1 State & Local Tax Alert Breaking state and local tax developments from Grant Thornton LLP Major Nexus Developments of 2010 Examined; States Follow Trend of Adopting Bright-Line Nexus Standards During 2010, states continued to follow the trend of revising nexus standards to broaden the scope of out-of-state companies that are subject to their tax. Perhaps the most significant nexus development in 2010 was the adoption of factor presence (bright-line) nexus standards by several states with corporation income taxes. Prior to 2009, this approach had been limited to states such as Michigan and Ohio that do not impose traditional corporate income taxes. In the area of sales tax nexus, a New York appellate court held that the controversial Amazon rule was constitutional on its face, but may be challenged as applied. Finally, Oklahoma broadened its sales tax nexus standards by greatly expanding the definition of retailer. Because most states desperately are searching for additional tax revenue, these trends probably will continue in Factor Presence (Bright-Line) Nexus Under a factor presence or bright-line nexus standard, an out-of-state entity has nexus with a state if it meets minimum dollar thresholds for property, payroll or sales in the state. This approach was first recommended by the Multistate Tax Commission (MTC). On October 17, 2002, the MTC approved a model statute entitled the Factor Presence Nexus Standard for Business Activity Taxes. 1 This model statute provides clear standards for determining whether a taxpayer has nexus with a state. Under the model statute, a taxpayer has substantial nexus with a state if any of the following thresholds is exceeded during the tax period: Release date February 3, 2011 States All Issue/Topic Nexus Contact details Giles Sutton Charlotte T E Jamie C. Yesnowitz Washington, DC T E Chuck Jones Chicago T E (1) $50,000 of property; (2) $50,000 of payroll; (3) $500,000 of sales; or (4) 25 percent of total property, payroll or sales. 1 The MTC explains that [a] working group of states formulated the proposal over several months through public teleconferences and the Commission held four public hearings covering the technical, policy and constitutional aspects of the proposed provision. According to the MTC, [t]his factor presence nexus standard is intended to represent a simple, certain and equitable standard for the collection of state business activity taxes.
2 Grant Thornton LLP - 2 Although states originally were slow in adopting this approach, 2 several states adopted a factor presence nexus standard in Due to this trend, the factor presence nexus standard has become increasingly important. During 2010, a factor presence nexus standard was adopted by Colorado, Connecticut, Oklahoma and Washington. Legislatures in Oklahoma and Washington adopted the standard by amending statutes. The standard was adopted by Colorado and Connecticut by administrative regulation or release. Also, the Ohio Department of Taxation ruled on a high-profile matter concerning the bright-line nexus standards of the commercial activity tax (CAT). Colorado Effective April 30, 2010, the Colorado Department of Revenue amended the corporate income tax regulation that defines doing business in Colorado to adopt a factor presence nexus standard. 3 Under Colorado law, the corporate income tax is imposed on corporations that are doing business in the state. 4 The statute does not define doing business. The regulation provides that a corporation is doing business in Colorado whenever the minimum standards of Public Law are exceeded and the corporation has substantial nexus with the state. Business organizations that are organized outside Colorado have substantial nexus with the state if they have property, payroll or sales that exceed the same thresholds that are specified in the MTC s model statute during the tax period. Connecticut Effective for tax years beginning after 2009, a Connecticut statute applies an economic nexus standard. 5 To the extent constitutionally allowed, a company having a substantial economic presence or deriving income from sources within Connecticut is subject to corporate income tax. The term substantial economic presence is defined as purposely directing business toward Connecticut, by looking at the frequency, quantity and systematic nature of the company s contact with Connecticut. On September 23, 2010, 2 Prior to 2010, three states adopted a factor presence nexus standard. In 2009, California enacted a factor presence nexus standard for its corporation franchise tax that is effective for tax years beginning after The definition of doing business adopts thresholds similar to those found in the MTC s proposed model statute. Ohio adopted a factor presence nexus standard for purposes of its CAT, which began in The Michigan business tax, which applies to tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2008, uses a different factor presence nexus standard. A taxpayer has substantial nexus with Michigan if (1) the taxpayer has a physical presence in Michigan for more than one day during the tax year or (2) the taxpayer actively solicits in the state and has gross receipts of at least $350,000 sourced to Michigan. 3 1 COLO. CODE REGS Prior to the amendment, a corporation was considered to be doing business in Colorado whenever the minimum standards of Public Law were exceeded. 4 COLO REV. STAT CONN. GEN. STAT a.
