The New York Legislature has approved budget legislation for the Fiscal Year 2021 (the Budget Bill). Consistent with Governor Andrew Cuomo’s earlier promises, the Budget Bill does not contain significant revenue raising provisions, but there are some notable tax changes. The Budget Bill was finalized as the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance has separately extended certain payment and filing deadlines.

Read the full Legal Alert here.

On Friday, April 3 the Texas Supreme Court issued three decisions addressing the availability and scope of the cost of goods sold, or “COGS,” deduction.

Hegar v. American Multi-Cinema Inc.

The first, and most anticipated, decision is Hegar v. American Multi-Cinema, Inc.1  This case concerned whether AMC, the movie-theater chain, was eligible to deduct COGS for its costs of exhibiting films.

Read the full Legal Alert here.

The Utah Governor signed a law amending sales and use tax exemptions in relation to certain data centers on March 31, 2020. S.B. 114 includes several measures including the definition of a qualifying data center for purposes of the Sales and Use Tax Act; the exemption for an occupant of a qualifying data center for the purchase of certain equipment; and the clarification that an amount paid or charged for a lesson is not subject to sales tax as a user fee. Additionally, the bill also excludes from the definition of a marketplace facilitator persons facilitating a sale for a seller that is a restaurant. The law is to take effect on July 1.

Given the dramatic limitations on business travel and mandatory work-from home policies caused by COVID-19 concerns, multistate employers should evaluate how these disruptions impact their state and local tax obligations related to employment. Following is a brief summary of the state and local employment tax issues that multistate employers may need to address during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Crossing the line
Many employees have severely and unexpectedly restricted their business travel due to COVID-19. Those employees may not cross a state’s or locality’s withholding threshold during the applicable period and, therefore, their employers may not be obligated to withhold tax in the jurisdiction(s). As a result, employers may need to adjust their employees’ nonresident withholding certifications or allocations to avoid over- or under-withholding state or local taxes from wages.

Location, location, location
Moreover, mandatory work-from-home policies may affect state or local withholding reporting and remittance obligations. In the case where an employee normally works in one state but currently teleworks in another state, the employer may need to adjust withholding because states generally require employers to withhold tax based on where an employee works, i.e., the “source” of their taxable wages. Numerous exceptions exist to the general source taxation rule, most notably state reciprocity agreements and so-called convenience of the employer rules. Both of these exceptions may be traps for the unwary, potentially creating additional tax compliance issues for employers. To mitigate this risk, employers may need to update their withholding compliance, polices, and procedures in the jurisdictions where their employees are now teleworking and those of their usual work locations.

Work-from-home contributions
In light of current work-from-home policies, multistate employers also should review their compliance with the state unemployment insurance (UI) localization rules and reciprocal agreements, which determine where an employer pays UI tax for an employee working in multiple states. While the UI localization rules are generally uniform across states and reciprocity frequently applies, the UI rules may materially differ from employer withholding source taxation. Thus, work-from-home policies may affect an employer’s UI tax compliance (especially if such policies are extended) and, even worse, may increase an employer’s UI tax liability. Given the dramatic limitations on business travel and mandatory work-from home policies caused by COVID-19 concerns, multistate employers should evaluate how these disruptions impact their state and local tax obligations related to employment. Following is a brief summary of the state and local employment tax issues that multistate employers may need to address during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Other state employment tax obligations, like paid family leave or disability contributions, may be based on the UI localization rules and should also be reviewed given the recent changes to employee work locations.

Keeping up-to-date on state guidance
Finally, work-from-home policies also may impact general state and local tax obligations, like corporate income and sales taxes, most notably by creating nexus with the teleworker’s residence state. However, several states already have issued guidance stating they will not assert nexus over an out-of-state business solely because of teleworking due to COVID-19. It is imperative that employers track these developments to minimize their nexus footprint to avoid new state and local tax obligations during this unprecedented period.

Why this is important:
The elimination of business travel and surge in teleworking creates several state and local tax concerns, from withholding and unemployment insurance taxes to corporate income and sales/use taxes. Now is the appropriate time for US employers to proactively evaluate their employment and other state and local obligations to mitigate compliance and audit issues down the road.

This podcast discusses a recent Washington B&O decision and a recent California OTA decision concerning:

  • The WA B&O taxation of services conducted out of state for in state customers
  • The application of the CA LLC tax to a business that ceased activity in the state

 

 

Listen now: 

Subscribe for more:

  

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
The Internal Revenue Service was created by which US President?

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.

On April 3, the San Francisco Treasurer issued a statement extending the property tax deadline from April 10 to May 4. The authority for the extension stems from the County Board of Supervisors adopting a resolution to close its tax collector’s office until May 3. Taxpayers unable to pay San Francisco property taxes by May 4 for reasons related to COVID-19 can request waiver of penalties via an online form. San Mateo County similarly extended its property tax deadline until May 4.

The Treasurer and Tax Collector of Los Angeles, on the other hand, issued a statement informing taxpayers that the County has no authority to extend the April 10 deadline. Beginning on April 11, though, taxpayers unable to pay Los Angeles property taxes on time due to COVID-19 may submit an online request for penalty cancellation.

On March 30, 2020, the California Court of Appeal overruled the city of Oakland’s demurrer regarding the validity of its waste management franchise fees on the grounds the plaintiffs sufficiently alleged that the fees were taxes. The city entered into waste management contracts with two companies. In turn, the companies agreed to pay the franchise fees (and likely pass them on to the city’s residents). Three plaintiff individuals filed complaints for declaratory relief, asserting that the fees were actually local taxes subject to voter approval pursuant to Proposition 218.

In California, a franchise fee may constitute a tax to the extent it is not reasonably related to the value received from the government. The plaintiffs alleged that the waste management contracts were not the product of bona fide negotiations and that various financial analyses were not performed. The plaintiffs also alleged that these fees were disproportionately higher than those paid to other nearby municipalities, and Oakland’s procurement process was “mishandled and subject to political considerations.” The court held these allegations were sufficient to state a claim that the franchise fees were not reasonably related to the value received from the government – and therefore were taxes – and overruled the trial court’s determination to the contrary.

Zolly v. City of Oakland, Dkt. No. A154986 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 30, 2020).

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

Last Week’s Question:
Which two states refer to their state taxing agency as “the Comptroller?”

The Answer:
Maryland and Texas. Most taxes in Maryland and Texas are administered by, respectively, the Maryland Comptroller of the Treasury and the Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas.

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

On March 27, 2020, the President signed into law the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (the CARES Act). Passed in response to the economic repercussions of the COVID-19 pandemic, the CARES Act makes a number of significant changes to the I.R.C., including rolling back certain limitations on the utilization of net operating losses (NOLs) that were put in place by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (the TCJA). Because of states’ differing rules on NOLs and conformity to the I.R.C., the CARES Act’s changes to the federal NOL rules will have varying SALT implications.

Read the full Legal Alert here.