COVID-19 Archives - INSIDE SALT

COVID-19

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

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

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

McDermott Provides Treasury Department with Concrete Suggestions for Guidance on the American Rescue Plan Act’s Claw-Back Provision

by Stephen P. Kranz and Mark Nebergall | Mar 25, 2021 | Constitutional Issues, Franchise Tax, Gross Receipts Tax, Income Tax, Insurance Tax, Local Tax, Nationwide Importance, Property Tax, Sales Tax, Tax Base, Transaction Taxes

The recently enacted American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA) includes an ambiguous claw-back provision that has brought the world of state and local tax policymaking to a grinding halt. Because ARPA’s adoption occurred during the final weeks of many states’ legislative sessions, rapid issuance of guidance from the US Department of the Treasury is needed before the sessions adjourn to prevent the irreversible damage that will occur if a state foregoes enacting policies aimed at alleviating the economic disruption caused by COVID-19 out of fear of facing claw-back of federal relief.

McDermott recently sent a letter to Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, urging the issuance of guidance giving a balanced interpretation of the claw-back provision. This guidance is necessary to avoid putting state legislatures, governors and tax administrators across the country in an untenable situation where every tax change or adjustment being considered—no matter how innocuous or routine—will carry the risk of a reduction to their state’s share of federal funding for the next three years.

In the letter, we provided concrete suggestions on areas where the ARPA left room for such balanced interpretation. We suggested that Treasury interpret the claw-back provision as either inapplicable to or provide a safe harbor for:

Changes addressing state conformity to the Internal Revenue Code (IRC)
Corrections of unconstitutional tax statutes or rules
Corrections of tax provisions barred by or that violate federal law
Actions in which there is no or only a weak connection between the law change reducing net revenue and the use of federal relief funds
Changes in the law announced before the enactment of ARPA
Reductions in net revenue related to purposes that further ARPA’s objectives.

The letter pointed out that states need concrete guidance, whether formal or informal, addressing these areas. Such guidance will alleviate the concerns of state governments and allow state policymakers to function and continue the orderly administration of state taxes.

Federal COVID-19 Relief Bill Brings State Tax Policy to a Grinding Halt

by Stephen P. Kranz, Mark Nebergall and Eric D. Carstens | Mar 16, 2021 | Constitutional Issues, Franchise Tax, Incentives, Income Tax, Local Tax, Nationwide Importance, Property Tax, Sales Tax, Tax Base

On March 11, 2021, US President Joe Biden signed the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA), the COVID-19 relief bill that includes $350 billion in relief to states and localities. To prevent states from using federal relief funds to finance tax cuts, Congress included a clawback provision requiring that any relief funds used to offset tax cuts during the next three years be returned to the federal government. Here is the text of the provision:

A State or territory shall not use the funds provided under this section or transferred pursuant to section 603(c)(4) to either directly or indirectly offset a reduction in the net tax revenue of such State or territory resulting from a change in law, regulation or administrative interpretation during the covered period that reduces any tax (by providing for a reduction in a rate, a rebate, a deduction, a credit or otherwise) or delays the imposition of any tax or tax increase.

This language broadly prohibits states from taking legislative or administrative action through the end of 2024 that reduces state tax revenues by any means (deduction, credit, delay, rate change, etc.) if doing so could be characterized as the use of federal relief funds to offset, directly or indirectly, the tax reduction. Practically speaking, this limitation will completely hamstring state and local governments from the normal ebb and flow of tax policy changes, adjustments and interpretations. Taken to its logical conclusion, this language freezes state legislative and administrative tax policy development out of fear anything they may do would require the return of federal relief funds. We expect the US Department of the Treasury will issue guidance clarifying this provision in the coming weeks.

Practice Note: This provision of ARPA is, in our view, the most significant federal pre-emption of state tax policy in history. For the next three years, legislators and tax administrators alike will be scrutinized as their tax policy decisions are evaluated through the lens of this prohibition. This level of congressional control over state tax policy decisions and fiscal autonomy likely violates the Tenth Amendment of the US Constitution and would dismay the framers’ basic notions of federalism.

While Congress has the ability to limit the use of federal funds in ensuring its policy goals are accomplished, the overly broad state tax limitation adopted by Congress goes far beyond its stated purpose and prevents states from furthering ARPA’s goals by using tax policy to craft their own COVID-19 relief measures. Any regulation or administrative interpretation that reduces state tax revenue or delays the implementation of a tax is, effectively, barred by the unprecedented intrusion into state tax policy-making.

The effects of ARPA’s state tax limitation are immediate and far-reaching. It will chill continuing state efforts to couple/decouple state tax codes to or from the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017. Additionally, ARPA already stalled legislation pending in Maryland that would delay, for one year, implementation of its digital advertising services gross receipts tax, restoring return filing and tax [...]

