Policy and Legislation

Subscribe to Policy and Legislation via RSS

On June 20, 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled that the federal district court had jurisdiction to adjudicate a case involving the constitutionality and validity of a levy imposed on a single entity. GenOn Mid-Atlantic, LLC v. Montgomery Cty., No. 10-1882 (4th Cir. June 20, 2011). In response to the Fourth Circuit’s decision, Montgomery County enacted legislation repealing the levy and providing a full refund—with interest—to the fee payer.

The GenOn case involved legislation that Montgomery County enacted in 2010, which imposed a $5 per ton levy on “major emitters” of carbon dioxide emissions. Montgomery County set the emissions threshold for a “major emitter” to include only those entities emitting more than one million tons of carbon dioxide during the year. The County also structured the levy such that once major emitters exceeded one million tons of carbon dioxide emissions, they were required to pay the levy retroactively on each ton of emissions, going back to the first ton emitted. As a result, GenOn was the only entity subject to the levy and was subject to the levy on every ton of carbon dioxide emitted.Continue Reading Fourth Circuit Emits Good News! Federal Court Retains Jurisdiction over Levy Imposed on a Single Entity

Most separate reporting states give the department of revenue discretionary authority to require affiliated companies to file a combined return under certain conditions. This authority can be a valuable when applied fairly and appropriately but can cause significant problems when abused. In this A Pinch of SALT, Sutherland SALT attorneys Jonathan Feldman and Madison Barnett…

The point at which the evidentiary record is established in a state or local tax case varies significantly among state and local jurisdictions, and the related statutes, regulations, and rules are unclear. In this A Pinch of SALT, Sutherland SALT attorneys Eric Tresh, Zack Atkins, Maria Todorova and Steve Kranz highlight the risks…

After nearly 60 years of experimentation with value added and gross receipts taxes, Michigan has now joined the rank-and-file corporate income tax states through its repeal of the Michigan Business Tax (MBT). Governor Snyder signed the tax package (H.B. 4361, H.B. 4362) into law on May 25, 2011. According to the Council on State Taxation, the legislation takes the state from 30th to 16th in the nation in terms of lowest state and local business tax burden.

The new 6% corporate income tax, effective January 1, 2012, retains many of the same features as the Business Income Tax component of the former MBT, including unitary combined reporting, single sales factor apportionment with market sourcing, a Finnigan apportionment rule, and the same tax rate. The MBT factor presence nexus standard is also retained, under which nexus is established if an out-of-state company has physical presence in Michigan for more than one day or actively solicits sales in the state and has Michigan gross receipts of $350,000 or more. The new tax also incorporates the same tax regimes for insurance companies and financial institutions that existed under the MBT. Insurance companies continue to be subject to the greater of a 1.25% tax on gross direct Michigan premiums or the retaliatory tax, and financial institutions will still be subject to tax based on 0.29% of net capital.Continue Reading Michigan’s Tax Roulette Lands on a Corporate Income Tax

The District of Columbia passed—subject to congressional oversight—tax legislation that ultimately may affect sales and use tax nexus standards throughout the United States. The District of Columbia’s Main Street Tax Fairness Act, which is part of its fiscal 2012 budget, authorizes the District to enforce sales tax on non-physically present sellers under certain circumstances.

In what is surely a sign of more good things to come, Colorado repealed its short-lived sales tax on “standardized” (canned) software other than canned software delivered by tangible storage medium. The legislation, House Bill 1293, statutorily reinstates Special Regulation 7 by exempting software delivered or accessed by application service providers (ASP), electronic delivery…

With all the drama and suspense of a Hollywood movie, California Governor Jerry Brown signed AB X1 28 on June 29—more than two weeks after the bill originally passed the California legislature. AB X1 28 has been controversial because it significantly expands California’s sales and use tax collection requirements by substantially incorporating all of the provisions of former AB 153 (click-through nexus), AB 155 (affiliate nexus), and SB 234 (constitutional nexus). Together, these changes combine California’s recent efforts to force remote sellers to collect California sales tax. To further complicate matters, AB X1 28 provides that these changes become effective immediately.

AB X1 28 amends California’s definition of “retailer engaged in business” for sales and use tax collection purposes, as set forth in Cal. Rev. & Tax Code § 6203, to include three new groups of “retailers” as follows.Continue Reading Nexus Explosion: California Governor Signs Bill Expanding California Sales Tax Collection Requirements

On April 13, Arizona Governor Brewer vetoed legislation (S.B. 1552) that would have allowed specified taxpayers to elect to use market sourcing for corporate income tax purposes. Taxpayers would have continued to apportion income to Arizona using the standard three-factor formula with a heavily weighted sales factor. The binding 5-year election would have…