March 2013

On March 28, 2013, the New York State Legislature passed budget legislation (S.2609D/A.3009D) that replaces the existing New York State and City related-party royalty add-back requirements with provisions based on the Multistate Tax Commission’s model add-back statute. In addition, the legislation repeals the New York State and City royalty income exclusions, which permitted taxpayers to

Todd and Cooper.jpgMeet Cooper, the three-year-old Labradoodle of Washington, D.C. SALT Partner Todd Lard and his partner, Brian. Cooper lives in the Capitol Hill neighborhood of D.C., and his biggest claim to fame (and Todd’s greatest life accomplishment to date) was being named “Best Dog” in the annual pet photo contest in his neighborhood paper, The Hill Rag

By Sahang-Hee Hahn and Prentiss Willson

The New York State Department of Taxation and Finance ruled in an Advisory Opinion that a Virginia corporation was subject to New York corporation franchise tax because it hired independent contractors to store its consigned inventory and to solicit orders from and deliver products to New York customers. In

By Madison Barnett and Jack Trachtenberg

The Michigan Court of Appeals ruled in two consolidated cases that the state’s estimated corporate income tax assessments were invalid because the taxpayers’ sales factors were improperly calculated using an alternative population-based formula rather than the statutory costs of performance (COP) formula. The two taxpayers were out-of-state book publishers

By Todd Betor and Pilar Mata

Oregon’s $29 million corporate excise tax claim against the taxpayers’ parent company was held to violate both the Due Process and Commerce Clauses of the U.S. Constitution by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. Oregon claimed that Washington Mutual, Inc. (WMI) was liable for its subsidiaries’

By Zachary Atkins and Jack Trachtenberg

The Commonwealth notched another win before the Massachusetts Appeals Court in a case of first impression affirming corporate excise tax assessments based on a disallowance of the taxpayers’ interest and royalty expenses for pre-addback (pre-2002) and addback tax years (post-2001). Under a clear and convincing evidence standard, the court