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
New York
Subscribe to New York's Posts

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

by and | Oct 23, 2020 | , , , , , ,

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.



read more

New York Legislation Proposes to Retroactively Remove FCA Culpability Standard for Tax Law Claims

by , and | Oct 14, 2020 | , ,

With Halloween just a few weeks away, a scary proposal is brewing in the New York State Legislature that should give taxpayers chills. Companion bills Assembly Bill 11066 and Senate Bill 8872 were recently introduced by committee chairs (Assembly Ways and Means Chairwoman Helene Weinstein and Senate Committee on Judiciary Chairman Brad Hoylman). This legislation would substantially expand the scope of the New York False Claims Act (FCA) for claims under the New York State Tax Law by retroactively creating a new tax-specific cause of action that would award single (as opposed to treble) damages, including consequential damages when the taxpayer makes a false statement or record material to their obligation to pay money to state or local governments under the tax law by mistake or mere negligence.

Specifically, the bill would not modify the existing “knowing” causes of action in NY State Fin. Law § 189(1) that, if proven, result in civil penalties, treble damages and consequential damages. Instead, the bill would create a new tax-specific cause of action with strict liability—i.e., no intent requirement that the violation be shown to have been committed “knowingly” (with actual knowledge or deliberate ignorance or reckless disregard for the truth). As a result, inadvertent non-reckless tax mistakes, misunderstandings or mere negligence of the law would result in the taxpayer being subject to a viable claim under the FCA—something that is currently expressly prohibited by law. (See NY State Fin. Law § 188(3)(b) (“acts occurring by mistake or as a result of mere negligence are not covered by this article”).)

To make matters worse, the companion bills (as introduced) would “apply to all false claims, records, statements and obligations concealed, avoided or decreased on, prior to, or after such effective date.” (§ 4; emphasis added.) Thus, if enacted, the bill would open the door to 10 years of backward-looking scrutiny of tax law violations in court by private relators and the New York Attorney General—including years of tax periods that are currently closed under the New York Tax Law or were settled with the New York Department of Taxation and Finance. (See NY State Fin. Law § 192(1) (“[a] civil action under this article shall be commenced no later than ten years after the date on which the violation of this article is committed”).) As a reminder, the FCA would continue to only apply to tax law violations with pleaded damages in excess of $350,000 by persons with net income or sales of more than $1 million in at least one tax year at issue.

Practice Note

As if managing tax audits and potential compliance mistakes administratively was not enough, the introduced New York companion bills would allow a separate parallel path for litigious private parties and the New York Attorney General to enforce the tax law as they see fit in court—creating a framework that is ripe to drag well-intentioned taxpayers through the mud and force them to either defend themselves through costly litigation [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Alert: California False Claims Expansion Bill Advances to the Senate

by , , and | Jun 16, 2020 | , , , , , ,

Like the days of the Old West, last week a masked gang held up local businesses demanding their wallets. Unlike the days of the Old West, this was not the hole-in-the-wall gang, but the California State Assembly who, on June 10, 2020, approved AB 2570, a bill that authorizes tax-based false claims actions. If passed, AB 2570 would expand the California False Claims Act (CFCA) to allow private, profit-motivated parties to bring punitive civil enforcement tax-based lawsuits. The bill now heads to the California Senate where its predecessor bill, AB 1270, failed last year.

According to the bill’s author, Assembly Member Mark Stone, there are two key differences between AB 2570 and last year’s AB 1270. First, AB 2570’s definition of “prosecuting authority” has been revised to remove the term “counsel retained by a political subdivision to act on its behalf.” In his comments on the Assembly floor, Stone explained that this amendment was “sought by the bill’s opponents” as it prevents local governments from contracting with private attorneys to bring tax CFCA lawsuits.

Second, AB 2570 mandates that a plaintiff’s complaint must be kept under seal for 60 days and can only be served on a defendant by court order. According to Stone, this second amendment will prevent qui tam attorneys from bringing suit if they send demand letters to the taxpayer before the expiration of this 60-day period.

