employees.  Further, ADNAC’s Massachusetts’ affiliate transferred three internal audit department employees working in Massachusetts to ADNAC.  For the years in question, 1996 – 2004, Massachusetts required corporations to have in-state nexus in order to file combined reports and share losses with affiliated entities.  Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 63, § 32B.  As a result of these transactions, the taxpayer believed ADNAC had established nexus with Massachusetts and included ADNAC in its Massachusetts combined returns.

The Massachusetts Court of Appeals held that, because of the sham transaction doctrine, ADNAC did not have nexus with Massachusetts for tax purposes and could not file on a combined basis in the state.  The court ruled, in part, that the transactions involving insurance and tax employees were shams because two memos developed by the taxpayer’s tax department described the plan as a “state tax planning project,” indicated the favorable tax consequences of the transaction, and stated that the plan would have “no impact to the management results.”  The court viewed these communications as the taxpayer admitting that the transactions involving tax and insurance employees were conceived of entirely for tax planning purposes and for no business purpose.  While the court could not point to any documents stating a tax purpose behind the movement of the internal audit department employees to Massachusetts, the court decided that because no contemporaneous records indicated a business motivation, the court would grant the use of the sham transaction doctrine.

Practice Note:  The taxpayer did not argue that Massachusetts’ requirement of in-state nexus to file on a combined basis discriminated against interstate commerce and violated the Commerce Clause.  Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Brady, 430 U.S. 274 (1977).  Allied Domecq is similar to USX Corporation v. Revenue Cabinet, Kentucky, in which a Kentucky Circuit Court declared that a provision of Kentucky’s capital stock tax that limited to domestic corporations the ability to file on a combined basis or exclude investments in subsidiaries from its tax base discriminated against interstate commerce.  USX Corp. v. Revenue Cabinet, No. 91-CI-01864 (Ky. Cir. Ct. 1992); see also Hellerstein & Hellerstein, State Taxation 4.14[3][j] (Thomson Reuters/Tax & Accounting, 3rd ed. 2001 & Supp. 2014-1).  The court held [...]

Continue Reading



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