The Eversheds Sutherland SALT Team is always excited to see what kind of pets our clients and friends have. Our team features a different pet at the end of every month, and we want to feature YOURS! Featured pets will receive a fun prize from the SALT Team.

To submit your pet to be featured, visit the Eversheds Sutherland SALT Shaker App, click “Pet of the Month” in the drop-down, then click “Submit A Pet.”

Don’t have the app? It is available for download in the Apple App StoreGoogle Play and the Amazon Appstore.

View previously-featured furry friends.

Bitcoin and other virtual currencies may be the most controversial financial assets on the market right now and are certainly the most discussed.

In their article for Bloomberg BNA, Eversheds Sutherland attorneys Jonathan Feldman and Christopher Beaudro examine the state sales tax implications of selling virtual currency.

View the full article.

In Kraft Foods Global, Inc. v. Director, Division of Taxation, 2018 WL 2247356 (May 17, 2018), the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division, recently upheld a New Jersey Tax Court decision denying a taxpayer an exception to the state’s interest add-back requirement in determining the taxpayer’s corporate net income subject to New Jersey’s corporation business tax (CBT). This case highlights the unintended tax consequences that may result from financing arrangements between related entities.

Like many states, New Jersey uses federal taxable income as a starting point for the CBT and then has several modifications to federal taxable income to arrive at New Jersey taxable income. One of these modifications is the related party interest add-back provision, which provides that “Entire net income shall be determined without the exclusion, deduction or credit of … [i]nterest paid, accrued or incurred for the privilege period to a related member….”  N.J.S.A. 54:10A–4(k)(2)(I).

There are five statutory exceptions to the interest add-back requirement. In Kraft Foods, the only exception relied upon by the taxpayer was the “Unreasonable Exception,” which requires the taxpayer to establish “by clear and convincing evidence, as determined by the director, that the disallowance of a deduction is unreasonable.” In support of its argument, the taxpayer argued that its parent company simply “pushed down” loans from bondholders because the parent company could secure a better interest rate on the open market than the taxpayer.

The appellate court upheld the determination of the Tax Court that the taxpayer did not qualify for the Unreasonable Exception. While acknowledging that legislative history supported the taxpayer’s contention that the Unreasonable Exception may apply to a “pushed down” loan, even in the absence of a guarantee of the third-party debt, the appellate court found that the taxpayer did not meet its evidentiary burden. According to the court, the taxpayer produced no document suggesting that it was ultimately responsible for the third-party debt. The taxpayer’s promise to pay its parent company did not contain a guarantee to the third-party bondholders, nor did the promissory notes the taxpayer signed on behalf of its parent contain payment terms or a schedule for principal payments. Thus, according to the appellate court, it was reasonable for the Director to determine that the parent’s debt to the bondholders “was not, legally or effectively, ‘pushed down’” to the taxpayer. Kraft Foods Global, Inc. v. Director, Division of Taxation, 2018 WL 2247356 (May 17, 2018).

Read our May 2018 posts on or read each article by clicking on the title. For the latest coverage and commentary on state and local tax developments delivered directly to your phone, download the latest version of the Eversheds Sutherland SALT Shaker app.


  • State Tax After TCJA: Treatment Of International Income
    The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, P.L. 115-97,[1] made sweeping changes to the Internal Revenue Code, and will have far-reaching implications for state tax systems that broadly conform to the IRC. In this article for Law360, Eversheds Sutherland attorneys Jeffrey Friedman, Eric Tresh, Todd Lard and Todd Betor focus on the major state income tax implications of the TCJA’s international tax provisions, including: the transition tax imposed by revised IRC § 965; the foreign-source dividends received deduction, or DRD, allowed by new IRC § 245A; the tax on global intangible low-taxed income, or GILTI, in new IRC § 951A and related deduction in IRC § 250; the deduction allowed for foreign-derived intangible income, or FDII, in new IRC § 250; and the base erosion anti-abuse tax, or BEAT, imposed under new IRC § 59A.
  • A Pinch of SALT: Implications of the MTC’s Market-Based Sourcing Model Regulations
    It is more complicated to determine an in-state sale regarding the provision of multistate services or licenses of intangibles. Historically, states looked to a taxpayer’s costs of performing the service or licensing the intangible. Some states have become critical of this cost-of-performance method and replaced it with a market-based method of computing in-state sales. In this edition of A Pinch of SALT, Eversheds Sutherland Partner Jeffrey Friedman discusses the recent amendments to the Multistate Tax Commission’s (MTC) Model General Allocation and Apportionment Regulations; how the model regulations can be further improved; how states are responding to the model regulations; and what is next for the MTC.