Although these amendments are minor improvements upon last year’s bill, they are not enough to prevent the rampant abuse that will certainly accompany an expansion of the CFCA. Moreover, as Stone has acknowledged AB 2570 rests on the faulty premise that insider information is generally required to establish a “successful” tax enforcement claim. In his comments to the assembly, Stone stated:

No one questions the ability of the Franchise Tax Board and the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA) to skillfully administer the tax law within their respective jurisdictions. This bill, rather, rests on the premise that there are individuals—often current or former employees of a company—who have access to information establishing that tax authorities have been misled as to the amounts owed by the company. These cases are difficult to uncover without the cooperation of an insider because there is no other way to bring the relevant documents and information to light if a company is determined to commit fraud.

However, as evidenced by the states where an FCA has been expanded to tax cases, such as Illinois and New York, very few FCA tax cases involve internal whistleblowers, actual fraud or reckless disregard of clear law. Instead, they typically involve inadvertent errors or good-faith interpretations of murky tax law. As a result, expanding the CFCA to tax claims will only serve to hurt good-faith taxpayers who are already struggling to survive and recover from the economic impacts of COVID-19. Such legislation could force taxpayers to incur enormous costs or pressure them into settlements to make the case go away to avoid the [...]

Continue Reading



read more

The Digital Advertising Tax Trend Continues: New York Introduces Another Bill

by and | Apr 15, 2020 | , , ,

On April 13, S. 8166 was introduced in the New York Senate, which would expand the sales tax base to include receipts from the sale of digital advertising services. The bill would dedicate the revenue raised to student loan relief.

As introduced, “digital advertising services” would be broadly defined as “advertisement services on a digital interface, including advertisements in the form of banner advertising, search engine advertising, interstitial advertising, and other comparable advertising services which markets or promotes a particular good, service, or political candidate or message.” (With the exception of the added last clause, the definition of “digital advertising services” is identical to the definition in the digital advertising tax legislation recently passed by the Maryland General Assembly. The definition differs from the previously introduced New York digital ads tax (S. 8056) in that it is not limited only to targeted advertising.) “Digital interface” would also be defined very broadly as “any type of software, including a website, part of a website, or application, that a user is able to access.”

If enacted, the law would take effect on the 30th day after enactment, and would sunset five (5) years after the effective date.

 



read more

Cities Providing Local Tax Relief Efforts for Small Businesses Impacted by COVID-19

by and | Mar 20, 2020 | , , , , ,

From coast to coast, both state and local tax authorities are rapidly responding to the Coronavirus (COVID-19). And while many of the relief efforts are appropriately aimed at supporting individuals who have been impacted by COVID-19, recent pronouncements from local leaders demonstrate that cities are also eager to implement measures supporting small businesses within their communities.

(more…)



read more

Maryland General Assembly Sends Digital Advertising Tax to Governor; Nearly Identical Bill Pending in New York

by and | Mar 18, 2020 | , , , , ,

With gatherings larger than 50 people banned and the State House cleared of visitors, on March 18, 2020, Maryland’s legislature approved HB 732, which contains a massive new punitive tax on digital advertising services, and sent it to Governor Larry Hogan (R) for his consideration.

Digital Advertising Gross Revenues Tax

Contradicting the clear legislative trend in the advertising space to exempt the facilitation of advertising services (but tax the consumer transactions that may result therefrom), HB 732 would impose a new, one-of-a-kind tax on the annual gross revenue of digital advertising services that are deemed to be provided in the State. The proposed tax contains a tiered tax rate structure (arbitrarily determined based on the advertising service provider’s global annual gross revenues) that would allow for a tax rate of up to a whopping 10% of the annual gross revenue in the State derived from digital advertising services. As passed, HB 732 would take effect July 1, 2020, and the new tax would apply to all taxable years beginning after December 31, 2020.

(more…)



read more

BREAKING NEWS: New York Considers 5% Gross Receipts Tax on Almost Every Corporation

by and | Jan 22, 2020 | , , , ,

On January 21, A. 9112 was introduced in the New York Assembly. An identical Senate companion bill, S. 6102, has been referred to the Senate Budget & Revenues Committee after being introduced in May 2019. The bills would impose an additional 5% tax on the gross income of “every corporation which derives income from the data individuals of this state share with such corporations.” The bills do not provide further detail or limitation on the scope of the proposed new imposition language.

