In just the first few months of the 2022 tax year, we have already seen several states introduce legislation that would decrease corporate and individual income tax rates.  Idaho became the first state to pass such legislation this year, on February 4.  The Eversheds Sutherland SALT team expects other states to follow and will provide

The Oregon Tax Court, Regular Division, held that P.L. 86-272 did not preclude Oregon from imposing its excise (income) tax on an out-of-state manufacturer of cigarettes and other tobacco products based on two activities. First, the court held that the manufacturer’s mandate that the in-state wholesalers accept product returns was not a protected activity. The

The Alaska Supreme Court found that Alaska’s combined reporting statute requiring taxpayers to include certain foreign affiliates in its income tax return was constitutional. The court rejected the taxpayer’s arguments that Alaska’s tax haven corporation reporting statute was (i) void for vagueness as it violated the Due Process Clause, (ii) discriminated against interstate commerce in

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

The California Court of Appeal ruled that nonresident shareholders were subject to California tax on their pro rata shares of intangible income from an S corporation’s sale of shares in a subsidiary. This sale of intangibles (goodwill of a business) was sourced as business income apportioned at the S corporation level, not as intangible income

Following a taxpayer’s appeal of a local Virginia county (County) Business, Professional and Occupational License (BPOL) tax assessment, the Virginia Tax Commissioner held that the taxpayer’s remote employees’ payroll was properly excluded from the numerator of the payroll apportionment calculation. The taxpayer was headquartered out of state and maintained offices worldwide, including an office in