The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision and held that retroactive application of the 2014 revisions to the “prepaid telephone calling card” provision of the Tax Code were unconstitutional as applied to the taxpayer. Taxpayer, an authorized dealer for Boost Mobile (“Boost”), sold Boost prepaid wireless-service plans to customers, but did
Constitution: Due Process Clause
Northern exposure: No ambiguity in Alaska reporting
The Alaska Supreme Court found that Alaska’s combined reporting statute requiring taxpayers to include certain foreign affiliates in its income tax return was constitutional. The court rejected the taxpayer’s arguments that Alaska’s tax haven corporation reporting statute was (i) void for vagueness as it violated the Due Process Clause, (ii) discriminated against interstate commerce in…
Ohio Court of Appeals upholds taxation of employee working from home
On February 7, 2022, the Ohio Court of Appeals upheld the constitutionality of a statute providing that, during the duration of a stay-at-home order issued by the Governor related to the COVID-19 pandemic, and for thirty days after its end, any day on which an employee works from home because of the order shall be…
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.
Massachusetts Appellate Tax Board Rules Non-Massachusetts S Corporation’s Subsidiary Sale Subject to Massachusetts Tax
On October 23, 2020, the Massachusetts Appellate Tax Board ruled that capital gain from a Florida S corporation’s sale of a subsidiary Massachusetts LLC was subject to Massachusetts corporate excise tax and nonresident composite tax. The taxpayer contended that the U.S. Constitution’s Due Process and Commerce Clauses forbade Massachusetts from taxing the income because the…
There’s No Turning Back: New York State Tax Appeals Tribunal Holds Retroactive Application of Statutory Amendments Violates Due Process
The New York State Tax Appeals Tribunal struck down the retroactive application of legislative amendments to a taxpayer who reasonably relied on a precedential decision of the Tribunal that was final and irrevocable at the time the taxpayer sold his shares in an S corporation.
On July 31, 2009, the non-resident taxpayer sold shares in…
Oregon Tax Court Holds E911 Tax on VoIP Provider Does Not Violate U.S. Constitution
On March 2, 2020, the Oregon Tax Court held that the application of the state’s E911 Tax to a provider of interconnected VoIP services (“Taxpayer”) did not violate the Due Process and Commerce Clauses of the U.S. Constitution. The E911 Tax is imposed on each person with access to Oregon’s emergency communications system, whether through…
New York Court of Appeals Dismisses Commerce Clause Challenge For Lack of a “Substantial Constitutional Question”
New York’s highest court dismissed taxpayers’ appeal of an Appellate Division ruling that the payment of tax on intangible income to New York as statutory residents, without a credit for tax paid to Connecticut as domiciliaries, determining that the appeal did not raise a “substantial constitutional question.” Edelman v. New York State Dep’t of Taxation …
Too Bad, So Sad – Virginia Supreme Court Upholds COP Apportionment Despite Subjecting the Taxpayer to Double Taxation
The Virginia Supreme Court held that the use of the cost-of-performance method to apportion nearly 100% of the taxpayer’s sales of services to Virginia did not violate the U.S. Constitution, even though over 95% of the taxpayer’s customers were located outside of the state – perhaps an expected result for a services company based in…
New York City Tax Tribunal finds that ownership of a flow-through interest can create nexus.
The New York City Tax Tribunal held that an out-of-state corporate taxpayer, with an indirect interest in a limited liability company investment fund engaged in business in New York City, had nexus with the City and was subject to tax on capital gain from its sale of the fund. The taxpayer had no property, employees,…