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
Nexus
Subscribe to Nexus's Posts

In Chicago, Taxing the Cloud Will Wait (Mostly) Until 2016

by | Aug 12, 2015 | , , , ,

The City of Chicago has announced that it will be delaying the effective date for its recent ruling under the Personal Property Lease Transaction Tax until January 1, 2016. Personal Property Lease Transaction Tax Ruling #12 takes a broad view of how the 9 percent tax applies to cloud-based services. It was scheduled to come into effect on September 1, 2015, but after an outcry from the startup community, Chicago has pushed back the date on which it expects cloud-based providers to begin collecting and remitting tax. The additional time will allow the city to further consider potential exemptions for small businesses. Providers of information services, software as a service (SaaS), platform as a service (PaaS), and some forms of infrastructure as a service (IaaS) that have nexus with the city will now have until January 1, 2016, to begin collecting the tax. (See a detailed discussion of Ruling #12 and its implications in a previous post.) The delay could backfire for the city because taxpayers will now have more time to launch challenges to the tax.

Ruling #12 is only part of Chicago’s two-pronged approach to taxing the cloud. The city had at the same time issued Amusement Tax Ruling #5, which provides that charges for video streaming, audio streaming, computer game subscriptions and other forms of online entertainment, as well as temporary download rentals, are subject to the 9 percent Amusement Tax—not the Lease Transaction Tax. That ruling also was issued with a September 1, 2015, effective date.  This effective date for the Amusement Tax Ruling has not been changed, and the city has indicated that no such extension is currently under consideration.



read more

California’s Harley-Davidson Decision Rides over Nexus Lines

by | Jul 13, 2015 | , , , ,

On May 28 2015, The California Court of Appeals issued a decision in Harley-Davidson, Inc. v. Franchise Tax Board, 187 Cal.Rptr.3d 672; and it was ultimately about much more than the validity of an election within California’s combined-reporting regime. It also tackled issues and, perhaps most importantly, blurred lines surrounding the Commerce Clause’s substantial nexus requirement. In Harley-Davidson, the court concluded that two corporations with no California physical presence had substantial nexus with California due to non-sales-related activities conducted by an in-state agent. The court applied an “integral and crucial” standard for purposes of determining whether the activities conducted by an in-state agent satisfy Commerce Clause nexus requirements.

The corporations at issue were established as bankruptcy-remote special purpose entities (SPEs) and were engaged in securing loans for their parent and affiliated corporations that conducted business in California. As a preliminary matter, the court found that an entity with a California presence was an agent of the SPEs. The court then concluded that the activities conducted by the in-state agent created California nexus for the SPEs that satisfied both Due Process and Commerce Clause requirements.

The Due Process Clause requires some “minimum connection” between the state and the person it seeks to tax, and is concerned with the fairness of the governmental activity. Accordingly, a Due Process Clause analysis focuses on “notice” and “fair warning,” and the Due Process nexus requirement will be satisfied if an out-of-state company has purposefully directed its activities at the taxing state. In Harley-Davidson, the SPEs purpose was to generate liquidity for the in-state entity in a cost-effective manner so that it could make loans to Harley-Davidson dealers, including dealers in California. Additionally, the SPEs’ loan pools contained more loans from California than from any other state, and the in-state entity oversaw collection activities, including repossessions and sales of motorcycles, at California locations on behalf of the SPEs. As a result, the court concluded that “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice” were satisfied.

The Commerce Clause requires a “substantial nexus” between the person being taxed and the state. The Supreme Court of the United States has addressed this substantial nexus requirement, holding that a seller must have a physical presence in the taxing state to satisfy the substantial nexus requirement for sales-and-use tax purposes. In Tyler Pipe Industries v. Washington State Department of Revenue, 483 U.S. 232 (1987), the Supreme Court stated that, “the crucial factor governing [Commerce Clause] nexus is whether the activities performed in this state on behalf of the taxpayer are significantly associated with the taxpayer’s ability to establish and maintain a market in this state for the sales.” While Harley-Davidson argued that the activities of the in-state agent could not create nexus for the SPEs, as such activities were not sales-related activities, the California court rejected this argument stating that “this argument fails from the outset, however, because the third-party’s in state conduct need not be sales-related; it need only be an integral and crucial aspect of the businesses” (internal [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Join McDermott Partners at the NYU SPS 2015 Summer Institute in Taxation

by | Jul 1, 2015 | , , , ,

July 13-24, 2015
New York, NY

Join today’s leading national and international tax authorities, including McDermott partners Art Rosen, Peter Faber, Alysse McLoughlin and Mary Kay Martire, for the NYU SPS 2015 Summer Institute in Taxation. The institute will feature a series of in-depth sessions on state and local taxation, partnerships, consolidated returns, trusts and estates, federal wealth tax and international taxation.

