Shaking things up in state and local tax
Shaking things up in state and local tax
By Suzanne Palms and Timothy Gustafon
The Illinois House of Representatives recently held a contentious hearing on legislation introduced earlier this year that would require publicly traded corporations, and those that are at least 50% owned by a publicly traded company, “doing business” in Illinois to disclose certain tax information in an annual statement filed…
By Scott Booth and Andrew Appleby
Although states continue to challenge the validity of captive insurance companies, Wendy’s has notched several taxpayer victories. In a win involving Scioto Insurance Company (Scioto), Wendy’s captive insurance company, the Illinois Appellate Court held that Scioto constituted a bona fide insurance company that was properly excluded from Wendy’s combined…
By Saabir Kapoor and Andrew Appleby
The Illinois Department of Revenue determined that the redemption of rewards points by a hotel patron was generally not subject to the state’s Hotel Operators’ Occupation Tax (HOOT) because the rewards program was operated by the hotel, and the HOOT was remitted upon a patron’s initial stays at the…
In direct contradiction to the recent MetLife case, a different division of the Illinois Appellate Court held that a taxpayer was subject to the double interest amnesty penalty on its increased state tax liability resulting from federal audit changes. Marriott Intern. Inc. v. Hamer, 2012 IL App (1st) 111406 (Ill. App. Ct., 1st Dist., 3rd Div. Aug. 22, 2012). The MetLife case held that such penalties did not apply under nearly identical facts. Met. Life Ins. Co. v. Illinois Dep’t of Revenue, 2012 IL App (1st) 110400, at *1 (Ill. App. Ct. 1st Dist., 1st Div. Mar. 5, 2012).
A 2003 Illinois amnesty program provided amnesty to taxpayers who paid “all taxes due” for eligible tax years by November 2003. A double interest penalty applied for those taxpayers that had a tax liability eligible for amnesty but failed to pay it. Two months after the amnesty period ended, the Internal Revenue Service began an audit of Marriott that ultimately resulted in a 2007 revenue agent report (RAR), increasing Marriott’s federal taxable income. Marriott timely reported the federal RAR changes to Illinois and paid the resulting tax liability.Continue Reading Illinois Double Whammy on Double Interest Penalty
Illinois Senate President John Cullerton introduced a bill on May 9 that would require publicly traded corporations doing business in Illinois, and those that are at least 50% owned by a publicly traded company, to disclose certain income tax liability information for eventual publication on an Internet database. SB 282 would require the information, usually considered confidential, to be disclosed by corporations that are not obligated to file a corporate income tax return. The data would be publicly searchable, although the data would not be disclosed until two years after the relevant tax year. Although the General Assembly adjourned on May 31 without voting on the bill, Senator Cullerton plans to work on the bill over the summer with the intent of holding hearings before the November veto session.
The information that Illinois would require to be disclosed in an annual statement filed with the Secretary of State includes, among other items: (1) name and address of the corporation; (2) name and address of any corporation that owns 50% or more of the voting stock; (3) modified taxable income; (4) business and nonbusiness income; (5) apportioned income; (6) Illinois apportionment factor; (7) Illinois credits claimed; and (8) Illinois tax liability before and after credits.Continue Reading Illinois Senate President Wants Corporate Tax Liabilities on Internet
In a somewhat troubling decision, an Illinois Appellate Court held that a taxpayer’s parent company and its subsidiaries engaged in two lines of business—consumer packaging manufacturing and filtration product manufacturing—were unitary and had to file a combined Illinois return. Clarcor, Inc. v. Hamer, 2012 WL 1719518 (Ill. App. 1st May 11, 2012). The taxpayer contended that there was a lack of unity between the entities because: (1) the subsidiary groups lacked horizontal integration as required by the Seventh Circuit’s holding in In re Envirodyne Industries, Inc., 354 F.3d 646 (2004), and (2) even if horizontal integration is not required, there was insufficient vertical integration between the parent and the subsidiary groups to support a unitary finding.Continue Reading A Pupu Platter of a Case: Packaging and Filtration Businesses Held Unitary
The Illinois Department of Revenue (Department) issued General Information Letter (GIL) ST 12-0009-GIL (Feb. 28, 2012), which states that retailers that sell “deal-of-the-day” vouchers must collect and remit sales tax on the amount a customer pays for the voucher if the retailer can identify such amount. Otherwise, the retailer must collect and remit the full value of the “deal-of-the-day” item sold. The Department stated that it is in the process of preparing a bulletin to explain the tax treatment of deal-of-the-day websites, but it issued this GIL using guidance provided at a practitioners’ meeting on February 2, 2012.
The taxpayer in ST 12-0009-GIL requested information regarding the taxability of a prospective business venture similar to GroupOn, a popular website that sells vouchers redeemable for items sold by retailers at a discount. The Department provided several examples of how a typical GroupOn-type transaction should be treated for Illinois sales tax purposes when a customer purchases a $25 voucher redeemable for $50 of food at a retailer.Continue Reading Illinois Buys Into Providing Guidance for Deal-of-the-Day Voucher Transactions
The Illinois Court of Appeals held that a taxpayer that did not participate in an amnesty program because it was under federal and state audits, and did not know its ultimate tax liability, was not liable for the special amnesty penalty. Met. Life Ins. Co. v. Illinois Dep’t of Revenue, 2012 IL App (1st)…
llinois enacted legislation on December 16, 2011, that includes several new tax provisions, some of which benefit only Illinois-based companies. SB397 gives two Illinois taxpayers—CME Group and Sears Holdings—a tax incentive to stay in the state after Illinois’s recent significant tax rate increases. SB397 also extends and broadens the Illinois research and development tax credit…
In an interesting procedural case, and important decision for online intermediaries, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that the City of Chicago may not require Internet intermediaries to collect and remit the City’s amusement tax on the difference between the original ticket price and resale price of tickets sold online. City of Chicago, Illinois v. StubHub!, Inc., Dkt. No. 09-3432 (7th Cir. Nov. 23, 2011); City of Chicago, Illinois v. eBay, Inc., Dkt. No. 10-1144 (7th Cir. Nov. 23, 2011).
Beginning in 1991, Illinois authorized ticket brokers to resell their tickets at a premium price, provided the broker registered with the State and collected local taxes. The City of Chicago took advantage of this opportunity to tax the incremental price of resold tickets until Illinois amended its ticket scalping laws in 2005. Following the 2005 amendments, an “Internet auction listing service” was relieved of the mandatory collection of local taxes, provided it met certain registration requirements and published a written notice on its website “inform[ing] the ticket reseller of the ticket reseller’s potential legal obligation to pay any applicable local amusement tax.” 720 ILCS 375/1.5(c).Continue Reading Seventh Circuit Not Amused by Chicago’s Amusement Tax
