SALT Blawg – State and Local Tax Blog
State and Local Tax ("SALT") issues require state and local tax knowledge. Chamberlain Hrdlicka's SALT Blawg provides exactly that knowledge with news updates and commentary about state and local tax issues.
You can expect to find relevant information about topics such as income (corporate and personal) tax, franchise tax, sales and use tax, property (real and personal) tax, fuel tax, capital stock tax, bank tax, gross receipts tax and withholding tax. SALT Blawg, offers tax talk for tax pros… in your neighborhood.
Chamberlain Hrdlicka Blawgs
By Paul Masters with contributions by Jennifer Weidler in Chamberlain's Philadelphia office.
State DOR Letters and Policy Rulings
But where’s your paper … New Mexico hearings officer rules that a taxpayer does not qualify for a gross receipts tax deduction merely because the taxpayer did not possess any nontaxable transaction certificates as required by NMSA 1978, Section 7-9-43 (2001). Other states have similar requirements for certificates, but merely because they are “required” does not necessarily mean the courts agree.
Virginia Tax Commissioner rules that an egg tray washer was not “processing” as defined by Virginia Code § 58.1-609.3(2)(iii) as it was used between the processing to maintain cleanliness. Even though the equipment was necessary to operate the actual processing, the equipment itself was not involved in the processing of the eggs for sale. Similarly, a “honey wagon” that was used to collect the bird droppings and then spray the droppings as fertilizer on fields was not part of the processing, even though the droppings came from the waste resulting from the cleaning of the eggs. Finally, the Commissioner rules that pit fans used to dry bird droppings that are then sold to farmers as fertilizer are not processing, but do qualify for the agricultural exemption at Virginia Code § 58.1-609.2(1). Different result should apply in Texas, as drying an item is a physical change, thus processing.
State Regulations and Public Notices
North Carolina updates its taxability matrix for the SSUTA.
The New Jersey Division of Taxation has published answers to frequently asked questions relating to the NJ-1040 e-filing mandate. For the 2011 taxable year forward, tax preparers expecting to prepare eleven (11) or more New Jersey individual income tax returns must electronically file those returns for which an electronic filing option is available. Those returns not included in the e-filing mandate are New Jersey nonresident, part-year resident, amended and prior year returns.
The Connecticut Department of Revenue issued an Informational Publication (IP 2011(15)) answering frequently asked questions regarding the Connecticut individual use tax. The Informational Publication addresses changes in legislation affecting Connecticut use tax filing and payment obligations, which occurred during 2011.
Starting January 1, 2011, those tax preparers filing more than five (5) returns per year with New York are now required to e-file. The New York Department of Taxation may impose a penalty on both the preparer and the taxpayer for a failure to electronically file returns. Additionally, beginning with the return due on March 20, 2012, sales tax returns for annual filers must be filed electronically.
State Legislative Affairs
Economic nexus comes into play again. Michigan signs into law SB 650 which defines nexus for a financial institution as any of the following: (i) physical presence, (ii) Michigan source receipts of at least $350,000 or (iii) has an ownership interest in a flow through entity.
Judicial and Administrative Decisions and Pleadings
A coalition of public school districts in Texas files suit against the State of Texas on constitutional grounds, arguing that the state tax system funding public schools is unfair, and does not provide the schools with sufficient funding to provide a free education to students.
In another school funding case, a federal district court rules against Lynch, who argued that Alabama’s property tax rates, among the lowest in the country, violate the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. How? The tax scheme limits the ability of rural counties to tax wealthy white landowners. The opinion is looooong - really long. In the end, the court focused on its view that the tax structure was based on economics, not race, and therefore passed muster under the rational basis standard.
On further thought … Washington Court of Appeals reverses its decision on remand and finds that a hospital was not entitled to an exemption for amounts collected and paid to a third-party service provider. In its initial decision, the Court of Appeals determined that the payments did not qualify as gross income subject to business and occupation (B&O) tax. But the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ ruling in Washington Imaging Services, LLC v. Wash. Dept. of Rev., 252 P3d 885 (Wash. 2011). Because there was no independent obligation for its patients to pay the third-party service provider for services rendered, the hospital did not make payments on behalf of its patients as their agent, the payments made constituted gross income. The exemption under Wash. Admin. Code § 458-20-111 did not apply as they payments were not customary reimbursements or advances made in the ordinary course of business.
NY Division of Tax Appeals rules against the estimated assessment made by an auditor for sales tax. While the taxpayer lacked the records necessary to avoid an estimated audit, the auditor made assumptions not based on reality, used information limited to only one quarter and extrapolated over a multi-year period. Thus the assessment was arbitrary.
Illinois Court of Appeals affirms decision to use income valuation approach because the sales comparison method provided unreliable. The government had used comparisons that included sales resulting from Department of Justice divestiture orders. Such sales necessarily are not defined as arm’s length transactions.
The Texas Court of Appeals for the 14th District (Houston) rules that Hotels.com and other similar online companies need not remit occupancy tax on the full amount received by online customers for the purchase of hotel space through the web site. Rather, the hotel occupancy tax is levied solely on the amount received by the hotel.