To register or for more information, please click here.



read more

House Judiciary Committee Approves Three State Tax Bills

by , , and | Jun 18, 2015 | , , , , , ,

Yesterday, on June 17, 2015, three state tax bills were favorably reported to the United States House of Representatives (House) by the House Judiciary Committee (House Judiciary) after considering each during a half-day markup. The bills that were advanced included: (1) the Mobile Workforce State Income Tax Simplification Act (Mobile Workforce, H.R. 2315); (2) the Digital Goods and Services Tax Fairness Act (DGSTFA, H.R. 1643); and (3) the Business Activity Tax Simplification Act (BATSA, H.R. 2584).

Mobile Workforce State Income Tax Simplification Act

The Mobile Workforce bill was the first considered and seeks to establish a clear, uniform framework for when states may tax non-resident employees that travel for work. As advanced, the bill generally allows states to impose income tax compliance burdens on non-resident individuals only when the non-resident works in a state other than their state of residence for more than 30 days in a year. The bill also prevents those states from imposing a withholding requirement on employers for wages paid to such employees. Three proposed amendments seeking to limit the adverse revenue impact to New York were discussed and rejected. The Mobile Workforce bill was then favorably reported to the House by a vote of 23-4.

Digital Goods and Services Tax Fairness Act

DGSTFA would implement a uniform sourcing framework for states and localities seeking to tax digital goods and services. In doing so, the bill prevents any state or locality from imposing multiple or discriminatory taxes. Of the three pieces of legislation considered yesterday, only the DGSTFA was amended. The amendment, offered by the bill’s lead sponsor Representative Lamar Smith, was technical in nature and did not change the basic protections the bill would provide. At the markup, Chairman Goodlatte noted that the National Governors Association (NGA), which had previously voiced objections, was no longer opposed to the legislation after the revisions—though the NGA testimony indicated that the organization could not support the legislation without addressing the remote seller sales tax nexus issue.

The first technical changes in the adopted amendment were to the definitions of delivered or transferred electronically and provided electronically. The amendment added the term digital good and digital service after each respective term of art to clarify that digital goods are delivered or transferred electronically, whereas digital services are provided electronically. The second technical change was to the definition of digital good. In modifying the term, the amendment clarifies that streaming and other similar digital transmissions that do not “result in the delivery to the customer of a complete copy of such software or other good, with the right to use permanently or for a specified period” are not digital goods and would instead fall under the definition of a digital service.

Business Activity Tax Simplification Act

BATSA would codify the prerequisite of physical presence for a state to impose a direct tax on a non-resident business. BATSA would modernize the existing federal protection against state income taxation offered under P.L. 86-272 to include solicitation for sales of intangible property and services [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Remote Transactions Parity Act Introduced in the U.S. House

by , and | Jun 15, 2015 | , , , , ,

Today, Representative Jason Chaffetz introduced H.R. 2775, the Remote Transactions Parity Act of 2015 (RTPA), in the United States House of Representatives (House).

The RTPA addresses the Internet sales tax issue using the structure of the Marketplace Fairness Act (MFA), which passed the Senate in 2013 and was re-introduced earlier this year. Although the RTPA retains many of the features of the MFA, it adds protections for remote sellers and certified software providers.

MFA Authorization Framework Retained

Like the MFA, the RTPA creates two paths for states to impose sales and use taxes on remote sellers. Through the first path, states that are members of the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement (SSUTA) are authorized to impose sales and use tax collection requirements on remote sellers. Under the second path, a state that is not a member state under the SSTUA would also be authorized to collect and remit sales and use taxes on remote transactions if it implements certain simplification requirements and protections for remote sellers and certified software providers. Many of these are carried over from the MFA, notably: (1) destination sourcing for interstate transactions; (2) a single entity for administration of sales and use tax; (3) a single audit of remote sellers per state; (4) a single return per state; (5) uniform tax base for all state and local sales taxes within the state; and (6) relief for errors, including remote sellers being relieved of errors made by a certified software provider or the state itself, and certified software providers being relieved of errors made by a remote seller or the state itself. Like the MFA, the RTPA would be effective one year from enactment, but not during the period from October through December in the year following enactment.

