By Saabir Kapoor and Pilar Mata

The California Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s decision in favor of the State Board of Equalization (BOE), holding that a taxpayer’s evidence of communications with the BOE presented triable issues of material fact as to whether the BOE should be equitably estopped from relying on administrative exhaustion requirements. The taxpayer, D.R. Systems, Inc., argued that it filed a valid sales tax refund claim with the BOE when it wrote a letter, pursuant to the specific instructions of a BOE agent, explaining the taxpayer was owed a “large credit balance” that it had uncovered while performing a self-audit of prior year revenues. In order for a sales tax refund claim to be valid, California requires that the claim be in writing and state the specific grounds upon which the claim is founded. The BOE argued that the taxpayer’s letter was not a valid refund claim because it did not specify grounds for a refund, and thus had not exhausted its administrative remedies before filing suit. Although the court agreed with the BOE that the taxpayer’s communications did not constitute a valid refund claim, the court nevertheless found that the doctrine of equitable estoppel may be appropriately invoked to prevent an injustice to the taxpayer for failure to comply with a procedural requirement. Specifically, if the taxpayer could show at trial that its reliance on the BOE agent’s statements was reasonable, the BOE should be estopped from raising the taxpayer’s failure to exhaust administrative requirements as a defense. D.R. Systems, Inc. v. Cal. State Bd. of Equalization, Cal. Ct. App., Dkt. No. D060856 (March 7, 2013) (unpublished).

By Suzanne Palms and Andrew Appleby 

The Michigan Court of Appeals held that a taxpayer was not liable for additional single business tax (SBT) and use tax because the taxpayer was making sales of tangible personal property at its Michigan facility rather than performing a service. The taxpayer’s business activities at issue consisted of “mass printing of documents,” the content of which was delivered to the taxpayer electronically by its customers. The State argued that the taxpayer provided a service, while the taxpayer argued it was making sales of tangible personal property. The court relied on Catalina Mktg. Sales Corp. v. Dep’t of Treas., 678 N.W.2d 619 (Mich. 2004), and applied the “incidental to service” or “true object” test to find that the taxpayer was in the business of producing tangible personal property at the facility. The court determined that the taxpayer’s customers created the intangible content, and the taxpayer simply printed it on paper for delivery. Thus, the true object of the transaction was the printed document. The “true object” test is often used in the sales and use tax context, but this case is unique because the court applied the test not only in the use tax context but also in the SBT context. HOV Servs., Inc. v. Dep’t of Treas., Dkt. No. 309575 (Mich. Ct. App. Mar. 21, 2013) (unpublished).

By Maria Todorova and Jack Trachtenberg

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio ruled that the Tax Injunction Act (TIA) served as a jurisdictional bar, depriving the court of subject matter jurisdiction in a case involving claims of a discriminatory real property foreclosure proceeding and unpaid property taxes. The taxpayers challenging the foreclosure used the real property for religious activities and claimed they filed three applications seeking tax-exempt status for the parcel. The county, however, reassessed the parcel’s value on the grounds that it had received only one application for a tax exemption, which was untimely. The reassessment resulted in a tax foreclosure proceeding in which the trial court entered a judgment against the taxpayers for the real property taxes owed. The taxpayers appealed to federal district court alleging, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, as well as the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The court held that subject matter jurisdiction was lacking under the TIA because the taxpayers were actually challenging a foreclosure proceeding brought to collect a tax liability despite the fact their action was styled as a discrimination suit under the ADA and section 1983. The court further explained that the TIA applied because the taxpayers could have availed themselves of multiple “plain, speedy, and efficient” remedies under state law, including administrative and judicial appeal procedures for challenging tax valuations. This case is a good reminder that the federal courts often interpret the TIA broadly, and taxpayers are likely to continue the uphill jurisdictional battle to bringing a challenge in federal court, regardless of the type of claims asserted, where the ultimate relief sought is to inhibit the assessment, levy or collection of tax under state law. Heskett v. Athens County, No. 2:11-CV-00890 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 19, 2013).

Before entering into agreements with taxing authorities to extend the statute of limitations, taxpayers should consider the legal implications of these agreements, which often are dictated by the states. In this edition of A Pinch of SALT, Sutherland SALT’s Jonathan Feldman, Kathryn Pittman and Maria Todorova explore issues that taxpayers should consider before entering into waiver agreements.

