Peek-a-boo, or peekapoo? Meet Freddie, an adorable Pekingese Poodle, a breed affectionately known as peekapoo.

Freddie belongs to SALT associate Cyavash Ahmadi and his wife, who brought Freddie home when he was a few months old. It was love at first woof!

Besides mastering the perfect puppy eyes over the years, he loves cheese (especially gouda!) and whipped cream, and prefers sleeping to athletic runs through his neighborhood in New York. He likes to spend his days watching TV, and is a big fan of Bravo.

In addition to watching his favorite shows, he has a funny habit of growling when he’s craving cold water from a red plastic cup.

Freddie’s a cute boy who has made his mark on the Ahmadi household!

Welcome to the SALT Pet of the Month family, Freddie!

 

 

 

 

This week, members of the Eversheds Sutherland SALT team will continue presentations for key industry organizations:

View and learn more about past and upcoming events and presentations for the SALT team.

The Ohio Supreme Court recently held that Cincinnati’s billboard excise tax is unconstitutional because the tax violated the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, finding that Cincinnati’s need to raise revenue by imposing the tax solely on a small number of billboard operators did not survive strict scrutiny.

In 2018, the Cincinnati City Council passed an ordinance which imposed an excise tax on advertising hosts with advertising signs in the city. Many types of signs were excluded, effectively targeting a small group to bear most of the tax burden. Two billboard operators challenged the ordinance, arguing that the tax violated their First Amendment rights to free speech and freedom of the press.

The Court reviewed US Supreme Court decisions that applied the First Amendment to state taxes and distilled four principles: (1) the press may be subjected to a generally applicable tax; (2) a tax is unconstitutional if an official must look at the content of speech to determine whether the tax applies to it; (3) a tax that selectively singles out the press or targets a small group of speakers creates the danger that the tax will be used to censor speech; and (4) it is not necessary to prove that the purpose of a tax is to suppress or punish speech to establish that the tax violates the First Amendment. Although Cincinnati had an interest in raising money to support local government, the tax did not survive strict scrutiny because it burdened activities protected by the First Amendment, created a potent tool for censorship where the council had already previously requested to remove messages with which they disagreed and there were alternative means of achieving the same interest. Finally, the Ohio Supreme Court acknowledged that Maryland’s high court recently came to the opposite conclusion and upheld Baltimore’s imposition of a tax on billboards.  Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. v. Dir., Dept. of Fin. of Baltimore, 472 Md. 444, 247 A.3d 740, cert. pending, No. 21-219 (2021). The Ohio Court was not persuaded by Clear Channel.

Lamar Advantage GP Co., L.L.C. v. Cincinnati, Slip Opinion No. 2021-Ohio-3155.

In this episode of the SALT Shaker Podcast policy series, host and Eversheds Sutherland Partner Nikki Dobay welcomes Morgan Scarboro, Manager of Tax Policy at MultiState.

Morgan delves into the mission of MultiState as well as her work, including the incredible amount of state legislation she reads annually. Additionally, Morgan speaks to the impact of COVID-19 on state revenues and what taxes she sees as the main topic of conversation in the SALT legislative arena in the next 18 months. In addition, she shares her thoughts on what tax themes are going to take off and other issues to watch.

Their conversation concludes with the surprise nontax question – what is your favorite national park?

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:

   

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: When did the Colorado Department of Revenue issue a private letter ruling regarding subscription fees for an online learning platform?

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 Illinois Department of Revenue recently released General Information Letter ST-21-0025-GIL, providing that an e-commerce retailer’s provision of tangible personal property to its subscribers for sampling prior to deciding whether to buy was not a taxable transaction, while an eventual purchase of the property was taxable. The taxpayer, based outside of Illinois, operates an e-commerce website that offers a month-to-month subscription program, which, in exchange for the subscription fee, allows subscribers to try the taxpayer’s merchandise before deciding whether to purchase it. The Department determined that the subscription receipts were not subject to sales tax because there was no transfer of the ownership of the property. The Department also determined that the subscription receipts were not subject to the Illinois “rental purchase agreement occupation and use tax” which imposes tax on the rental of merchandise under an initial rental-purchase agreement of less than four months, because a subscription model with a separate option to purchase, such as the taxpayer’s, was different than “rent-to-own dealers” contemplated by the rental purchase agreement occupation tax. Lastly, the Department determined that the taxpayer was not making a taxable use of the sample merchandise in the state as the demonstration exemption would apply.

