State Domicile and Residency

A New York City Administrative Law Judge held that a New Jersey S corporation (“Taxpayer”) was subject to New York City general corporation tax (“GCT”) on gain from the sale of a minority limited partner interest in a limited partnership that leased and managed New York City real estate. The Taxpayer argued that the gain

California uses market-based sourcing to apportion sales of other than tangible personal property to the state. Under the governing statute, sales of services are sourced to California to the extent the purchaser of the service receives the benefit in the state.1 Sales of intangible personal property are sourced to California to the extent the

The Ohio Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) affirmed the Cleveland Board of Income Tax Review’s (Board) decision that it properly denied a refund claim of municipal income tax paid on income from stock options that a nonresident was granted while working in the city but exercised after she retired and moved to Florida. Willacy v.

New York S. 8386, introduced and referred to the Budget and Revenue Committee on May 21, 2020, provides that employers “may designate” remote work by employees who have been required to telework during the Covid-19 pandemic state of emergency “as having been performed at the location such work was performed prior to the declaration

The California Office of Tax Appeals (OTA) found that a foreign single-member LLC domiciled in Georgia was “doing business” in California by reason of its 50 percent interest in a pass-through LLC operating in California (LLC) and thus, was subject to the state’s annual LLC tax. The OTA focused on California’s definition of “doing business”

New York’s highest court dismissed taxpayers’ appeal of an Appellate Division ruling that the payment of tax on intangible income to New York as statutory residents, without a credit for tax paid to Connecticut as domiciliaries, determining that the appeal did not raise a “substantial constitutional question.” Edelman v. New York State Dep’t of Taxation

The North Carolina Supreme Court recently held that the presence in the state of a trust’s beneficiary is not sufficient to establish income tax nexus for the trust. In the Kimberly Rice Kaestner 1992 Family Trust case, the trust’s beneficiaries were residents of North Carolina. There were no other connections between the state and the