Continue Reading

Connecticut Bill Aims to Address the Impact of Telecommuting during the Pandemic

by McDermott Will & Emery | Mar 8, 2021 | Connecticut, Income Tax, Local Tax, Nationwide Importance

As we continue to face growing concerns because of the nationwide impact of COVID-19, taxpayers should be mindful of the potential impacts that the continued rise in telecommuting may have on their state personal income tax liabilities.

A bill was recently introduced in Connecticut that partially addresses this situation. Connecticut House Bill No. 6513 (HB 6513) clarifies that Connecticut residents will not face double taxation on their 2020 taxes and will instead receive a credit against their Connecticut personal income taxes for taxes paid in other states even if the resident, because of COVID-19, was working remotely from Connecticut rather than from their usual out-of-state office. HB 6513 further states that the Connecticut Department of Revenue Services, in determining whether an employer has nexus with Connecticut for purposes of the imposition of any Connecticut tax, shall not consider the activities of an employee who worked remotely from Connecticut solely because of COVID-19.

HB 6513 passed in the 151-member Connecticut House of Representatives on February 24, 2021, and passed in the 36-member Connecticut State Senate on March 1, 2021. The bill now heads to the state governor’s desk for signature. While it is expected that the Governor will sign the bill, passage of the bill still leaves taxpayers with uncertainty for 2021. Many taxpayers nationwide are likely to continue working remotely (from states other than where their usual offices are located) for the foreseeable future, and absent Congressional legislation or a Supreme Court decision, this state income tax issue does not seem likely to abate any time soon.

Governor Newsom Announces New Relief for Remitting California Sales Tax

by Charles Moll, III, Troy M. Van Dongen, Marcy Jo Mandel and Elle Kaiser | Dec 1, 2020 | California, Interest and Penalties, Nationwide Importance, Sales Tax

On Monday, November 30, 2020, Governor Gavin Newsom announced that California will provide temporary tax relief for eligible businesses impacted by restrictions imposed to control the COVID-19 pandemic.

The announcement indicates that the Governor will direct the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA) to:

Provide an automatic three-month extension for taxpayers filing less than $1 million in sales tax on the return and extend the availability of existing interest- and penalty-free payment agreements to companies with up to $5 million in taxable sales;
Broaden opportunities for more businesses to enter into interest-free payment arrangements; and
Expand interest-free payment options for larger businesses particularly affected by significant restrictions on operations based on COVID-19 transmissions.

No information was provided as to how the CDTFA will expand interest-free payment options for larger businesses, or what constitutes “significant restrictions” on a business’ operations for purposes of this temporary tax relief. Nevertheless, we applaud the governor’s move to initiate this relief for California’s taxpayers, and we will keep readers up to date as additional details are revealed for this program.

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

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

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

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

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

Taxes, Like Temperatures, Going Up: California COVID-19 Budget “Revenue Solutions”

by Charles Moll, III and Marcy Jo Mandel | May 15, 2020 | California, Franchise Tax, Income Tax, Local Tax, Sales Tax

Yesterday Governor Gavin Newsom turned to a familiar gambit from California’s playbook to help tackle the budgetary hole wrought by COVID-19. In January, the Governor proposed his budget for the 2020-2021 fiscal year, which projected a $5.6 billion surplus. Indeed, revenues through March are reported as having run $1.35 billion above projections. But, as the Governor says in his May Revision to his January Budget, “[t]he COVID-19 pandemic and the resulting recession has changed the fiscal landscape significantly.” Without the various changes proposed by the May Revision, which includes the “revenue solutions” described below, the Governor’s Budget projects a $54 billion deficit.

The May Revision proposes two significant changes to business taxation. The Governor proposes suspending net operating losses for 2020, 2021, and 2022 for medium and large businesses. The Governor also proposes limiting business incentive tax credits from offsetting more than $5 million of tax liability per year for 2020, 2021, and 2022.

While it is not known what parameters were used for the May Revision revenue estimates, and the actual threshold for being a medium or large business subject to NOL suspension will be set during the legislative process should the Governor’s proposal be enacted, standards used for prior NOL suspension periods may provide a guide. For taxable years beginning in 2008 and 2009, California suspended the NOL carryover deduction for taxpayers with a net business income of $500,000 or more. For taxable years beginning in 2010 and 2011, California’s NOL suspension affected taxpayers with a modified adjusted gross income of $300,000 or more. In neither case were disaster losses affected by the NOL suspension rules.

The May Revision also includes two proposals to address the sales and use tax gap: (1) Used car dealers would have to remit sales tax to the Department of Motor Vehicles with the registration fees, and (2) Market value will be used to determine the price paid in private auto sales.

Also tagged as “revenue solutions” in the May Revision are three General Fund proposals from the Governor’s January Budget Proposal: (1) Extending the sales tax exemption for diapers and menstrual products through the end of 2022-23; (2) Extending the carryover period for film credits awarded under Program 2.0 from six years to nine years; and (3) Extending the current exemption from the minimum tax for first year corporations to first year LLCs, partnerships and LLPs. The May revision also maintains a new tax on e-cigarettes based on nicotine content and will be deposited in a new special fund.

