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.
On February 9, Eversheds Sutherland Partner Liz Cha will present during the 2024 National Multistate Tax Symposium, held February 7-9 in Lake Buena Vista, FL. In its 20th year, the symposium will explore significant tax technical issues facing multistate tax professionals.
Liz’s panel will cover multistate income and franchise tax sourcing. She will help examine real-world sourcing scenarios within SALT income tax/franchise tax market sourcing rules and developments.
Over the past decade, data center incentives and exemptions increased in prevalence as states endeavored to attract more businesses in the growing and lucrative tech industry.
In this installment of A Pinch of SALT in Tax Notes State, Eversheds Sutherland attorneys Scott Wright, Laurin McDonald and Alla Raykin lay out general considerations and risks with these incentives as well as provide a detailed chart of each state’s incentive provisions.
Read the full article here.
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: The governor’s budget of which state included a proposal to extend the net operating loss carryforward period from 5 years to 20 years?
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 posted on Saturday in our SALT Shaker Weekly Digest. 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: Which state’s Supreme Judicial Court held that a prescription drug company’s income should be apportioned on a “market member basis” to the location where the prescription drugs were received?
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 posted on Saturday in our SALT Shaker Weekly Digest. Be sure to check back then!
We are eager to share our summary of SALT highlights from the past year, which was recently published in Tax Notes State.
2023 was an eventful year, and our Most Interesting State Tax (MIST) developments contain a mix of cases covering income tax, sales tax, and procedural issues.
With numerous states grappling with similar issues that grabbed our attention in 2023, what MIST developments can we expect in 2024 and beyond? The anticipation is killing us.
Read the full article here.
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: In California, a superior court invalidated certain guidance issued by the Franchise Tax Board because it constituted a regulation within the meaning of the state’s Administrative Procedure Act, but was not enacted in compliance with that act. Which federal law was the guidance related to?
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 posted on Saturday in our SALT Shaker Weekly Digest. Be sure to check back then!
The Texas Court of Appeals for the Third District upheld the Comptroller of Public Accounts’ Franchise Tax apportionment rule as facially valid, including the provisions apportioning receipts to Texas where the seller ships or delivers property in Texas—regardless of whether the buyer is ultimately located in the state.
The taxpayer, a company that transports and stores crude oil, argued that the apportionment regulation was facially invalid because it was contrary to the underlying statute. For purposes of the Franchise Tax, Texas statute provides that sales of tangible personal property are attributable to Texas “if the property is delivered or shipped to a buyer in [Texas,] regardless of the FOB point or another condition of the sale.” The taxpayer contended that the statute sourced sales to the buyer’s location. The taxpayer asserted that the apportionment regulation, 34 Texas Administrative Code Section 3.591, instead applied the tax on “transactions where the seller ships or delivers the property to the buyer in Texas, regardless of whether the buyer is located in state or out of state” (i.e., a “place of transfer” approach).
On review, the court concluded that the statute was unambiguous. The statute’s only “reasonable construction” was that “sales of tangible personal property are apportioned based on where that property is delivered or shipped” and, thus, “not where the buyer is ultimately located when they plan to use, sell, or otherwise dispose of the property.” While the apportionment statute was derived from model UDITPA language and the Multistate Tax Compact, the court opted not to follow other states’ interpretations because, as states took differing approaches, there was no “‘uniform’ implementation of the Multistate Tax Compact apportionment provision.”
NuStar Energy, L.P. v. Hegar, No. 03-21-00669-CV (Tex. Ct. App. Dec. 21, 2023).
On November 6, 2023, the Ohio Board of Tax Appeals determined that Aramark Corporation (“Aramark”) was not entitled to a refund of commercial activity tax (“CAT”) paid on management fees earned by the company in performance of certain cost-plus agreements. Aramark Corporation v. Harris, Case No. 2019-2975 (Ohio Bd. Tax App. Nov. 6, 2023).
Aramark is a food services, hospitality, facility services, and uniform services company. It provides a broad range of managed services to businesses and educational, healthcare, and government institutions. Some of Aramark’s services were provided pursuant to a “management fee” agreement where customers purchased food, supplies, and other items. Even though Aramark purchases these items, its customers reimburse Aramark for the expenses. Aramark sought to exclude the gross receipts associated with these purchased items.
Under Ohio’s CAT, there is an exclusion from “gross receipts” for “[p]roperty, money, and other amounts received or acquired by an agent on behalf of another in excess of the agent’s commission, fee, or other remuneration.” Ohio Rev. Code § 5751.01(F). The code defines an agent as “a person authorized by another person to act on its behalf to undertake a transaction for the other.” Id. § 5751.01(P). “An agent may include ‘[a] person retaining only a commission from a transaction with the other proceeds from the transaction being remitted to another person.’” Ohio Rev. Code § 5751.01(P)(2).
The Ohio Board of Tax Appeals denied Aramark’s claim that it was acting as an agent on behalf of its clients. The Board explained that, pursuant to Ohio Supreme Court precedent regarding agency, Aramark “must be ‘endowed with authority,’ and such authority must be linked to the activities that generate the gross receipts.” Aramark at 6. The Board observed that the contractual language in one of the management fee agreements, expressly providing that Aramark was an independent contractor and acted as such in its day-to-day operations, was inconsistent with this precedent. Id. at 8.
