The Michigan Court of Appeals reversed and vacated the Tax Tribunal’s order and held that merged entities that are a unitary business group (“UBG”) must be treated as single entity for purposes of calculating the franchise tax and that corporate income tax credits carried over to the new entity. The taxpayer, Comerica, Inc., was a bank holding corporation, which owned subsidiary financial corporations. For financial corporations, the franchise tax is imposed on the financial corporation’s net capital, which means the equity capital less goodwill and obligations. The taxpayer argued that the Department of Treasury double-counted its tax base because it did not treat the taxpayer and the entity with whom it merged as a single entity. The court agreed with the taxpayer relying on its recent decision in TCF Nat’l Bank v. Dep’t of Treasury, which held that the averaging formula – adding net capital at the close of the current tax year and the preceding years at issue , and dividing the resulting sum by the total number of years at issue – of the additional franchise tax must be applied to a unitary business group as a single taxpayer rather than at the individual member level. In addition, the court reserved the Tribunal’s order that the tax credits could not be transferred because they were subject to single-assignment limitation. The Department argued that the credits were extinguished because they were assigned previously. The court disagreed and held that tax credits are property that fell within the merger statute. Accordingly, the merger did not cause the credits to be assigned but instead the credits transferred by operation of law.

Comerica, Inc. v. Dep’t of Treasury, Mich. Ct. App., No. 344754, (Apr. 16, 2020).

 

Earlier today, Maryland Governor Larry Hogan vetoed H.B. 732, which proposed a first of its kind Digital Advertising Tax. The Governor also vetoed H.B. 932, which would have expanded Maryland’s sales tax to sales of digital products (both downloads and streaming).

Unless a special session is scheduled between now and the end of the year, the Maryland General Assembly will consider the Governor’s vetoes upon convening its regular session in January. As both the House of Delegates and the Senate have veto-proof Democratic majorities, lawmakers could override the Governor’s vetoes by a three-fifths vote of both chambers’ members.

Digital Advertising Tax:

H.B. 732 proposed a new tax on the annual gross revenues derived from digital advertising services in Maryland. The definition of “digital advertising services” broadly includes “advertisement services on a digital interface, including advertisements in the form of banner advertising, search engine advertising, interstitial advertising, and other comparable advertising services.”

The tax rate varies from 2.5% to 10% of the annual gross revenues derived from digital advertising services in Maryland, depending on a taxpayer’s global annual gross revenues. To be required to pay the tax, a taxpayer must have at least $100,000,000 of global annual gross revenues and at least $1,000,000 of annual gross revenues derived from digital advertising services in Maryland.

The proposed digital advertising tax has drawn scrutiny as violating federal law, including the Permanent Internet Tax Freedom Act and the dormant Commerce Clause. For Eversheds Sutherland’s critique of the tax, please see our recent article, If Md.’s Digital Ad Tax Is Passed, Court Challenges Will Follow.

Veto Letter:

Governor Hogan’s veto letter characterized the tax as “misguided” and noted that the state should not “raise taxes and fees on Marylanders at a time when many are already out of work and financially struggling.” Because of the ongoing concerns with COVID-19, the Governor declared that “it would be unconscionable to raise taxes and fees now. To do so would further add to the very heavy burden that our citizens are already facing.”

Next Steps:

The General Assembly must consider the Governor’s veto message as the first order of business at the next regular or special legislative session, unless the rules are otherwise suspended. While legislative leaders tentatively planned for a special session at the end of May to complete the shortened legislative session, this plan has been set aside due to COVID-19 concerns. If a special session is not scheduled, lawmakers may consider an override of the Governor’s vetoes at the next regular legislative session in January.

To override the Governor’s veto, a three-fifths vote of both chambers’ members is required. As both H.B. 732 and H.B. 932 passed with three-fifths support of each chamber, a veto override is possible unless some lawmakers reconsider their support of the bill.

The vetoed tax measures were intended to fund H.B. 1300, the Blueprint for Maryland’s Future (i.e., the Kirwan education reform package). The Governor also vetoed the education reform package.

Eversheds Sutherland’s State and Local Tax team will continue to monitor Maryland’s tax developments. If Maryland’s Digital Advertising Tax is ultimately enacted, litigation based on federal law principles will quickly ensue.

