Shaking things up in state and local tax
Shaking things up in state and local tax
By Christopher Chang and Pilar Mata
The New Jersey appeals court ruled that BIS LP, Inc. (BIS) was entitled to receive a New Jersey Corporation Business Tax (CBT) refund in the ongoing BIS litigation saga. In 2011, BIS, an out-of-state limited corporate partner, prevailed before the appeals court, securing a decision that found BIS lacked…
By Sahang-Hee Hahn and Timothy Gustafson
Less than two months after Massachusetts enacted a tax on computer design and software services (Tech Tax), the legislation was repealed with the passage of House Bill (HB) 3662 (for Sutherland’s previous coverage of this development, click here). The Tech Tax expanded Massachusetts’s sales and use tax…
By Sahang-Hee Hahn and Andrew Appleby
Effective September 1, 2013, Texas will refund state sales and use taxes paid by providers of cable television, Internet access or telecommunications services on tangible personal property used in their businesses. On June 14, 2013, Governor Rick Perry signed H.B. 1133 into law, authorizing such refunds. Under the new…
By Zachary Atkins and Prentiss Willson
A Texas administrative law judge ruled that a taxpayer was not entitled to make an alternative three-factor apportionment election under Article IV of the Multistate Tax Compact (Compact) for Texas franchise tax purposes. The Texas Tax Code requires taxpayers to use a single gross receipts factor to apportion taxable…
By Sahang-Hee Hahn and Pilar Mata
The California Supreme Court held that taxpayers may file a class action lawsuit to claim a refund of local telephone user taxes (TUT) paid to the City of Long Beach. The taxpayer class alleged that the City unlawfully collected the TUT on services that were determined to be nontaxable…
By Jessica Kerner and Timothy Gustafson
The Georgia Court of Appeals dismissed a customer class action lawsuit seeking a sales tax refund from a utility company, holding that the applicable statutory provisions for claiming a refund of sales taxes did not authorize the customers to bring a direct refund cause of action against the seller.
By Saabir Kapoor and Pilar Mata
The California Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s decision in favor of the State Board of Equalization (BOE), holding that a taxpayer’s evidence of communications with the BOE presented triable issues of material fact as to whether the BOE should be equitably estopped from relying on administrative exhaustion…
The Indiana Tax Court held that a retailer was permitted to seek sales and use tax refunds of tax collected from its customers before refunding the tax to its customers. In Fresenius USA Marketing, Inc. v. Indiana Dep’t of State Revenue, No. 49T10-1008-TA45 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2012), a retailer sold dialysis equipment to customers…
The California Supreme Court held that taxpayers may file a class action claim against a municipal government entity for the refund of the telephone users tax (TUT). Ardon v. City of Los Angeles, Case No. S174507 (Cal. July 25, 2011).
The City of Los Angeles imposes the TUT on customers who use telephone communications…
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
