California

Subscribe to California via RSS

Thomas Jefferson once described jury trials as “the only anchor yet imagined by man by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.” Jefferson would likely be disappointed by the California Supreme Court’s recent decision holding that taxpayers have no right to demand a jury trial in California income tax refund…

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

California’s Fourth Appellate District ruled that taxpayers must include the value of intangible emissions reduction credits (ERCs) when they determine the fair market value of an independent power plant’s property. Elk Hills Power, LLC v. Bd. of Equalization, No. D056943 (May 10, 2011). Elk Hills sets a disturbing precedent regarding the taxation of intangibles…

On March 24, Governor Jerry Brown signed into law SB 86 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review), a majority-vote bill, which includes a tax amnesty program for taxpayers with underreported income related to abusive tax avoidance transactions and offshore financial arrangements. The amnesty program—which is more stick than carrot—is part of a larger proposal to close the $26 billion gap between spending and revenue in the state budget, and is estimated to raise roughly $200 million due in large part to accelerated revenues. This revenue estimate is as likely to materialize as an Easter bunny carrying a copy of State Taxation (by Jerome and Walter Hellerstein) at your next family picnic.

The tax amnesty program—referred to as Voluntary Compliance Initiative Two (VCI II)—offers a 91-day amnesty period from August 1, 2011, through October 31, 2011, for personal and corporate income taxpayers with liabilities derived from abusive tax avoidance transactions and offshore financial arrangements related to taxable years prior to January 1, 2011, and tax deficiencies that are not final as of July 31, 2011.Continue Reading Hey Wabbit!: California’s Amnesty Puttycat Program

The California Court of Appeal held that receipts from Nortel’s license of computer programs used to operate a telephone company’s switch hardware were not subject to sales tax. Nortel Networks, Inc. v. State Board of Equalization, Case No. B213415 (2d App. Dist. Jan. 18, 2011). The court also partially invalidated Regulation 1507 on the grounds that the State Board of Equalization (SBE) had exceeded its authority when it enacted the regulation.

The Court of Appeal’s decision provides guidance regarding the scope of exempt Technology Transfer Agreements (TTA), which are defined as “any agreement under which a person who holds a patent or copyright interest assigns or licenses to another person the right to make and sell a product or to use a process that is subject to the patent or copyright.” Cal. Rev. & Tax. Code § 6011(c)(10)(D); 6012(c)(10)(D).Continue Reading California Court of Appeal Switcheroo: Software Constitutes Technology Transfer Agreement

With the last day for introduction of California legislation ending on February 18, a number of significant bills that could potentially affect California businesses snuck into the fray.

The new tax bills include legislation that provides for “clawbacks” and sunsets of tax incentive legislation, disclosure of some recipients of tax incentives, and the ability of local governments to impose personal and corporate income taxes.Continue Reading Last Call – New Tax Bills in Play As Last Day to Introduce California Legislation Passes

The California Board of Equalization (BOE) recently issued a decision holding that dividends received by an out-of-state corporate taxpayer were business income because the dividend payor played an integral and operational role in the taxpayer’s unitary business.  The BOE also denied the taxpayer’s dividends received deduction (DRD) under Cal. Revenue & Tax Code (R&TC) § 24402. Appeal of Rio Doce Ltd., No. 402204 (Cal. Bd. of Eq. Nov. 17, 2010) (released Jan. 17, 2011).Continue Reading California Double Whammy: Dividends Are Apportionable Income, Not Deductible

Ever the trendsetter, California is hip to transparency and has posted proposed budget trailer bill language on the Department of Finance Web site, www.dof.ca.gov. The language confirms what taxpayers already knew: A target is on their backs as budget negotiations begin. The tax provisions specific to business taxpayers include a repeal of California’s Enterprise Zone Program and all related credit carryovers; mandatory single sales factor apportionment; mandatory market sourcing; tax shelter amnesty; and a financial institutions records match (FIRM) program. Other language includes a legislative constitutional amendment to extend current tax rates for five years. All of these proposals require a two-thirds legislative vote. However, the tax shelter amnesty and FIRM provisions could be enacted with a mere majority vote.Continue Reading California Mischief: Budget Tax Proposals Repeal Credits, Limit Apportionment Methods

On January 31, 2011, the California Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in California Farm Bureau Federation, et al. v. State Water Resources Control Board, No. S150518 (Cal. Jan. 31, 2011), which addressed the constitutionality of an annual levy imposed by the State Water Resources Control Board. While the court concluded that the statute imposing the water rights levy imposed a fee (not a tax) and was constitutional on its face, the court remanded to the Court of Appeals to determine whether the regulation implementing the statute was unconstitutional on an as-applied basis.Continue Reading California Supreme Court Floats New Tax/Fee Decision