Read “Considerations When Executing Waivers,” reprinted with permission from the March 18, 2013 edition of State Tax Notes.

We hope you enjoy this very special edition of the Sutherland SALT Shaker newsletter. In this issue:

  • Click This!: New York Enacts Über Nexus Statute
  • Compact Litigation Fallout
  • Two States Expected to Join MTC Compact
  • Lesser-Known Tax Council Convenes in South Georgia
  • U.S. Supreme Court Defines De Minimis: “You’ll Know It When You Don’t See It”
  • Sutherland Announces New Column
  • SALT Pet(s) of the Month: Saabir’s Sea Monkeys

Read the April 1, 2013 SALT Shaker newsletter.

As March comes to a close, we invite you to read all of our articles from the past month here on our website, or read each article by clicking on the title. If you prefer, you may also view a printable PDF version.

On March 28, 2013, the New York State Legislature passed budget legislation (S.2609D/A.3009D) that replaces the existing New York State and City related-party royalty add-back requirements with provisions based on the Multistate Tax Commission’s model add-back statute. In addition, the legislation repeals the New York State and City royalty income exclusions, which permitted taxpayers to exclude royalty income from taxable income when the royalty income would have been subject to the related party add-back requirement.

For additional details, read our legal alert, “A Royal Opportunity: Amendments to New York’s Royalty Expense Add-back Statute Leave the Income Exclusion Intact for Prior Years.”

Todd and Cooper.jpgMeet Cooper, the three-year-old Labradoodle of Washington, D.C. SALT Partner Todd Lard and his partner, Brian. Cooper lives in the Capitol Hill neighborhood of D.C., and his biggest claim to fame (and Todd’s greatest life accomplishment to date) was being named “Best Dog” in the annual pet photo contest in his neighborhood paper, The Hill Rag. The contest is a cutthroat competition among Capitol Hill’s numerous doggies; after he received the award, several neighbors jealously pointed out that their dog had seen Cooper’s picture in the paper.Cooper w Ball.jpg

Apart from being a local celebrity, Cooper’s favorite pastime is catching and fetching his green soccer ball. He could fetch the ball all day, and when he knows it’s time to go home, he grabs the ball and prances around to avoid Todd. Cooper also loves the water, especially swimming and fetching floaties in the Potomac River and in the U.S. Capitol building fountains.

On the weekends, Cooper likes to go to nearby Congressional Cemetery and play chase with other dogs. He loves weaving in and around the tombstones and finding mud holes to scope out. While it may seem weird to play in a cemetery, the Congressional Cemetery dog-walking experience is remarkable. Historic Congressional Cemetery houses the graves of many important Washington figures, such as John Philip Sousa, Matthew Brady and J. Edgar Hoover. It became run-down and neglected, but in the 1980s, dog walkers cleaned up the property. Now, the cemetery is a great place to explore local history, and it still has a strong and large dog-walking program in what amounts to a 35-acre, off-leash dog park. 

Cooper was a frequent visitor to the offices of Todd’s former employer, the Council On State Taxation.  Here’s hoping Capitol Hill’s “best dog” can make an appearance at the new Sutherland office as well!

By Sahang-Hee Hahn and Prentiss Willson

The New York State Department of Taxation and Finance ruled in an Advisory Opinion that a Virginia corporation was subject to New York corporation franchise tax because it hired independent contractors to store its consigned inventory and to solicit orders from and deliver products to New York customers. In this case, the taxpayer consigned inventory to approximately 16 independent contractors located in New York, who maintained the taxpayer’s inventory at in-state locations and delivered the products sold to New York customers. The taxpayer neither owned physical sales locations in New York nor paid rent to such independent contractors for storing inventory at their locations. The taxpayer did, however, retain title to its products until they were sold. The Department ruled that the taxpayer was “doing business,” as defined under N.Y. Tax Law § 209(1), because the taxpayer owned the products that it consigned to its independent contractors until sold to New York customers. The Department further determined that the statutory “order fulfillment” exemption under N.Y. Tax Law § 209(2)(f) did not apply because the independent contractors did “more than just accept or just ship orders in New York State.” The Department likewise took the position that P.L. 86-272 did not protect the taxpayer’s activities because the independent contractors both solicited orders from New York customers and delivered the products to them. TSB-A-13(4)C, New York Dept. of Tax. & Fin. (March 4, 2013).