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: Which state’s House recently proposed a bill that would limit property taxes on machinery used to manufacture critical materials?

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

The prize for the first response to today’s question is a $25 UBER Eats gift card. This week’s answer will be included in our SALT Shaker Weekly Digest, distributed on Saturday. Be sure to check back then!

On February 7, 2024, the South Dakota Supreme Court held that South Dakota’s use tax, as applied to the taxpayer, did not violate the Commerce or Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, despite some of the taxed equipment being used in South Dakota for only one day.

The taxpayer, a Minnesota-based company that specializes in installing drain tile for farming and government applications throughout the United States, completed drain tile projects in South Dakota using equipment that had been purchased in other states and on which the taxpayer had not paid sales tax in those states. The South Dakota Department of Revenue imposed a use tax on this equipment, including equipment used in South Dakota for as little as one day.

The taxpayer argued that the application of use tax was unconstitutional because the tax imposed was not fairly related to benefits the taxpayer received and was disproportionate to taxpayer’s activity in South Dakota. Specifically, the taxpayer contended that its use of equipment in South Dakota was “limited,” therefore the taxpayer did not receive benefits commensurate with the tax it paid. Additionally, the taxpayer argued that the tax was disproportionate in light of the fact that 90% of the taxpayer’s activities occurred outside of South Dakota.

Applying the four-part standard described in Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Brady, the South Dakota Supreme Court held the Department’s application of use tax to the taxpayer satisfied the Commerce Clause. The court held that the tax was fairly related to the benefits provided to the taxpayer because it enjoyed the same benefits as any other business present in the state and was free to use the equipment in state as often as it wanted. Moreover, the court found that the use tax statute was externally consistent and did not require that the equipment be “at rest” to be subject to the tax. Rather, the taxed activity was “simply an in-state use of equipment that was purchased outside the state without ever having paid sales taxes on the property.”

Ellingson Drainage, Inc. v. S.D. Dep’t of Revenue, 3 N.W.3d 417 (S.D. 2024).

A California appellate court held that Proposition 39, which mandated single-sales factor apportionment, did not violate the single-subject rule. In 2012, California voters enacted Proposition 39, which established a program to promote the creation of clean energy jobs. It funded the program by eliminating the option for taxpayers to apportion its California tax based on a three-factor apportionment formula, requiring instead single-sales factor apportionment. A Texas-based provider of credit score and credit reporting services paid tax to California pursuant to the single sales-factor method and filed a complaint for refund on the basis that Proposition 39 was invalid under the single-subject rule for ballot initiatives. The court held that Proposition 39 did not violate the rule because its purpose was to fund a clean energy job creation program by raising taxes on some multistate businesses. The proposition’s provisions were “reasonably germane” to this purpose because “they provided the mechanisms to raise tax revenues and direct them to clean energy job creation.” Plus, the provisions were “functionally related” because the apportionment formula change funded the clean energy jobs program.

One Technologies LLC v. Franchise Tax Board, 314 Cal.Rptr.3d 718 (Cal. Ct. App. 2023).

Taxpayer, a fleet management company, leases vehicles to businesses pursuant to a lease agreement that contains a terminal rental adjustment clause (“TRAC”) which is a clause that adjusts the amount of rent due under the lease at the end of the lease based on the value of the vehicle at that time. Depending on the vehicle’s value, the lessee may owe additional rent at the end of the lease or be entitled to a refund of rent previously paid. 

By statute, New York requires that sales tax be remitted on rent payments required by a vehicle lease at the beginning of the lease if the lease lasts more than one year. N.Y. Tax Law § 1111(i) The taxpayer remitted sales tax on the sum of the total estimated rent payments at the time the parties entered into the lease agreement. At the end of the lease, if the TRAC resulted in a refund of rent to the lessee, the taxpayer refunded the tax paid on that rent and took a credit on its New York sales tax returns. If the TRAC resulted in a payment of additional rent, the taxpayer remitted sales tax on that additional rent. After an audit, the Division of Taxation determined that the taxpayer could not take credits on its sales tax returns for sales tax it refunded due to the TRAC. The ALJ ruled in favor of the Division, stating that the taxpayer properly collected and paid the sales tax due at the beginning of the leases and that no statutory provision allows the taxpayer to take credits for sales tax refunds paid to its lessees.

The taxpayer appealed to the Tax Appeals Tribunal arguing that, inter alia, the TRAC provision is an integral part of the lease agreements and thus the lease end adjustments must be included when calculating taxable consideration. The Tribunal, affirming the ALJ, rejected the taxpayer’s argument reasoning that the statute “unambiguously” requires that the tax be paid at the beginning of the lease and that there was no legal basis for the sales tax to be refunded at the end of the lease. In support, the Tribunal pointed to the fact that during the 2022 legislative session the Legislature amended the statute to specifically allow sales tax refunds and credits for lease end adjustment on TRAC leases. The Tribunal stated that this change strongly support their conclusion “that such refunds and credits were not permitted by the version of the statute in effect during the period under review[.]”

In the Matter of the Petition of Gelco Corporation, DTA No. 829011 (Dec. 21, 2023).

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: A lawmaker recently proposed a bill that would provide tax relief for employers of tipper workers located in the state’s largest city – specifically during the time the city phases out the subminimum wage. In which state was the bill proposed?

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

The prize for the first response to today’s question is a $25 UBER Eats gift card. This week’s answer will be included in our SALT Shaker Weekly Digest, distributed on Saturday. Be sure to check back then!

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: A recent bill introduced in which state proposes eliminating property from the state’s franchise tax calculation?

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

The prize for the first response to today’s question is a $25 UBER Eats gift card. This week’s answer will be included in our SALT Shaker Weekly Digest, distributed on Saturday. Be sure to check back then!

On February 5, 2024, the Offices of the Controller and Treasurer & Tax Collector for the City and County of San Francisco published a report outlining tax reform recommendations in time to inform a potential ballot measure for the upcoming November 2024 election. The report recommends significant changes to San Francisco’s gross receipts tax.

Read the full Legal Alert here. 

Meet George, our February SALT Pet of the Month!

This adorable pup belongs to Karen Dewalt, VP of Global Tax at The Home Depot. As a true golden retriever, George loves being close to his humans. He will often playfully bark for “uppies,” asking to sit on someone’s lap. You should enjoy it while you can, George – you won’t be lap sized for long!

George is also pawsitively loyal to both Karen and Notre Dame’s football team. On game days, he proudly dons his “Fighting Irish” jersey, showing off Notre Dame blue against his polished golden coat.

Welcome to the SALT Pet of the Month family, George! We’re happy to have you steal the show.