Overall, the revenue solutions in the May Revision are projected to net $4.4 billion in 2020-21, $3.3 billion in 2021-22 and $1.4 billion in 2022-23. The Governor states, “These tax measures as a whole are intended to raise revenue, stimulate economic growth, and help those in need.”

He explains that his May Revision revenue solutions “recognize the disproportionate tax relief that has been provided to larger corporations, compared to small businesses, which has resulted in relatively lower tax payments.” And he adds that [...]

Continue Reading

Governor Newsom Signs Executive Order Providing Last Minute Property Tax Relief

by Charles Moll, III, Elle Kaiser, Marcy Jo Mandel and Troy M. Van Dongen | May 7, 2020 | California, Property Tax

On Tuesday we authored a blog post commending San Francisco County Assessor Carmen Chu for moving the deadline for businesses to file their Business Property Statements (Form 571-L) to June 1 of this year. We noted that California statutory authority provides that if the property tax filing deadline falls on a date when the county assessor’s office is closed for the entire day, a property statement that is mailed and postmarked on the next business day is deemed to have been timely filed. We further explained, however, that despite the fact that most, if not all, county assessor offices across the state are closed due to COVID-19, most assessors have been reluctant to provide relief to the taxpayers struggling to meet the May 7 deadline. Consequently, we urged county assessors to follow the example set by the San Francisco County assessor and to likewise extend the business property tax deadline.

In April, we also authored a blog post encouraging the State Board of Equalization and county officials to issue clear, unambiguous guidance regarding the late-payment penalty waivers being offered to taxpayers who were unable to timely pay the second installment of their secured property taxes by the April 10th deadline due to hardship caused by COVID-19. We stated that although the provision of penalty waivers was an important first step, the ambiguity surrounding how a taxpayer might “prove” that he or she was “impacted by COVID-19” necessitated additional guidance.

Yesterday, on May 6, 2020, Governor Gavin Newsom announced that he had signed a new executive order (Executive Order N-6-20) as a means of providing certain property taxpayers with much-sought relief.

“The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted the lives and livelihoods of many, and as we look toward opening our local communities and economies, we want to make sure that those that have been most impacted have the ability to get back on their feet,” said Governor Newsom.

As a first step, the executive order suspends, until May 6, 2021, penalties for failing to pay certain property taxes that were not delinquent before March 4, 2020, for taxpayers who demonstrate they have experienced financial hardship due to the COVID-19 pandemic. This extension applies to residential property owners and businesses that qualify as a small business under the Small Business Administration’s Regulations Code. To be eligible for the penalty waiver, a taxpayer must demonstrate “to the satisfaction of the tax collector that the taxpayer has suffered economic hardship, or was otherwise unable to tender payment of taxes in a timely fashion due to the COVID-19 pandemic, or any local, state, or federal government response to COVID-19.”

Second, the order also extends the deadline for certain businesses to file their Business Personal Property Tax Statements (Form 571-L) from May 7 to May 31 of this year. Specifically, the order suspends California Revenue and Taxation Code (“RTC”) section 441, subdivision (b) and RTC section 463, subdivision (a) until May 31, 2020, to the extent that either imposes a penalty for failure to [...]

Continue Reading

Last Minute Relief for Filers of Business Property Statements

by Charles Moll, III, Elle Kaiser, Marcy Jo Mandel and Troy M. Van Dongen | May 5, 2020 | California, Local Tax, Procedure, Unitary Business

Once again, San Francisco has shown leadership in addressing property tax relief during the COVID-19 pandemic. On Monday, May 4, 2020, the San Francisco County Assessor announced that she was moving the deadline for businesses to file their Business Property Statements (Form 571-L) to June 1 of this year, due to physical office closure of the San Francisco Office of Assessor-Recorder.

Normally, under state law, a 10 percent penalty automatically attaches when a taxpayer’s business property statement is filed after May 7. But, if May 7 falls on a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday, then a property statement that is mailed and postmarked on the next business day is deemed to have been timely filed. Under the applicable statue, legal holidays include days when the county’s offices are closed for the entire day.

(more…)

State Tax Incentives, Clawbacks and COVID-19

by Richard C. Call | Apr 28, 2020 | Incentives, Nationwide Importance

Through various state and local tax incentives, many businesses have committed to grow their employee count or make substantial capital expenditures. Not surprisingly, companies may fall short on delivering those objectives in the short run. Long-terms plans may also need to change drastically. Companies should carefully consider the terms of their agreements with states to identify whether:

Employment targets will be met;
Investment targets will be met; and
Clawbacks or other damages are a possibility.

If clawbacks are possible, force majeure provisions in incentives agreements should provide protection. When agreements do not specifically contain a force majeure provision, businesses and governments should work together to renegotiate or amend those agreements in a way that protects local business’ long-term viability in a region.

Older Posts »

BLOG EDITORS

Stephen P. Kranz

Mary Kay McCalla Martire

Richard C. Call

BLOG EDITORS

STAY CONNECTED

TOPICS

ARCHIVES

RECENT POSTS