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
Northern exposure: No ambiguity in Alaska reporting
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
Getting personal with New York personal income tax
On this episode of the SALT Shaker Podcast, Eversheds Sutherland Associates Jeremy Gove and Chelsea Marmor discuss all things New York personal income tax. They touch on two recent decisions that came out in New York – one from the Tax Appeals Tribunal and one from the Appellate Division (as Chelsea is quick to correct
Neither here nor there: New York holds resident tax credits cannot be claimed for intangible income
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
New York finds taxpayers’ evidence to establish new domicile is insufficient
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
Waiting for Superman in Metropoulos
In this episode of the SALT Shaker Podcast, Eversheds Sutherland Associates Jeremy Gove and Annie Rothschild delve into a recent decision out of the California Court of Appeal – Metropoulos Family Trust v. Franchise Tax Board. The court ruled for the Franchise Tax Board, affirming the trial court’s decision that non-resident S corporation shareholders
California Court of Appeal rules shareholders’ flow-through S corporation intangible income is apportionable, not sourced to shareholders’ domiciles
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
Virginia Tax Commissioner rules that remote worker payroll not included in BPOL payroll apportionment numerator
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
New York False Claims Act case remains in federal court
The Southern District of New York denied a plaintiff-relator’s motion to remand a dispute over the defendant’s transfer pricing arrangement brought under the New York’s False Claims Act to New York state court. The plaintiff initiated the suit on behalf of the State of New York in state court alleging that the company did knowingly
Booted out of Indiana: Indiana DOR finds that parent holding company has no nexus for combined return
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.