Noteworthy Cases

Subscribe to Noteworthy Cases via RSS

Yesterday, the New Jersey Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the Whirlpool case. Whirlpool Properties, Inc. v. Div. of Taxation, Docket A-25-10 (N.J. Supreme Court argued May 4, 2011). Whirlpool argued that the New Jersey “Throwout Rule” is facially unconstitutional because it is designed to tax extraterritorial income. The New Jersey Throwout Rule required taxpayers…

The Washington Supreme Court recently adopted the “primary purpose of the purchaser” test to determine whether a transaction should be broken down into its component parts or considered as a whole. In Qualcomm, Inc. v. Department of Revenue, the court overturned the state court of appeals and held that a taxpayer’s vehicle tracking service was subject to buiness and occupation (B&O) tax as an information service, and not as a network telephone service. The court reasoned that the purchaser was buying an integrated management tool that happened to include data transmission, not a telephone service coupled with tracking hardware and software.Continue Reading Keep on Truckin’: Washington Supreme Court Analyzes the Primary Purpose of Vehicle Tracking Service

It appears that the state tax world is not immune to the scandal involving former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich. On March 2, 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued its ruling in Empress Casino Joliet Corp. v. Blagojevich, Nos. 09-3975 and 10-1019 (7th Cir. 2011), holding that the Tax Injunction Act (TIA) does not bar four riverboat casinos from challenging casino surcharges paid into the Illinois Horse Racing Equity Trust Fund because such payments were fees rather than taxes and not subject to the TIA.Continue Reading You’re Not Fired! Tax Injunction Act Does Not Bar Federal Court Review of Blagojevich-Era Legislation

The U.S. Supreme Court reversed a U.S. Court of Appeals in holding that a railroad may bring suit to challenge the validity of a discriminatory Alabama sales tax exemption. CSX Transp., Inc. v. Ala. Dep’t of Revenue, No. 09-520, 2011 WL 588790 (U.S. Feb. 22, 2011). Alabama imposes its sales and use tax on the use of diesel fuel for off-road use, including fuel used by railroads, but provides exemptions for fuel used by railroads’ direct competitors, commercial truckers and interstate water carriers. CSX sued to challenge the discriminatory scheme under the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 (4-R Act).Continue Reading Discrimination Train Has Left the Station: U.S. Supreme Court Remands Alabama Railroad Case

The California Court of Appeal held that receipts from Nortel’s license of computer programs used to operate a telephone company’s switch hardware were not subject to sales tax. Nortel Networks, Inc. v. State Board of Equalization, Case No. B213415 (2d App. Dist. Jan. 18, 2011). The court also partially invalidated Regulation 1507 on the grounds that the State Board of Equalization (SBE) had exceeded its authority when it enacted the regulation.

The Court of Appeal’s decision provides guidance regarding the scope of exempt Technology Transfer Agreements (TTA), which are defined as “any agreement under which a person who holds a patent or copyright interest assigns or licenses to another person the right to make and sell a product or to use a process that is subject to the patent or copyright.” Cal. Rev. & Tax. Code § 6011(c)(10)(D); 6012(c)(10)(D).Continue Reading California Court of Appeal Switcheroo: Software Constitutes Technology Transfer Agreement

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has demonstrated an increased scrutiny of tax accounting by issuing two fines in the last seven months. Most recently, the SEC fined a taxpayer $200,000 for failure to have the proper controls in place to ensure accurate accounting related to compliance with states’ sales and use tax laws. As previously reported in the September 2010 issue of the SALT Shaker, the SEC fined a taxpayer for alleged improper accounting related to tax reserve manipulation.Continue Reading SEC Fines Company for Failure to Collect and Remit State Sales Tax

Taxpayers have just begun to struggle with the application of states’ related party addback provisions. On January 31, 2011, the Massachusetts Appellate Tax Board (ATB) issued its decision in the first Massachusetts case that addressed the application of the related party addback provision to an intercompany interest and royalty expense. Kimberly-Clark Corp. et al. v. Comm’r of Revenue, Mass. App. Tax Bd., Dkt. No. C282754 (Jan. 31, 2011). In Kimberly-Clark, the ATB addressed the deductibility of interest expense related to the company’s cash management system and royalties related to intellectual property.

The Massachusetts Department of Revenue (Department) assessed the taxpayer based on a denial of the interest expense deduction for pre-addback and addback tax years. The ATB upheld the Department’s denial of the expense deduction because it determined that, based on the preponderance of the evidence, the taxpayer’s cash management system loans did not constitute bona fide debt. The ATB determined that the loans were not debt because the taxpayer had no expectation that the cash advances would be repaid, and there were no security, default, or collateral provisions.Continue Reading Kimberly-Clark Gets No “Huggies” from Massachusetts Appellate Tax Board