On May 20, 2021, California AB 71 was approved by the Assembly Appropriations Committee. The bill will now head to an Assembly floor vote within the next two weeks.  Please see our previous post here for more information on AB 71’s proposed corporate tax increases, including the inclusion of GILTI and repatriation income of affiliated

California AB 71 is set for hearing in the Assembly Appropriations Committee tomorrow, May 12, at 9 am.  The Appropriations Committee is typically the final committee to consider a bill before it goes to an Assembly floor vote. Please see our previous post here for more information on AB 71’s proposed corporate tax increases, including

On April 26, 2021, the California Assembly voted to approve A.B. 1402, which in addition to sales tax would extend the requirements of a marketplace facilitator law to fees administered pursuant to the California Fee Collection Procedures Law that are imposed on the retail sale of tangible personal property in the state. The bill

State taxation of a nonresident employee’s equity award, such as nonqualified stock options (NQSOs) or restricted stock units (RSUs), has long been a thorn in the side of many tax practitioners, payroll departments, and – of course – employees. In Appeal of Prince, California’s Office of Tax Appeals (OTA) recently addressed the state’s taxation

On April 29, California AB 71 was approved by the Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee. AB 71 was approved by the Assembly Committee on Revenue and Taxation earlier in April. The bill will now head to the Assembly Appropriations Committee for consideration. The Appropriations Committee is typically the final committee to consider a bill

AB 71 was introduced earlier this year (see our prior coverage here) to provide additional state funding for homelessness programs, derived – in part – from increasing taxes on business income. In March, AB 71 was amended to eliminate steep corporate tax increases. The bill as amended, however, still would require corporate taxpayers that

In a prior SALT@Work column for the Journal of Multistate Taxation and Incentives, Eversheds Sutherland attorneys Charlie Kearns and Alexandra Louderback discussed the localization of work rules that determine where an employer will be subject to state unemployment insurance (UI) registration, reporting and taxes when an employee works in multiple states.

Shortly after that

The California Court of Appeal held that a county’s failure to comply with statutory notice requirements did not render an assessment a “legal nullity” that would excuse the taxpayer from the requirement to exhaust administrative remedies.

For property tax purposes, California requires a “Notice of Proposed Escape Assessment” (which levies a retroactive assessment to recapture

On January 14, 2021, California’s Supreme Court concluded in Vasquez v. Jan-Pro Franchising Int’l, Inc. (2021) 10 Cal.5th 944, 273 Cal.Rptr.3d 741, 478 P.3d 1207 that its Dynamex decision and its use of the so-called ABC test, later codified after the passage of Assembly Bill 5, applies retroactively.  The Vasquez holding subjects taxpayers, potentially even