This week, members of the Eversheds Sutherland SALT team will continue presentations for several key industry organizations and associations:

  • Tax Executives Institute (TEI) – Iowa chapter
    • On September 21, Jonathan Feldman, Michael Hilkin and Alla Raykin will present a SALT litigation update and digital tax update.
  • Council on State Taxation (COST) Property tax workshop
    • Between September 22-24, presentation speakers and topics include:
      • Scott Wright – Nationwide property tax developments that impact business
      • Scott Wright – Eastern states update
      • Tim Gustafson – Western states update
      • Nikki Dobay – “Ask the Experts” panel
  • Oregon State Bar
    • On September 22, Nikki Dobay will help present a multistate tax update.

 

The California Legislature adjourned on September 10 and ended the 2021 legislative session without passing any major tax increase bills during the session. Several proposals were under consideration during the early part of the session, but were not revived before adjournment.

In his article for Financial Advisor Magazine, Senior Counsel Eric Coffill describes important tax measures.

A New York Administrative Law Judge recently determined that a taxpayer was liable for income tax as a statutory resident of New York State and New York City for the entire 2014 tax year, as he maintained a permanent place of abode in New York City and was physically present in New York State and City on more than 183 days in 2014. This determination is an important reminder that establishing domicile during a tax year does not preclude the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance from treating a taxpayer as a statutory resident for the entire year.

New York uses two separate tests to determine residency for personal income tax purposes: domicile and statutory residence. In 2014, the taxpayer had a temporary job in New York and rented an apartment in New York City. In December of 2014, however, the taxpayer purchased an apartment in New York City and, at the end of 2014, the taxpayer’s temporary position became permanent. It was uncontested that the taxpayer became a New York domiciliary when he purchased the apartment. But the taxpayer argued that “because he was domiciled in New York upon the purchase of the . . . apartment, he cannot also be a statutory resident because he cannot be a statutory resident in the same tax year that he is domiciled in New York.” The ALJ, however, found that New York’s tax statutes allow a taxpayer to be treated as a statutory resident during the portion of the year when the taxpayer was not domiciled in New York.

Matter of Pilaro and Gorrie, DTA No. 829204 (Aug. 26, 2021).

On September 3, 2021, the United States District Court for the District of Nevada held that streaming video providers were not subject to Nevada localities’ franchise fees. The city of Reno filed a class action lawsuit against two streaming video providers, claiming that they were required to register as video service providers (i.e., obtain a certificate of authority) and pay local franchise fees. A “video service provider” is “any person that provides or offers to provide video service over a video service network to subscribers[.]”  Nev. Rev. Stat. § 711.151(1) (emphasis added).  The term “video service” excludes “[a]ny video content provided solely as part of, and through, a service which enables users to access content, information, electronic mail or other services that are offered via the public Internet.” Nev. Rev. Stat. § 711.141(3)(a).  The court held that the streaming video providers were not “video service providers” because they satisfied this exclusion from “video service.” The court rejected the city’s arguments that the taxpayers did not qualify for the exclusion because: (1) the providers’ video streaming offering must be only a part, rather than the entirety, of the service; and (2) the “public” Internet is no longer public if a fee is charged for its usage.

The court also concluded that local governments do not have a private right of action under the Nevada video service laws to contest that the streaming video providers must obtain certificates of authority to provide video service in Nevada and owe franchise fees to the localities. Rather, the Nevada Attorney General must bring any such claim.

City of Reno, Nevada v. Netflix, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-00499-MMD-WGC (D. Nev. Sept. 3, 2021).