This is the second edition of the Eversheds Sutherland SALT Scoreboard for 2023. Since 2016, we have tallied the results of significant taxpayer wins and losses and analyzed those results.
View our Eversheds Sutherland SALT Scoreboard results from the second quarter of 2023 now!
The Colorado Department of Revenue issued a private letter ruling concluding that a taxpayer’s income arising from the sale of Colorado real property is apportionable income because the property was used in the taxpayer property rental business. However, the proceeds from such sales are not “receipts” and thus not included in its Colorado apportionment factor calculation because the sale of the property did not occur in the regular course of the taxpayer’s business. The taxpayer received receipts in the regular course of its business from property rentals, and disposed of its real property only on infrequent occurrences. Thus, the Department concluded that proceeds for a sale of real property was apportionable income as it was “income arising from transactions and activity in the regular course of a taxpayer’s trade or business.” But, for purposes of determining the apportionment factor, receipts are included in the calculation only to the extent that they are “received from transactions and activity in the regular course of a taxpayer’s trade or business.” The taxpayer’s business is property rental, not property sales, and thus the Department determined that the receipts received from the disposition of the real property are not “receipts” for purposes of determining the taxpayer’s Colorado apportionment factor.
Colo. Dept. of Rev., PLR 23-002 (Mar. 13, 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: The Washington DOR recently determined that an audio equipment rental company who rented and also operated the equipment was not entitled to an exemption from what state-level tax?
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 Wisconsin Supreme Court recently held that the state’s sales tax exemption for the sale of aircraft parts and maintenance does not apply to per-flight-hour aircraft lease charges for repairs and maintenance.
Under Wis. Stat. § 77.51(15b)(a), sales tax applies to the total amount of consideration that the taxpayer receives for leasing its aircraft, without any deduction for the taxpayer’s cost of materials used, labor or service cost, or any other expense of the taxpayer. Although the taxpayer’s purchase of aircraft repairs and engine maintenance from vendors is tax-exempt, tax applies when the taxpayer passes those costs along to its customers as part of the total amount of consideration in a lease.
The taxpayer sought to apply statutory exemptions related to aircraft: Wis. Stat. § 77.54(5)(a)3., which exempts the sale of “parts used to modify or repair aircraft,” and Wis. Stat. § 77.52(2)(a)10., which exempts the sale of “repair, service, … and maintenance of any aircraft or aircraft parts.” The court held that the taxpayer’s activities fell outside of the text of the exemptions because it was leasing aircraft to the lessees rather than re-selling aircraft repairs or engine maintenance services. Further, the court found that the taxpayer was not incurring the repair and maintenance costs as the lessee’s agent. The repairs and maintenance were cost of the taxpayer’s business that did not reduce the taxable sales price of the aircraft lease.
Citation Partners, LLC v. Wisconsin Department of Revenue, 985 N.W.2d 761 (Wis. 2023)
Meet sweet Zita, our August Pet of the Month and rescue pup belonging to Jace Chevalier, Senior Tax Manager at T-Mobile. Named after the children’s book series “Zita the Spacegirl,” Zita joined the Chevalier family in 2021 by way of the Houston K-911 Rescue.
Jace and his family speculate that Zita is a Corgi and Pit Bull mix. They are one hundred percent certain, though, that she’s a good girl!
The five-year-old’s favorite munchies are bananas and sunflower seeds, and she also enjoys her two daily walks, chasing balls at the park and sunbathing on the deck.
Her morning routine of stretching, rolling around on her back, and making good morning sounds is pretty funny. It also didn’t take her long to figure out how to remove that sweater she’s wearing in the picture below!
We’re happy to have you, Zita!
On August 9, join Eversheds Sutherland attorneys Charles Capouet, Cyavash Ahmadi and Meriem El-Khattabi for a review of the long-standing SALT Scoreboard publication and the important state tax cases from the first half of 2023. In addition to recapping case opinions, Charles, Cyavash and Meriem will analyze case trends and compare 2023’s results to prior years’ case tallies.
Register to join us here.
In an article for Bloomberg Tax, Eversheds Sutherland attorneys Liz Cha and Jeremy Gove summarize recent tax developments in New York, including ones involving fiber-optic broadband and the treatment of buy-sell arrangements for petroleum products.
Read the full article here.
An Illinois Appellate Court affirmed a circuit court’s dismissal of a qui tam action filed against a United Kingdom-based tailoring shop. The court held that although the tailor’s failure to investigate its use tax collection obligations was “an ostrich-type situation,” the tailor nevertheless did not violate the Illinois False Claims Act.
The Illinois False Claims Act provides two theories of liability:
The Act defines “knowingly” to include a person: (i) having actual knowledge of the information; (ii) acting in deliberate ignorance of the truth or falsity of the information; or (iii) acting in “reckless disregard” of the truth or falsity of the information. The Relator claimed the tailor’s failure to investigate its tax responsibilities was reckless disregard of the tax law.
The tailor’s failure to investigate its use tax obligation could have been sufficient to demonstrate that it acted with reckless disregard, but the Relator failed to seek and submit discovery on the tailor’s nexus with Illinois to support a finding of scienter, i.e. the requisite knowledge under the False Claims Act.
Further, in choosing to use the words “avoid” and “conceal,” the court found that the legislature intended to cover only those persons who intentionally choose not to meet their tax obligation, rather than a merely failing to pay tax.
The record failed to show the tailor knowingly concealed, avoided, or decreased an overpayment it received from the State of Illinois. Therefore a dismissal of the qui tam action was warranted.
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 legislature recently overrode a governor’s veto of a bill that creates a payroll tax to increase funding for child care?
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 power and reach of administrative agencies — often led by unelected officials — has long been a source of controversy. Nearly 40 years ago, in Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court held that an administrative agency’s interpretation of a statute administered by that agency should be given deference if (1) the statutory provision is ambiguous and (2) the agency’s interpretation is merely reasonable. Since then, the case “has become ‘the most cited case in modern public law.’” For state tax practitioners, this is nothing new — deference to a tax collector’s interpretation of the tax law was taken for granted well before Chevron was decided, and its application extended beyond formally promulgated regulations.
Wide variation between and within states’ administrative deference doctrines are problematic for obvious reasons. Taxpayers and businesses are harmed when there is uncertainty whether the law will be applied the same way in factually (and substantively) similar circumstances. But the rise of state tax tribunals, recent judicial opinions, and legislative and voter actions call into question the continued existence and viability of Chevron and related doctrines: How much deference should tax administrators be entitled to (if any)?
In this installment of A Pinch of SALT in Tax Notes State, Eversheds Sutherland attorneys Jonathan Feldman, Cyavash Ahmadi and Cat Baron explore the deference afforded to state administrative agencies and suggest that, perhaps, the high-water mark is behind us.
Read the full article here.
