State and local authorities recently have used decisions and enforcement to go beyond the language in tax statutes.

In this edition of “A Closer Look” in Bloomberg Tax, Eversheds Sutherland attorneys Jeff Friedman and Liz Cha look at examples of these attempts to expand the tax base and the challenges faced by those who litigate such cases.

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: Which super cute pup was the last SALT Pet of the Month for 2022, and who does it belong 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!

2022 was a year of transition – we emerged from the pandemic and its fully-remote environment, and welcomed the return of face-to-face meetings and in-person conferences. Likewise, there was significant transition in the state and local tax world – while certain issues maintained their prominence (marketplace and apportionment developments, to name a few), new issues moved to the forefront of SALT conversations across the country (digital advertising taxes, digital goods, and crypto/virtual currencies, among others).

The Eversheds Sutherland SALT team was kept busy throughout the year tracking interesting state and local tax developments – more than 280 were posted to this site. The items highlighted below exemplify the trends in 2022. (Note: If you would like to receive our posts by email, please register here).

Digital Advertising Taxes

Developments regarding digital advertising taxes grabbed headlines throughout 2022, and much of the spotlight was on Maryland.

Digital Goods and Services

Throughout the year, states and localities issued decisions and guidance addressing the ever-expanding modern digital economy. The rapid pace of guidance will certainly continue in 2023, and will likely give rise to additional controversies.

Marketplace Issues Continue

As in prior years, developments regarding marketplaces and marketplace facilitators continued with some frequency. Marketplace laws have significantly impacted sales tax collection and remittance obligations, and jurisdictions continued to provide guidance regarding these new regimes.

Apportionment Disputes

Apportionment maintained its status as a leading corporate income tax policy and controversy issue in 2022, and we see no sign of that changing in 2023.

Crypto/Virtual Currencies and NFTs

In 2022, we saw new and notable guidance regarding the treatment of crypto/virtual currencies and non-fungible tokens (NFTs), as states grappled with the wide-ranging state and local tax implications of their mainstream adoption.

Remote Work, Worker Classification, Domicile and Residency

Worker classification, domicile and residency continued to be hot topics in 2022, owing both to the increasing prevalence of remote work, and to on-going litigation involving personal income tax disputes across the country. While the pandemic began to recede in 2022, issues arising from the new(ish) remote and partially-remote working environment are certain to continue in 2023.

The Multistate Tax Commission

The Multistate Tax Commission (MTC) – an organization representing states’ interests in imposing state and local taxes – had another active year in 2022. The MTC focused on a variety of significant projects, from its transfer pricing effort, to the taxation of partnerships, to the taxation of digital products.

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 state of Missouri recently advised that marketplace facilitators are eligible for a timely discount if they remit the tax owed on or before the due date of the tax return. What’s the percent of the discount?

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 in a special edition of the SALT Shaker Weekly Digest next week. Be sure to check back then!

The Nebraska Supreme Court upheld a lower court decision that a couple, partial owners of large trucking company, failed to prove that they changed their domicile from Nebraska to Florida for income tax purposes from 2010 to 2014. The taxpayers argued that they had changed their domicile to Florida, asserting that they had acquired a home in Florida, registered to vote in Florida, registered cars in Florida, obtained Florida driver’s licenses, joined a church and country club in Florida, maintained bank accounts in Florida, formed business relationships in Florida, had an attorney in Florida, changed their will to reference Florida law, and updated their passports to reflect their Florida address.

The Court, however, noted that the couple still spent a significant amount of time in Nebraska—more than half of the year counting partial days.  They also maintained a Nebraska residence, and investment and recreational properties in Nebraska. Additionally, they had two daughters who resided in Nebraska, a golf membership to a Nebraska club, and a jet ski, a boat, and a boat trailer registered in Nebraska. The couple had also made more political contributions to Nebraska entities or candidates than those in Florida, and served as board members or trustees for several Nebraska organizations.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court held that the lower court’s decision that the couple failed to prove they changed their domicile from Nebraska to Florida was supported by competent evidence, and was neither arbitrary, capricious, nor unreasonable.

The decision is available 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: Which state recently determined that receipts from the provision of genealogy services should be apportioned based on the customer’s location?

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 Friday in our SALT Shaker Weekly Digest. Be sure to check back then!

The Missouri Department of Revenue recently published remote seller and marketplace facilitator FAQs regarding the implementation of the state’s remote seller and marketplace facilitator use tax collection requirement. Beginning January 1, 2023, vendors (including marketplace facilitators) selling tangible personal property into Missouri must collect use tax on the retail sale price if the vendor’s gross receipts from taxable sales in Missouri exceed $100,000 in a calendar year. While a remote seller is any seller without a physical presence in Missouri, the Department defines a marketplace seller as any entity or person making sales through “any electronic marketplace” operated by a marketplace facilitator. A marketplace seller is not subject to the collection requirement unless it has taxable sales in Missouri exceeding $100,000 apart from its sales through a marketplace facilitator. The FAQs provide that a marketplace facilitator is an entity or person operating a website that allows customers to buy goods or services from various vendors. The FAQs also provide guidance for marketplace facilitators on how to register for Missouri use tax collection, and how to report the tax collected.

A recent significant precedential and unanimous decision by the California Office of Tax Appeals, Matter of the Appeal of Beckwith, provided more guidance on how to determine California domicile and residency for state personal income tax purposes.

In his article for Law360, Eversheds Sutherland Senior Counsel Eric Coffill provides five domicile takeaways and lessons learned from Beckwith.

Read the full article here.

California Dreamin’! Meet Callie, an eight-year-old yellow lab belonging to Mark McCormick, Director of US State Local and Indirect Tax at Newell Brands.

Callie joined Mark and his family as a small pup. They had just gotten back from a trip to California (where Mark is from) when they got her, so she is their “California girl.”

True to her roots, she loves to swim at the beach or the lake, and is always up for a game of fetch.

She’s no stranger to treats, and will eat anything and everything. However, she is particularly fond of pizza crust, cheese and popcorn.

When Mark works from home, she will bound up the stairs to his office when it is time to work, and enjoys sitting at his feet most of the day.

In addition to being adorable, she’s a true “bionic dog,” as she blew out both of her ACLs about 2 years apart. Both injuries required surgery, but now she is almost as good as new! She has plenty of snuggling left to give Mark and his family.

We’re glad to have you, Callie!

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 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently held that which city in which state was not entitled to file a lawsuit against streaming video providers for franchise fee payments?

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. Answers will be posted on Saturdays in our SALT Shaker Weekly Digest. Be sure to check back then!