Oregon Archives - INSIDE SALT

Oregon

Maryland Enacts First Digital Advertising Services Gross Receipts Tax: Now What?

by Stephen P. Kranz, Mark Nebergall and Eric D. Carstens | Feb 12, 2021 | Allocation/Appointment, Connecticut, Constitutional Issues, Indiana, Maryland, Montana, Nationwide Importance, New York, Oregon, Washington

General Assembly Veto Override

On February 12, 2021, the Maryland General Assembly overrode Governor Larry Hogan’s veto of HB 732 (2020) (the Act), a bill enacting a first-of-its-kind digital advertising services tax on the annual gross receipts from the provision of digital advertising services in Maryland. The tax only applies to companies having annual gross revenues (without deduction of any expenses) from all sources of $100 million or more. The rate of the tax varies, depending on the level of global annual gross revenues, from 2.5% (for companies with $1 billion or less in global annual gross revenues) to 10% (for companies with more than $15 billion in global annual gross revenue). The rate applies to gross revenues from the performance of digital advertising services in Maryland. For instance, a company subject to the 10% rate having $100 million of revenue attributable to the performance of digital advertising services in Maryland would owe an annual tax of $10 million that will be reported and paid on a quarterly basis throughout the year.

Effective Date

Even though the legislation says the tax is effective July 1, 2020, under the Maryland Constitution, vetoed legislation becomes effective the later of the effective date in the bill or 30 days after the veto is overridden. Based on today’s veto override, the bill should become effective on or about March 14, 2021. However, because the legislation is “applicable to all taxable years beginning after December 31, 2020,” the digital advertising services tax will be retroactive to the beginning of this year.

Looming Compliance Deadlines

The digital advertising services tax applies on an annual basis with a return due on or before April 15 of the following year. However, the tax also requires quarterly filing and payment for certain taxpayers. On or before April 15 of the current year, persons subject to the tax are required to file a declaration of estimated tax showing how much Maryland digital advertising services tax they expect they will owe for the calendar year. As part of the declaration and quarterly with returns filed thereafter, the Act requires that they pay at least 25% of the estimated annual tax shown on the declaration. There is a penalty of up to 25% of the amount of any underestimate of the tax. The Act also creates a fine of up to $5,000 and criminal penalties of up to five years’ imprisonment for willfully failing to file the annual return.

Filing and Guidance TBD

At the time of writing, the Maryland Office of the Comptroller has not published any of the forms necessary for making the declaration of estimated tax or the return due on April 15 of the current year. The comptroller’s office also has not adopted regulations as required by the Act, providing guidance on when advertising revenue is derived in Maryland, likely a daunting and complicated task since this is a novel question that other states have not addressed. Many aspects of the Act are vague at best [...]

Continue Reading

Washington Surtax on “Big Banks” Struck Down as Unconstitutional

by Stephen P. Kranz, McDermott Will & Emery and McDermott Will & Emery | May 18, 2020 | Local Tax, Maryland, Oregon, Washington

On May 8, Washington’s 1.2% surtax on “specified financial institutions” (banks with at least $1 billion a year in net revenue) was struck down by a King County Superior Court judge. Judge Marshall Ferguson ruled that the tax, which is imposed on top of all other taxes, violates the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution by discriminating against out-of-state banks in both purpose and effect.

In their briefs, attorneys for the Washington Bankers Association and American Bankers Association explained that an out-of-state bank would pay a much higher tax rate (and be at a competitive disadvantage) compared to an in-state bank because its global revenue is sufficient to trigger owing the surtax. The associations presented evidence that every bank meeting the definition of “specified financial institution” was an out-of-state bank, and that no in-state bank met the definition. Further, they pointed to statements by legislators appearing to show an intent to promote “local banks” and address a national wealth disparity and regressive taxation.

The state responded that the surtax is neutral on its face, applying to all businesses with $1 billion regardless of their headquarters location, and that none of the funds were used to subsidize or reduce tax burdens on in-state banks. They also argued that the tax should be presumed constitutional and rejected the plaintiffs’ standing to sue as associations. The actual effect of discrimination seemed especially persuasive to Judge Ferguson, who asked counsel for the state, “If the tax so clearly falls on non-Washington businesses, is that not a discriminatory effect?”