Changes

The RTPA contains several notable differences from the MFA, discussed below.

Small Seller Exception

Under the MFA, there is a fixed exception for small sellers and states are not authorized to impose a sales and use tax on small sellers, defined as remote sellers making sales of $1 million or less.

Under the RTPA, the small seller exception starts off larger, and subsequently phased out. In the first year, the exception applies for sellers making sales of $10 million or less. In the second and third year, the threshold is $5 million and $1 million, respectively. The exception goes away in the fourth year. Furthermore, under the RTPA sellers utilizing an electronic marketplace are not considered small sellers and are not entitled to the exception, no matter the year.

Protections to Sellers and Certified Software Providers

The RTPA provides additional protections for remote sellers and certified software providers.  The RTPA contains a mechanism to make sure that a state is not authorized to impose a sales and use tax collection requirement on remote sellers until it has certified multiple software providers, and those providers are certified in all other states seeking to impose authorization requirements. This is to ensure that a remote seller can [...]

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 York State Tax Department Releases Guidance on Tax Reform Legislation

by | Apr 8, 2015 | , ,

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



read more

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

by | Apr 3, 2015 | , , , ,

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


read more

Inside the New York Budget Bill: Economic Nexus

by | Apr 2, 2015 | , ,

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



read more

Arizona’s 2015 TPT Amendments Have 99 Problems, but Origin Sourcing ain’t One

by , and | Jan 29, 2015 | , , , ,

Actually, there are really only two issues, but they are big issues.

Arizona’s Transaction Privilege Tax has always been an anomaly in the traditional state sales tax system.  Contrary to some commentators, however, the recent amendments do not, and could not, impose an origin tax on Arizona retailers for remote sales delivered out-of-state.  That is not to say that these amendments are benign.  Oddly, the amendments provide incentives for Arizona residents shipping items out-of-state to purchase these items over the internet rather than visit Arizona retailers in person.  Furthermore, these amendments create complexities for Arizona vendors shipping to foreign jurisdictions.   Finally, these amendments create additional administrative problems for retailers that are difficult to address with existing software and invite double taxation problems that should not exist in a transaction tax world.

Background: Arizona Transaction Privilege and Use Tax

For retail sales, Arizona, like most states, has two complementary transaction-based taxes, but each tax is imposed on a different entity.  The first tax, the Transaction Privilege Tax (TPT), is imposed directly on the retailer.  Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 42-5001.13.  A retailer will be subject to the TPT on the gross proceeds from a sale if “the location where the sale is made” is Arizona.  Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 42-5034.A.9.  A retailer subject to the TPT is allowed but not required to collect the amount of TPT it owes from its customers.  Ariz. Admin. Code §§ 15-5-2002, 15-5-2210.

The second tax, the Arizona Use Tax, complements and backstops the TPT.  The Use Tax is imposed on the use, storage or consumption in the State of tangible personal property purchased from an out-of-state retailer.  Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 42-5155.  Generally, the purchaser is liable for payment of Use Tax to the State, but a retailer is required to collect Use Tax from a purchaser if the retailer meets the constitutional nexus provisions.  Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 42-5155, 42-5160.  Use Tax is imposed only on transactions where TPT has not been imposed, i.e., a transaction is subject to either TPT or Use Tax, but not both.  Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 42-5159.A.1.

The State and its courts have been clear that, while the location of the transfer of title or possession is relevant to the inquiry as to where the sale is made, it is the totality of the retailer’s business activities that identifies the location that may tax the proceeds.  Exactly where that line is drawn, however, is not as clear.  The Arizona Department of Revenue (DOR) has taken the position that, unless an exemption applies, a seller is subject to the tax if a purchaser buys a product at a store, even if the purchaser does not take possession in the state, and the product is shipped to a location outside of the state.  The DOR is apparently taking the position either that the title transfers in the store, which cannot always be the case (a retailer could easily specify that title transfers to the customer outside the store, particularly if the retailer [...]

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