  • Eversheds Sutherland SALT Shakes Things Up in the Big Easy!
    Eversheds Sutherland was delighted to sponsor and lead the two days of TEI’s Audit and Appeals seminar focused on State and Local Tax Controversy (May 2–3, 2018).
  • State and Local Tax Day
    The Eversheds Sutherland SALT team presented at the Tax Executives Institute (TEI) Denver Chapter State and Local Tax Day on May 15, 2018, in Lakewood, Colorado.
  • TEI’s 2018 Region II Forum
    Eversheds Sutherland is a proud co-sponsor of the 2018 TEI Region II Tax Forum taking place June 4-5, 2018, at the Borgata Hotel in Atlantic City, New Jersey. The Tax Forum will include four plenary and ten breakout sessions offering a wide selection of federal, international, and state and local topics.


Meet Fiver, the adorable pet rabbit belonging to Brandi Drake, Strategic Tax Senior Director at Charter Communications. Brandi and her husband Matthew volunteer at Charlotte-Mecklenburg Animal Care and Control in Charlotte, North Carolina, where they agreed to foster two rabbits, Fiver and his twin brother Roger. Roger was adopted by another family and after fostering Fiver for four months, Brandi and Matthew knew they were his forever home. 

Fiver is a feisty little rabbit who loved playing with his late dog brother Logan and cat sister Key. He adores vegetables and will sit up and pay attention when he hears them being taken out of the fridge. He also demands daily ear rubs, sitting beside his people until he gets them, and if they take too long to give him attention, he will nudge them with his nose.

Fiver gets his daily exercise by running laps around the living room and through his play tunnel before settling down to cool off on top of the air vent.

We are so excited to feature Fiver as our May Pet of the Month!

To submit YOUR pet to be featured, visit the Eversheds Sutherland SALT Shaker App, click the Pet of the Month in the drop-down, then click “Submit A Pet.”

On May 24, 2018, the Circuit Court of Cook County upheld the City of Chicago’s imposition of its amusement tax on streaming services.

  • On June 9, 2015, the Chicago Department of Finance issued a ruling indicating that electronically delivered amusements are subject to the amusement tax.
  • The circuit court upheld the tax against arguments that the tax violated the federal Internet Tax Freedom Act, the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution and the Uniformity Clause of the Illinois Constitution, and that the tax exceeds Chicago’s home rule authority.
  • Now that Chicago has received a court ruling that the tax does not violate state and federal law, taxpayers should expect that Chicago will aggressively step up their enforcement of the tax.

View the full legal alert.

Maryland Tax Court holds that Maryland’s limitation of interest on refunds resulting from the US Supreme Court’s decision in Comptroller of the Treasury of Maryland v. Wynne violates the US Constitution.

  • In 2014, the Maryland legislature passed a law to retroactively limit the statutory interest rate on refunds related to the Comptroller of the Treasury of Maryland v. Wynne decision.
  • The Tax Court held that the same rationale used by the Supreme Court in finding the law at issue in Wynne was in violation of the dormant commerce clause also applies to the limited interest rate on Wynne refunds.
  • The limited interest on Wynne refunds is also the subject of a separate class action lawsuit filed in the Circuit Court of Baltimore City, which had previously been dismissed due to Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

View the full legal alert.

The IRS intends to issue regulations pertaining to states’ attempts to subvert the state and local tax deduction cap.

  • The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act imposed a $10,000 ($5,000 for married individuals filing separately) limit on state and local tax deductions for federal income tax purposes.
  • Certain states, including New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut, have enacted legislation to allow taxpayers to claim a federal tax deduction in excess of the SALT cap.
  • The pending regulations will emphasize that federal income tax substance-over-form principles, not state laws, dictate the characterization of the charitable contributions.

View the full legal alert.