The state may appeal the case, Washington Bankers Association et al. v. State of Washington et al., No. 19-2-29262-8, to the Washington Supreme Court.

Practice Note: The structure of the tax struck down in this case, a surtax imposed only if the company’s global income exceeds a high threshold, has been on the rise. San Francisco’s gross receipts tax on businesses with over $50 million in receipts, Portland’s clean energy surcharge on businesses with over $1 billion in national gross revenue, and Maryland’s proposed digital advertising tax based on a sliding scale of global revenue all come to mind. This ruling may be the first sign that judges will not be afraid to subject such taxes to scrutiny under Commerce Clause analysis.

BREAKING NEWS: More States Opt Not to Tax GILTI

by Stephen P. Kranz | Jun 27, 2019 | Florida, Income Tax, New York, Oregon, Tax Base

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.

Oregon Bars Use of Three Factor Apportionment Formula

by McDermott Will & Emery and Mary Kay McCalla Martire | Apr 18, 2018 | Constitutional Issues, Income Tax, Oregon

In Health Net Inc. v. Dep’t of Revenue, Docket No. S063625 (Apr. 12, 2018), the Oregon Supreme Court rejected a business taxpayer’s constitutional challenges to a 1993 Oregon statute that eliminated the right to utilize a three-factor apportionment formula in calculating Oregon income tax. The Oregon Supreme Court joined courts in Texas, Minnesota, California and Michigan in rejecting taxpayer arguments that states which have enacted Article IV of the Multistate Tax Compact, thereby incorporating the UDITPA three-factor (payroll, property and sales) formula, have entered into a binding contractual obligation which may not be overridden.

Oregon enacted UDITPA in 1965 (ORS 314.605 – 314.675) and the Multistate Tax Compact (including Article IV) (ORS 305.655), in 1967. In 1993, however, following a series of amendments to the apportionment formula in Oregon’s version of UDITPA, which moved the state to a single sales factor formula, the Oregon legislature eliminated taxpayers’ ability to elect the three factor apportionment formula incorporated via ORS 305.655.

In Health Net, the taxpayer argued that when Oregon enacted the MTC in 1967, it had entered into a binding contract with other states that was violated by the state’s 1993 elimination of the three factor apportionment formula, in violation of the Contract Clause of the state and US constitutions. In Oregon, a statute is considered “a contractual promise only if the legislature has clearly and unmistakably expressed its intent to create a contract.” The Oregon Supreme Court determined that the text, context, and legislative history of ORS 305.655 did not “clearly and unmistakably” establish that the Oregon legislature intended to execute a binding contract with other states. The court found ORS 305.655 to have only created statutory obligations—according to the majority, it was a uniform law, not a compact—and, thus, there was no Contract Clause violation.

(more…)

Update on State Responses to Federal Tax Reform: Illinois and Oregon

by Diann Smith and Stephen P. Kranz | Mar 8, 2018 | Federal Tax, Illinois, Income Tax, Nationwide Importance, Oregon, Tax Base

States are moving to advance different solutions in their efforts to address federal tax reform. Illinois recently introduced legislation to addback the new deduction for foreign-derived intangible income (a topic we’ve previously covered), and its Department of Revenue has issued its position on other aspects of federal reform. Oregon, after resolving a controversy between its senate and house, is about to pass legislation addressing deemed repatriation income and repealing its tax haven inclusion provisions.

Illinois Issues Guidance on Federal Tax Reform

On March 1, the Illinois Department of Revenue (Department) issued guidance explaining its position with respect to how various law changes made in the 2017 federal tax reform bill, known as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (Act), will impact taxpayers in Illinois.

While, for the most part, the pronouncement provides a cursory analysis of the provisions of the Act and a conclusory statement as to whether each provision will result in an increase or decrease in a taxpayer’s adjusted gross income (for individuals) or federal taxable income (for corporations), there are a few items that do warrant some specific mention.

