Shaking things up in state and local tax
Shaking things up in state and local tax
North Carolina
North Carolina H.B. 692 contains several important, and somewhat disconcerting, changes for unclaimed property holders. The bill provides that for amounts due to the apparent owners of intangible property valued at $50,000 or more, holders must report the following information with respect to the owner: “full name, last known address, SSN or TIN…
Recently, there has been significant activity in Congress related to sales tax nexus.
Despite the resolution, Congress will seriously consider the three proposed acts. The three acts attempt to address the same issue through slightly different approaches. All three would allow states to collect tax from remote sellers if certain uniformity requirements are met. The uniformity requirements are similar, for the most part, but with some slight differences as discussed below.Continue Reading Nexus? Who Said Anything about Nexus?: A Summary of the Federal Nexus Bills
The Franchise Tax Board (FTB) recently issued guidance on California’s updated “doing business” provision for California corporate income tax purposes. FTB Notice 2011-06 (Oct. 12, 2011). This guidance clarifies recent amendments that specify when the Chief Counsel may issue a ruling regarding whether a taxpayer is doing business in the state.
Effective January 1, 2011…
The Virginia Department of Revenue (i) applied its narrow interpretation of the State’s related member add-back provision to disallow a taxpayer’s factoring company discount losses, and (ii) prohibited the taxpayer and its affiliated factoring company from filing a combined return because the factoring company did not have nexus with the State. Va. Public Document No. 11-162 (Sept. 26, 2011).
The taxpayer sold, or “factored,” its account receivables to a bankruptcy remote affiliate at a discounted price and claimed deductions for its losses on the discounted sales. The taxpayer did not add back its factoring discount losses paid to a related party because the add-back statute provides a “subject to tax” exception from the add-back requirement if the related party was subject to tax in any other state. In this case, the factoring company was subject to tax in one state. Notwithstanding the literal language of the exception, the Department interprets the subject to tax exception narrowly to allow an exception only for the amount actually apportioned to and taxed by other states and, on audit, reduced the taxpayer’s losses accordingly. The Commissioner upheld the auditor’s narrow interpretation of the subject to tax exception, limiting it to post-apportionment amounts, consistent with prior rulings (See Va. Pub. Doc. Nos. 09-49, 09-115).Continue Reading Who Lost the Remote?: Virginia Disallowed Losses and Combined Reporting
Sutherland SALT created a spreadsheet describing state tax filing extensions related to Hurricane Irene. This spreadsheet is general in nature and does not address states that have not issued guidance regarding Hurricane Irene. Further, some states may conform to federal tax extensions associated with Hurricane Irene. Additionally, taxpayers should be aware that, while some states…
The Arizona Department of Revenue (the Department) issued an Individual Income Tax Ruling describing the treatment of Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduits (REMICs). Ariz. ITR 11-6 (Aug. 8, 2011). The ruling affirms the Department’s longstanding positions regarding the sourcing of income received from REMICs and whether simply holding an interest in an Arizona REMIC creates nexus. Ariz. ITR 91-2 (Apr. 2, 1991).
For federal tax purposes, the IRS treats REMICs as flow-through entities and does not tax the entity itself on its income. Rather, the REMIC’s interest holders are taxed on the REMIC’s income. Generally, REMICs will have two types of holders: regular interest holders and residual interest holders. Regular interest holders are taxed as if their interests were debt instruments, whereas residual interest holders report the REMIC’s taxable income or loss in proportion to their percentage ownership, similar to partners in a partnership.Continue Reading REMIC – the Remix – Arizona Style
The New York State Department of Taxation and Finance (the Department) recently released an advisory opinion analyzing the proper characterization and sourcing of various revenue streams derived from the facilitation of online trading activities. Petition No. C080222A, TSB-A-11(8)C (July 12, 2011). Relying on our old friends, Deloitte & Touche, LLP, TSB-A-02(3)C (Apr. 18, 2002); Ins. Servs. Offices, Inc., TSB-A-99(16)C (Apr. 7, 1999); and New York Merchantile Exch., TSB-A-00(15)C (Apr. 18, 2002), the opinion represents the Department’s growing trend to expand the category of “other business receipts,” to source receipts on a market rather than on a cost-of-performance basis.
In the opinion, the Parent is a Delaware corporation headquartered in New York. It owns and operates an Internet-based platform (Exchange) that serves as a marketplace for over-the-counter (OTC) global futures markets. Although the Parent is not a registered broker-dealer, the Exchange serves as a marketplace for buyers and sellers of certain commodities contracts, financial contracts, and other derivatives contracts in futures and OTCs to meet and execute trades on a real-time basis. All of the Parent’s property and equipment associated with the Exchange is located outside of New York, and all of the clearing administration for the OTC is performed outside of New York. In addition to the Parent’s activities, its affiliates generate receipts from various transactions, including open outcry trading, digital auction, flat monthly subscriptions, and trades executed with the assistance of interdealer brokers.Continue Reading The Big Apple Goes to the Market for Online Trading Revenue
The California State Board of Equalization will hold its annual meeting with assessors in which they will discuss a split roll property tax and taxation of embedded software (click here to view the full agenda). The meeting will be webcast from the Board of Equalization’s website, www.boe.ca.gov, on Wednesday, October 19 at…
California’s unique political system can be a mystery to those unfamiliar with its idiosyncrasies. However, a basic understanding of some important California political tenets can pay huge dividends. There are two key tools for protecting important policy interests in California: (1) the initiative measure; and (2) the referendum.
An initiative measure is a policy proposal that is placed on the ballot for public vote. An initiative measure is generally used when there are political barriers to legislation, but broad public support exists for the proposed policy. Initiatives have few legal restrictions, but generally they must only pertain to a single subject and comport with the United States Constitution.
A referendum measure is used to give voters an opportunity to approve or reject a recently enacted law. Proponents of a referendum are generally seeking repeal of recently enacted legislation. Thus, for a referendum to succeed, the statute being referred must have broad public opposition.Continue Reading The Tools of the Trade for Challenging California “Tax” Increases
Companies that provide financing to customers in Texas to purchase and lease equipment may be shocked to learn that their interest expense may not be deductible as a cost of goods sold (“COGS”). In Texas, a “lending institution” that offers loans to the public is authorized to subtract an amount equal to their interest expense as COGS. Tex. Tax Code Ann. § 171.1012(k) . However, it is unclear what the phrase “loans to the public” means.
A recently released Policy Letter Ruling did little to clarify this, and only muddied the waters further regarding what “loans to the public” means when a multi-state financial services company provides loans for the purchase or lease of a related affiliate’s equipment. The ruling denied the deduction of interest expense as a COGS to a wholly-owned finance subsidiary that qualified as a “lending institution” and was engaged in the business of financing heavy construction equipment sold or leased by its parent company to unrelated third-party customers. Tex. Pol. Ltr. Rul. No. 201101133L (Jan. 6, 2011) (released July 2011). A qualifying “lending institution” includes an entity that makes loans and is regulated by a federal regulatory authority, the Texas Department of Banking, Office of Consumer Credit, Credit Union Department, Department of Savings and Mortgage Lending. Tex. Tax Code Ann. § 171.0001(10).Continue Reading “Loan” Star Mishap: Texas Muddies Water on Interest Expense Deduction for “Loans to the Public”