The bills would also establish a six-member Data Fund Board, to invest the tax revenue collected and distribute net earnings “to each taxpayer of the state” in a manner determined by the Board. If enacted without amendment, the bills would take effect 180 days after being signed into law.

As written, the proposed New York tax would unconstitutionally apply to all income worldwide earned by a company deriving income from data from New Yorkers. A state tax on a multistate business must “be fairly apportioned to reflect the business conducted in the State.”

The tax as written is so broad it would apply to essentially every business. Every business collects data and uses it to market or complete a sale, and any corporation with data-derived income from New York customers would be subject to the new tax on their total revenue. “Data” is a broad term. If a company collects zip codes or phone numbers at checkout, asks for email address to join a mailing list, counts customers coming in or out of the store, collects website click or open data, or asks for information from customers, such as their size or shipping address, before making a sale, it apparently would be subject to this tax. For many such businesses, a gross receipts tax at a 5% rate would wipe out all profits, equivalent to an over 100% corporate income tax. At that point, a tax for engaging in data collection might become so punitive it violates the Due Process Clause. Another obvious due process problem is that the lack of definitions and the broad sweep of this proposal could invalidate it on void for vagueness grounds.

Any meaningful attempts to address these constitutional issues, such as by specifically applying the tax only on big tech companies, would add new problems under the Permanent Internet Tax Freedom Act (PITFA). A tax on digital use of data while the non-digital use of data is not similarly taxed would run afoul of PITFA’s ban on tax discrimination against electronic commerce.

First Maryland, then Nebraska, now New York. The repeated introduction of targeted taxes on digital companies early in 2020 seems to be the start of an alarming trend of legally suspect tax proposals that we are keeping a close eye on.



read more

BREAKING NEWS: More States Opt Not to Tax GILTI

by | Jun 27, 2019 | , , , ,

This has been an eventful and exciting week for those interested in the states’ taxation of global intangible low-taxed income (GILTI). On Monday, taxpayers received the good news that New York Governor Cuomo signed S. 6615—a bill that excludes 95% of GILTI from the New York State corporate income tax base. By passing this bill, New York joins many other states—including neighboring states Massachusetts, Connecticut and Pennsylvania—that chose not to tax a material portion of GILTI. The New York law instructs taxpayers that have GILTI to include the 5% of GILTI that is taxed in the denominator of the apportionment formula (no portion of GILTI is included in the numerator of the apportionment formula).

Perhaps not surprisingly, after the New York news broke, the Florida legislature presented its GILTI exclusion bill (HB 7127) to Governor DeSantis. HB 7127 passed the legislature back in May but had not been transmitted to the governor until yesterday. Those on the ground in Florida believe that the transmittal to the governor now, on the heels of the New York legislation, suggests that the governor will sign the bill. The governor has 15 days to sign or veto the bill (if he does neither, the bill becomes law after the 15-day period).

There was also GILTI action on the west coast. On Monday, the Oregon legislature passed a bill (SB 851) that allows taxpayers to deduct 80% of GILTI under the state’s dividend-received deduction. While, under this legislation, Oregon would tax a larger portion of GILTI than many other states, the willingness of the legislature to extend the 80% deduction to GILTI is consistent with the trend among states to not tax this new category of income from foreign operations. The bill has not yet been signed by Oregon Governor Kate Brown.



read more

Court Strikes Down New York Opioid Surcharge on Manufacturers and Distributers

by , , and | Jan 11, 2019 | , , ,

On December 19, 2018, the US District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled in favor of McDermott’s client, the Healthcare Distribution Alliance (HDA), the trade association for pharmaceutical distributors. In Healthcare Distribution Alliance v. Zucker, the court granted summary judgment and enjoined enforcement of the New York Opioid Stewardship Act, which imposed a $600 million surcharge on manufacturers and distributors of opioid pharmaceutical products. The first $100 million installment was due on January 1, 2019. (more…)



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