With respect to Illinois’ treatment of the Act’s new international tax provisions, the Department provides some insight into treatment of deemed repatriated foreign earnings and global intangible low-taxed income (GILTI). For purposes of both the deemed repatriated foreign earnings and the GILTI, the Act provides that a taxpayer computes its taxable income by including an amount in income and taking a corresponding deduction to partially offset the inclusion. The Illinois guidance indicates that the inclusion in Illinois will be net, with both the income inclusion and the deduction taken into account in determining a taxpayer’s tax base. This is consistent with the provisions of the Illinois corporate income tax that provide that the Illinois tax base is a corporation’s “taxable income,” which is defined as the amount of “taxable income properly reportable for federal income tax purposes for the taxable year under the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.” 35 ILCS 5/203(b)(1), (e).

Mitigating the tax impact of these provisions, the Department also takes the position that the amount included as deemed repatriated foreign earnings or as GILTI will be treated as a foreign dividend eligible for Illinois’ 100 percent dividend-received deduction. See 35 ILCS 5/203(b)(2)(O), (b)(2)(G). This rationale is in accordance with the provisions in the Illinois statute that provide a dividend-received deduction for dividends received or deemed received under Internal Revenue Code sections 951 through 965. Thus, because the deemed repatriated foreign earnings are included pursuant to section 965 and the new GILTI is included pursuant to section 951A, those amounts should both be dividends eligible for the dividend-received deduction.

In addition, the Department has specified that the new provision limiting the use of federal net operating losses (NOLs) in an amount equal to 80 percent of the taxpayer’s taxable income is a change that could provide an increased tax base or increased tax revenue to Illinois. Corporate [...]

Continue Reading

Unclaimed Property Gift Card Legislation to Watch

by Diann Smith, Eric D. Carstens and Stephen P. Kranz | Feb 7, 2017 | New Hampshire, Oregon, Unclaimed Property

Most states are well off to the races with their 2017 legislative sessions and several states have gift card legislation pending that would impact unclaimed property holders.

Oregon

On January 9, 2017, a bill (SB 113) was introduced in the Senate that would create a new unclaimed property reporting obligation for gift cards, which would apply to gift cards issued or sold after the effective date of the bill.

SB 113 would accomplish this by amending the state consumer protection law to provide that a cardholder may only redeem a gift card from “[t]he person that a gift card identifies as providing goods or services” and such person “shall transfer to the Department of State Lands, in accordance with [the Uniform Disposition of Unclaimed Property Act], any remaining balance from a gift card that a cardholder has not used within five years after the date of the last transaction that used the gift card for a purchase.” Keeping consistent with the changes above, the bill would also amend the definition of “gift card” to strike the current reference to “issuer” and replace it with the “person identified in the record as providing goods or services in exchange for displaying or surrendering the record.” Finally, the bill provides that “[a] transfer under this paragraph renders the promise to provide goods or services of which the gift card is evidence void and the cardholder may not redeem the remaining balance on the gift card for cash, goods or services after the date of the transfer.”

The bill was referred to the Senate Committee on General Government and Accountability, where the sponsor (Senator Chuck Riley) sits as chair.

Practice Note

The prospect of gift cards becoming reportable prospectively in Oregon is troubling in itself, but the bill would go a step further and redefine who is the issuer in the gift card context by specifying that the retailer or other entity identified on the record as providing goods or services is the issuer and has the remittance obligation—not a third-party issuer (which many retailers currently use and most have historically understood to have the reporting obligation for unredeemed gift cards in states without an exemption). The bill leaves room for the Department of State Lands to establish an expedited process for transferring gift card balances by regulation, but it would still be the onus of the retailer to provide the unredeemed balances and would diminish the benefit of having a third-party gift card processor under Oregon law.

New Hampshire

On January 5, 2017, a bill (HB 473) was introduced in the House that would revise the definition of “gift certificate” by (1) removing the existing requirement that the promise be written; and (2) increasing the face value based exemption from $100 to $250. The bill also would increase the face value of a gift certificate that may have an expiration date under the state consumer protection law to $250. As introduced, these changes would take effect January 1, 2018.

HB 473 [...]

Continue Reading