Nexus news – recent Due Process and P.L. 86-272 cases
In this column for Journal of State Taxation, Eversheds Sutherland Partner Breen Schiller discusses two important nexus defenses, Due Process Clause and P.L. 86-272, as well developments in this area.
Catching up with CalTax – part II
In this episode of the SALT Shaker Podcast policy series, host and Eversheds Sutherland Partner Nikki Dobay is joined again by Rob Gutierrez, President and CEO of the California Taxpayers Association (CalTax) for round two of their discussion. Catch up on part one here.
Rob updates Nikki on the final days of California’s latest legislative session, including movement on specific legislation, and provides details on legislation that will carry over into the 2022 session. He also provides an update on the recent governor recall, and what impact it may have over the next year to 18 months. He also discusses the 2022 ballot initiatives you should have on your radar. They then wrap up with the surprise, nontax question – what’s your favorite musical?![]()
The Eversheds Sutherland State and Local Tax 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 state and local tax policy issues, is hosted by Partner Nikki Dobay, who has an extensive background in tax policy.
Questions or comments? Email SALTonline@eversheds-sutherland.com.
Listen now:
Subscribe for more:
At California State Court, streaming video providers notch another video service provider fee win
On September 20th, the Los Angeles County Superior Court held that local video service provider fees do not apply to streaming video providers. This decision is consistent with a prior decision by the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, which held that streaming video providers were not subject to Nevada localities’ franchise fees, along with recent decisions by the United States District Courts for the Western District of Arkansas and the Eastern District of Texas. See City of Ashdown, Arkansas v. Netflix, Inc. & Hulu, LLC, Case No. 4:20-cv-4113 (W.D. Ark. 2021); City of New Boston, Texas v. Netflix, Inc. & Hulu, LLC, No. 5:20-CV-00135-RWS (E.D. Tex. 2021).
The city of Lancaster filed a class action complaint against two streaming video providers, claiming that they provide video services in California using broadband wireline facilities located at least in part in public rights-of-way, and thus must pay local video service provider fees imposed under California’s Digital Infrastructure and Video Competition Act (the Act). After holding that California localities such as Lancaster lacked the right to bring a case under the Act against streaming video providers, the court further concluded that the local video service provider fees imposed by the Act do not apply to the streaming video providers.
The court reached this decision for two primary reasons. First, the streaming video providers’ use of Internet service providers’ networks to distribute their content does not constitute the type of “use” of the public right-of-way rendering them liable for the local video service provider fees. Second, the court concluded that the streaming video providers do not meet the definition of a “video service provider” that provides “video programming” under the Act because the streaming video providers’ services were not comparable to the live, linear, channelized, scheduled, or programmed programming provided by a television broadcast station.
SALT trivia – October 6, 2021
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 Maine Board of Tax Appeals disallowed a resident individual taxpayer’s claim for a Maine income tax credit for taxes paid to 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!
California implements marketplace facilitator fee collection
On September 30, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed AB 1402, which amends California’s sales and use tax law to require marketplace facilitators to register, collect, and remit certain fees on the retail sale of various items of tangible personal property sold in California. Under current law, a marketplace facilitator that facilitates the retail sale of tangible personal property is treated as the retailer for purposes of collecting and remitting sales tax. The new law expands marketplace facilitators’ collection responsibility beyond sales and use tax to specifically require collection of (i) the California tire fee, (ii) the covered electronic waste recycling fee, (iii) the lead-acid battery fee, and (iv) the lumber products assessment fee. The law takes effect on January 1, 2022.
Legal Alert: SCOTUS denies certiorari in New York opioid stewardship payment challenge
On October 4, 2021, the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari in an appeal from a decision of the Second Circuit which held that New York’s opioid stewardship payment, required as part of the New York Opioid Stewardship Act constituted a tax and not a fee for purposes of the Tax Injunction Act, barring federal court jurisdiction over the case.
Read the full Legal Alert here.
L is for local: Highlighting the evolution of local taxation, part II
On this episode of the Salt Shaker Podcast, host and Eversheds Sutherland Associate Jeremy Gove continues his discussion of local taxes with Partners Nikki Dobay and Breen Schiller. They expand on their prior discussion of municipal-level economic nexus provisions, the potential issues with their expansion and the potential legal issues regarding the attempt to enforce a local economic nexus standard. They then talk about the myriad of challenges taxpayers face regarding local tax audits and administration, including the hurdles created by localities’ use of third-party auditors.![]()
They wrap their discussion with Jeremy’s favorite question – overrated or underrated? This time, regarding puppets and marionettes vis a vis boy bands.
Questions or comments? Email SALTonline@eversheds-sutherland.com.
Listen now:
Subscribe for more:
Workaround this: No income tax credit for Maine taxpayer who paid Connecticut pass-through entity tax
The Maine Board of Tax Appeals (Board) disallowed a resident individual taxpayer’s claim for a Maine income tax credit for taxes paid to Connecticut by the taxpayer’s limited liability company (the Company). The Company, treated as an S corporation for federal purposes, paid Connecticut’s entity-level tax on pass-through entities (a tax that operates as a workaround to the federal state and local tax (SALT) deduction cap, benefiting pass-through entity owners). The taxpayer received an offsetting Connecticut personal income tax credit for the same amount paid by the Company. After that offsetting credit, the taxpayer owed no Connecticut income tax.
First, the Board rejected the taxpayer’s argument that he was entitled to a credit for the Company’s Connecticut tax paid because it was functionally a tax on his own personal income as the owner of, and recipient of flow-through income from, a pass-through entity. Even though the Company’s income passed through to the taxpayer, the Board explained that Maine’s credit is limited to taxes imposed on individuals and cannot be claimed for taxes paid by a separate business entity. Second, the Board dismissed the taxpayer’s argument that he could claim the credit for the amount of Connecticut income tax imposed upon him as an individual. Citing administrative guidance, the Board clarified that Maine’s credit applies to income taxes imposed by another state after application of credits; here, the taxpayer had no Connecticut personal income tax liability after using Connecticut’s offsetting credit for the Company’s tax paid.
This decision highlights a potential issue with many states’ new pass-through entity-level taxes intended as workarounds to the federal SALT deduction cap, namely, paying the entity-level tax in one state may impact an individual’s personal income tax credit for taxes paid in another.
[Individual Taxpayer] v. Maine Revenue Servs., Docket No BTA-2020-1 (Me. Bd. Tax App. Mar. 1, 2021).
SALT trivia – September 29, 2021
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 SALT team members recently explored local taxation on an episode of the SALT Shaker Podcast?
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!