The Nebraska Department of Revenue (“Department”) issued guidance explaining that Nebraska Advantage Act (“Act”) project-holders may not have to repay incentives if they cannot meet their project obligations due to COVID-19. The Act provides incentives to businesses that commit to certain levels of employment and investment as part of an expansion project in Nebraska. The Act also contains a force majeure provision exempting project-holders from the obligation to repay incentives if they fail to meet employment or investment obligations due to an act of God or a national emergency. The Department considers the national emergency declared on March 13, 2020 to be a “triggering event” to invoke the force majeure provision. However, the Department notes that a project-holder must show the failure to meet its incentive obligations was caused by the COVID-19 national emergency. Specifically, the project-holder must provide evidence that its failure is “the direct result of forces beyond its control,” such as “a government order to cease or reduce operations, or a directed health measure that prevented the business from continuing its usual operations.” The Department stated that failure to meet obligations due to “financial hardship” or as “the result of a business decision within the control of the project-holder” is not sufficient to avoid recapture under the force majeure provision.

As the COVID-19 pandemic is likely to impair taxpayers’ abilities to comply with state incentive agreements, we encourage other states to consider the type of flexibility offered by Nebraska.

Calling all trivia fans! Don’t miss out on a chance to show off your SALT knowledge!

We will award prizes for the smartest (and fastest) participants.

This Week’s Question
What are the only two states without some form of tax uniformity clause in their constitutions?

E-mail your response to SALTonline@eversheds-sutherland.com.

The prize for the first response to today’s question is a $20 UBER Eats gift card.

Answers will be posted on Monday. Be sure to check back then!

This podcast discusses issues taxpayers should consider when appealing proposed assessments including:

  • The risk that states can increase tax assessments after appeal
  • Strategies to limit the risk of increases to assessments

 

 

Listen now: 

Subscribe for more:

  

The CARES Act provides for special federal tax treatment for “coronavirus-related distributions” from most types of tax-qualified retirement plans and IRAs. The distribution must be made between January 1, 2020 and December 31, 2020 to an individual diagnosed with the virus, caring for a spouse or dependent diagnosed with the virus, or experiencing adverse financial consequences stemming from certain pandemic-related situations (such as quarantine). Income related to those distributions is subject to federal income tax ratably over three years, rather than all at once, unless the individual elects not to have the ratable inclusion apply. However, this favorable tax treatment may not apply for state and local tax purposes.

Read our full legal alert here.

Thank you to everyone who participated in last week’s trivia question!

Last Week’s Question:
What was the first state to adopt a single-factor sales factor formula for apportioning an interstate corporation’s income for state income tax purposes?

The Answer:
The Multistate Tax Compact was drafted in 1966 and became effective, according to its own terms, on August 4, 1967, after a minimum of seven states had adopted it. On April 20, 1967, Kansas became the first state to enact the Multistate Tax Compact, followed shortly after by Washington (June 8, 1967), Texas (June 13, 1967), New Mexico (June 19, 1967), Illinois (July 1, 1967), and Florida and Nevada (August 4, 1967).

Keep an eye out for our next trivia question on Wednesday!

This is the first edition of the Eversheds Sutherland SALT Scoreboard for 2020. Since 2016, we have tallied the results of what we deem to be significant taxpayer wins and losses and analyzed those results. This edition of the SALT Scoreboard includes a discussion of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision on the Tax Injunction Act, insights regarding alternative apportionment, and a spotlight on Washington cases.

View our Eversheds Sutherland SALT Scoreboard results from the first quarter of 2020!

As we continue to follow through on stay-at-home orders, Eversheds Sutherland Associate Lexi Louderback has found a new Rae of sunshine to help keep her occupied. Meet Rae, a 10-week old, golden doodle puppy.

Rae was born right before the stay-at-home order began, so it’s been a challenge to teach her that people other than Lexi exist in the world. The quarantine might have prevented Rae from receiving all of her shots, but that hasn’t stopped Lexi from making sure Rae socializes with others. Each night Lexi and Rae go for a walk, well at least Lexi does. Lexi will carry Rae around the neighborhood and show her that there are other people and dogs. Rae has already become very popular, with neighbors waiting to wave to her from their porch each night. As they’re walking, Lexi will also hold Rae out like Simba at Pride Rock for other dogs walking on the street, so Rae can socialize with them too.

Rae has been very quiet so far, and Lexi keeps losing her around the house. She will find a small area to crawl in and fall asleep, and you can usually find her in the kitchen pantry or under the bed.

Rae is still a little too young to learn any tricks, but Lexi is working with her on the most important trick of them all – potty training.

We are thrilled to feature Rae as our April Pet of the Month!

Calling all trivia fans! Don’t miss out on a chance to show off your SALT knowledge!

We will award prizes for the smartest (and fastest) participants.

Today’s Question: In 1967, which state became the first to adopt the Multistate Tax Compact?

E-mail your response to SALTonline@eversheds-sutherland.com.

The prize for the first response to today’s question is a $20 UBER Eats gift card.

Answers will be posted on Monday. Be sure to check back then!