On December 12 and 13, Eversheds Sutherland Partner Jeff Friedman will co-chair the 41st Annual NYU School of Professional Studies’ Institute on State and Local Taxation, which provides high-level updates, practical advice, and in-depth analysis of the latest SALT developments and current issues.

In addition to moderating several panels, Jeff will present Overview and Review of Constitutional Issues on December 12.

Partner Michele Borens will moderate Super-Marketplace Sales Tax Issues on December 12.

Click here for more information and to register.

In addition, on December 14, Jeff will present Federal and State/Local Impact of the Pandemic – Tax Practice in a Post-Covid World during the TEI New York Chapter’s 59th Annual Tax Symposium. For more information and to register, click here.

This week on the SALT Shaker Podcast, host and Eversheds Sutherland Associate Jeremy Gove welcomes New York Associate Chelsea Marmor back to the show for a fun-filled holiday edition of overrated/underrated. They rate a variety of tax topics, and in keeping with the season, extend the overrated/underrated discussion to a number of festive holiday-themed topics as well.

They wrap with a specific underrated/overrated question – how do you feel about inflatable décor?

Questions or comments? Email SALTonline@eversheds-sutherland.com. You can also subscribe to receive our regular updates hosted on the SALT Shaker blog.

 

 

 

 

 

Listen now:

Subscribe for more:

   

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 our latest SALT Scoreboard, we featured a residency case from which state?

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!

The District of Columbia occupies a unique position among subnational jurisdictions in the United States given its status as a nonstate, federal enclave. The District’s status allows it to impose individual income tax on only residents under the district clause of the US Constitution, the Home Rule Act of 1973, and implementing statutes that are subject to general congressional oversight. Unlike states, which may tax source income of nonresidents, the District cannot tax nonresident income, including wages earned in the District. This limitation affects the District’s tax structure in a few ways, including the imposition of the District’s entity-level tax on unincorporated businesses.

Because of the ambiguities in the District’s definition of statutory resident, the Office of Tax and Revenue’s interpretation has created concern among individuals who have connections to the District and their employers.

In this installment of A Pinch of SALT in Tax Notes State, Eversheds Sutherland attorneys Charlie Kearns and Charles Capouet describe the District of Columbia’s statutory residency law, its associated risks, and what individuals can do to mitigate those risks.

Read the full article here.

The North Dakota Tax Commissioner updated its website to explain North Dakota’s Wayfair small seller exception to collecting and remitting state and local sales tax on sales made into the state. Consistent with North Dakota statutes, the website states that, for remote sellers with no physical presence in the state, the exception for small sellers “requires sales tax collection by remote sellers ONLY IF their taxable sales into the state exceed $100,000 in the current or previous calendar year.” See also N.D. Cent. Code §§ 57-39.2-02.2, 57-40.2-02.3. Once taxable sales exceed $100,000, a remote seller must obtain a permit and begin collecting tax on sales delivered during the following calendar year or beginning 60 days after the threshold is met, whichever is earlier.

In this episode of the SALT Shaker Podcast policy series, Eversheds Sutherland Partner and host Nikki Dobay is rejoined by Morgan Scarboro, Senior Director of Tax Policy at MultiState Associates for a year-end review of the state and local tax policy space.

Morgan and Nikki discuss what happened at the state level during the legislative sessions and the outcome and potential impact of the recent election. Additionally, Morgan and Nikki provide insight regarding what to expect with state revenues and SALT policy in 2023.

Nikki’s surprise nontax question deals with seasonal desserts – what is your favorite pie for the holidays?

Note: you can access the map of state government trifecta status that Morgan mentions during this episode here, as well as a map of red wave projections vs. post-election results here.

The Eversheds Sutherland SALT team has been engaged in state tax policy work for years, tracking tax legislation, helping clients gauge the impact of various proposals, drafting talking points and rewriting legislation. This series, which is focused on SALT policy issues, is hosted by Partner Nikki Dobay, who has an extensive background in tax policy.

Questions or comments? Email SALTonline@eversheds-sutherland.com. You can also subscribe to receive our regular updates hosted on the SALT Shaker blog.

 

 

Listen now:

Subscribe for more:

   

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 exempted hospital and provider clinics from the state’s tax on advanced computing businesses?

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!

On November 4, 2022, the Washington Department of Revenue adopted WAC 458-20-290, a regulation explaining the state’s workforce education investment surcharge on select advanced computing businesses. The regulation defines a select advanced computing business as “a person who is a member of an affiliated group with at least one member of the affiliated group engaging in the business of advanced computing, and the affiliated group had worldwide gross revenue of more than $25,000,000,000 during the immediately preceding calendar year.” Such businesses must report and pay the 1.22 percent surcharge on a quarterly basis, with the report due on the last day of the month following the end of the quarter.

The surcharge does not apply to hospitals and provider clinics and their affiliated organizations, or a business primarily engaged as a(n):

  • Financial institution;
  • Owner (or lessor) and operator of transmission facilities and infrastructure for the transmission of voice, data, text, sound, and video using wired telecommunications networks; or
  • Commercial mobile service provider.

Notably, the regulation imposes a requirement on businesses believed to be engaging in advanced computing, or affiliated with such a business, to disclose whether they are a member of an affiliated group and, if so, to identify all other members of the affiliated group. The regulation also imposes a 50 percent evasion penalty for those members of an affiliated group that intentionally fail to comply with the surcharge.

WAC 458-20-290 effective November 28, 2022.

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 is the only state to designate its highest court as the “Court of Appeals?”

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!

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the City of Reno was not entitled to file a lawsuit against streaming video providers for franchise fee payments. Reno sought damages for the streaming services providers’ alleged failure to collect franchise fees under Nevada’s Video Service Law. The court held that the law does not create a private right of action for cities to sue for unpaid franchise fees. Reno therefore failed to state a claim against the streaming service providers. Additionally, Reno failed to state a claim under the federal Declaratory Judgment Act because it sought affirmative relief and lacked a cause of action under a separate statute. Because Reno lacked a cause of action, the court declined to address the substantive question of whether the streaming video providers met the definition of a “video service provider” under the law.

City of Reno v. Netflix, Inc. et al., No. 21-16560 (9th Cir. Oct. 28, 2022)