Photo of Elizabeth Cha

The New York State Tax Appeals Tribunal reversed an administrative law judge determination and held that an individual was not a statutory resident of New York in 2014 because he did not maintain a permanent place of abode in New York for 11 months of the year.

On audit, the Department of Taxation and Finance

A New York Division of Tax Appeals administrative law judge held that a fleet management company that leases fleets of vehicles to businesses in New York could not receive sales tax credits for refunds of tax paid to vehicle lessees at the end of their leases after a rental adjustment that reduced the total rent

The New York State Tax Appeals Tribunal upheld an income tax assessment and disallowed taxpayers’ claim of resident tax credits (RTCs) to the extent such RTCs were claimed for taxes paid to Connecticut on the taxpayers’ carried interest income. The taxpayers, both of whom were residents of New York, were employed by an affiliate of

The New York State Tax Appeals Tribunal affirmed an Administrative Law Judge determination that two taxpayers remained New York residents because the taxpayers did not establish that they had changed their domicile to Florida during the relevant tax years. Because the taxpayers spent “more than 30 but less than 184 days in New York,” the

Understanding—let alone navigating—the layers of bureaucracy is no small feat for taxpayers that seek to resolve a California tax controversy, whether through administrative protest and appeals processes or by means of settlement negotiations.

In many states, the counterpart from the department who handles a taxpayer’s protest or appeal also has authority to negotiate a settlement.

The Washington Department of Revenue upheld a retail sales tax assessment on a taxpayer who failed to collect retail sales tax on sales to a renewable energy company. The taxpayer stated that it did not collect tax on certain sales because it believed that the energy company qualified for the exemption provided by Wash. Rev.

The Indiana Department of Revenue found that a holding company was properly excluded as a member of its affiliates’ financial institutions tax (FIT) combined group return because the company failed to establish nexus with the state.  The Department also decided that for purposes of the FIT, there is no distinction between business and nonbusiness income.

The Washington Administrative Review and Hearings Division (the Division) of the Department of Revenue held that payments between affiliated entities could not be deducted from “gross income” subject to the business and occupation tax (B&O Tax). Each of the taxpayers, three affiliated entities falling under the same parent company umbrella with each providing investment management