On May 14th, California Governor Gavin Newsom issued his proposed May revision to the state budget for fiscal year 2020-21. The budget proposal included two revenue-raising income tax measures, applicable for tax years 2020 through 2022: (1) limiting the amount of business tax credits a taxpayer can use to $5 million annually, and (2) suspending

The recently enacted federal CARES Act makes significant changes to the I.R.C., including rolling back certain limitations on NOL utilization and increasing the interest expense limitation in I.R.C. § 163(j). Because of states’ differing rules on NOLs and conformity to the I.R.C., the CARES Act’s changes to the federal rules will have varying SALT implications.

On March 27, 2020, the President signed into law the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (the CARES Act). Passed in response to the economic repercussions of the COVID-19 pandemic, the CARES Act makes a number of significant changes to the I.R.C., including rolling back certain limitations on the utilization of net operating losses

On November 2, 2017, Republicans in the House of Representatives released their much-anticipated tax reform bill. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act proposes numerous changes to the Internal Revenue Code, many of which will have an impact on taxpayers’ state and local tax liabilities.

  • Most states conform to the federal income tax base —at least

On October 18, 2017, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued its decision in Nextel Communications of the Mid-Atlantic, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Department of Revenue, in which the court held that the state’s flat $3 million cap on net operating loss carryforwards violates the state constitution’s Uniformity Clause. Key considerations from the case include:

  • The $3

In a decision sure to give Pennsylvania legislators and the Department of Revenue indigestion before their big Thanksgiving meals, the Commonwealth Court held that Pennsylvania’s net loss carryover deduction cap violated Pennsylvania’s Uniformity Clause because it resulted in disparate treatment of similarly situated taxpayers based on the size of the business. 

View the full Legal

By Michael Penza and Andrew Appleby

The California Court of Appeal held that California’s disparate treatment of intrastate and interstate unitary businesses discriminated against interstate commerce. California requires taxpayers engaged in a unitary business within and without California to calculate their taxable income using combined reporting, but provides taxpayers engaged in a unitary business wholly