The pending precedential Office of Tax Appeal’s (OTA) decision of Appeal of L. Smith, OTA Case No. 20036033 (Dec. 7, 2022) concerned whether California could impose income tax on a nonresident’s distributive share of gain from the sale of an interest in a timeshare developer operating in California as a limited liability company (Timeshare).

A recent significant precedential and unanimous decision by the California Office of Tax Appeals, Matter of the Appeal of Beckwith, provided more guidance on how to determine California domicile and residency for state personal income tax purposes.

In his article for Law360, Eversheds Sutherland Senior Counsel Eric Coffill provides five domicile takeaways and

On August 31, 2022, the California Office of Tax Appeals (“OTA”), in the Matter of the Appeal of B. Housman and B. Pena, held that an Australian software company holder, Housman, and his wife are California residents and Housman is entitled to a stepped-up basis as a result of a valid check-the-box election to be

The California Office of Tax Appeals held that a taxpayer was a California resident and domiciliary when he redeemed shares of his Tennessee-based employer in 2012. Accordingly, the taxpayer was assessed additional state income tax on the value of the redeemed shares.

In 2008, the taxpayer moved from California to Tennessee and purchased a home.

Approximately 34 states require market sourcing to source sales of other than tangible personal property. Many states adopted market-sourcing rules in recent years and are only now beginning to finalize regulations regarding their implementation. A number of states have also adopted market-sourcing regulations attempting to provide additional clarity through more detailed rules.

In this installment

This week, Eversheds Sutherland Partners Jeff Friedman, Charlie Kearns and Dan Schlueter will present on a variety of tax topics during the 2022 Broadband Tax Institute Annual Conference in Palm Beach, FL.

Topics will include:

  • October 31 − Litigation Trends in State Taxation – Jeff Friedman
  • October 31 − State Tax Policy − Charlie Kearns

The California Supreme Court recently held that the City of Oakland’s waste management franchise fees may constitute illegal taxes that fail to meet the state’s constitutional voter approval requirements. Accordingly, the state supreme court upheld the reversal of a trial court decision sustaining the city’s demurrer.

The plaintiffs challenging the fees are owners of multifamily

Earlier this month, the California Franchise Tax Board released Legal Ruling 2022-02, regarding the sourcing of Internal Revenue Code Section 751(a) gain from the disposition of a nonresident individual’s partnership interest when the IRC Section 751 property is located in California.

In this article for Law360, Eversheds Sutherland Senior Counsel Eric Coffill discusses