3 Grant Thornton LLP - 3 the Connecticut Department of Revenue Services implemented a bright-line nexus standard, under which an entity has economic nexus with Connecticut for a tax year if the frequency, quantity, and systematic nature of its economic contacts with the state result in at least $500,000 attributable to Connecticut sources during the tax year. 6 Oklahoma In 2010, Oklahoma enacted a new Business Activity Tax (BAT) that is effective for the 2010 through 2012 tax years, and effectively replaces the state s franchise tax for these years. 7 For purposes of this tax, a taxpayer is doing business in Oklahoma if it satisfies the same nexus standards proposed by the MTC or otherwise has nexus with Oklahoma to an extent that the person can be required to remit the tax under the U.S. Constitution. 8 This nexus standard differs from the current nexus standard applied for purposes of Oklahoma income tax. 9 Washington Effective June 1, 2010, Washington adopted a factor presence nexus standard for purposes of the Business and Occupation (B&O) tax. 10 An out-of-state business is subject to Washington s B&O tax on service and royalty income if the business meets at least one of the four criteria of the MTC s model statute discussed above. 11 Note that the new nexus standard only applies to out-of-state entities that make sales to Washington customers classified as service or royalty income. The physical presence nexus standard continues to be required for retailing, wholesaling, and any other classification of business that is not subject to the single-factor apportionment formula. Washington also has a new trailing nexus provision for the B&O tax that was effective June 1, An entity that stops the business activity that created nexus in Washington continues to have nexus for the remainder of that calendar year, plus one additional calendar year Informational Publication 2010(29), Connecticut Department of Revenue Services, Sept. 23, S.J.R. 61, Laws The Oklahoma legislature placed a moratorium on the franchise tax for the taxable periods beginning on or after July 1, 2010 and ending before July 1, The BAT is in lieu of ad valorem taxes on intangible property of all persons doing business in Oklahoma, except public service corporations, air carriers and railroads. Despite the scheduled expiration and the current intention of the Oklahoma legislature, a framework is in place to modify and continue the imposition of the BAT for tax years beginning after Dec. 31, OKLA. STAT. tit. 68, 1218(H). 9 OKLA. ADMIN. CODE 710: WASH. REV. CODE , Historically, a person was required to have physical presence in the state to have nexus for purposes of the B&O tax. 11 Id. 12 WASH. REV. CODE ; Special Notice, Washington State Department of Revenue, Sept. 10, 2010.
4 Grant Thornton LLP - 4 Ohio Bright-Line Nexus Affirmed Ohio adopted a factor presence nexus standard for purposes of its CAT, which began in For purposes of the CAT, several different factors, including a bright-line presence, cause a taxpayer to have nexus with the state. 13 The definition of bright-line presence includes the threshold factors contained in the MTC s proposed model statute. Specifically, a taxpayer has bright-line presence in Ohio if the taxpayer: (1) has property in the state with a value of at least $50,000; (2) has payroll in Ohio of at least $50,000; (3) has taxable gross receipts of at least $500,000; (4) has at least 25 percent of its total property, payroll or gross receipts in the state; or (5) is domiciled in Ohio. 14 In 2010, the Ohio Tax Commissioner held in a final determination that an out-of-state retailer had substantial nexus with Ohio for purposes of the CAT because its gross receipts in the state satisfied the bright-line presence test. 15 The Tax Commissioner found that the retailer satisfied the substantial nexus requirement of the Commerce Clause by its continuous, systematic and significant solicitation and exploitation of the economic marketplace in Ohio. The retailer s level of activity in Ohio was substantial because its total gross receipts in the state for the relevant years exceeded $100 million. According to the Tax Commissioner, a physical presence test does not apply to the CAT. The decision of the Tax Commissioner is likely to be litigated in the Ohio courts over the next several years. Interaction with Public Law A federal law, commonly called Public Law , prohibits states from imposing taxes based on or measured by net income, when an entity s only in-state activity is restricted to mere solicitation of orders of tangible personal property. 16 Orders received must be sent outside the state for approval and, if approved, must be shipped or delivered from outside the state. Orders may be solicited by employees or representatives. If there is an activity that exceeds solicitation, the immunity from taxation is lost. An out-of-state company potentially may be subject to a state s income tax under a factor presence nexus standard, but be protected from taxation by P.L For example, an out-of-state company may have $550,000 of sales of tangible personal property in a state 13 OHIO REV. CODE ANN (H). 14 OHIO REV. CODE ANN (I). 15 In re L.L. Bean, Inc., Ohio Department of Taxation, Aug. 10, U.S.C. 381 to 384.
5 Grant Thornton LLP - 5 during the year. If the company s only activity in the state is solicitation of orders of tangible personal property, P.L would prevent the company from being taxed. Thus, an out-of-state company should consider the applicability of P.L before it pays tax to a state under a factor presence nexus statute. Constitutional and Other Considerations Out-of-state of companies that previously were not subject to tax in a state may find that they suddenly are subject to tax under a factor presence nexus standard. For instance, a company that otherwise only has a slight connection with a state will be subject to tax if it exceeds any of the factor presence nexus factors. Note that the revenue threshold may be crossed even if the taxpayer is not trying to make a market in the state. Although the factor presence nexus standard is recommended by the MTC, the constitutionality of this approach is questionable. The adoption of objective standards to determine whether substantial nexus exists in a state may conflict with the judicial concept of substantial nexus in Complete Auto Transit v. Brady 17 and subsequent cases. Courts intended that the substantial nexus test would be based on a case-by-case analysis of whether a taxpayer had enough presence in a state to be subject to tax. Under the judicial approach, many factors beyond the level of a company s property, payroll and sales should be considered in making a nexus determination. By basing a nexus decision only on these three factors, out-of-state companies are being deprived of a thorough nexus analysis. Due to the uncertain constitutionality of the factor presence nexus approach, taxpayers should seriously consider whether they should file income tax returns only on the basis that they exceed one of the factor presence nexus thresholds. In Colorado and Connecticut, the states revenue departments each adopted a factor presence nexus standard to more specifically define the concept of economic nexus. However, it is noteworthy that the factor presence nexus standard was adopted by the revenue departments rather than the legislatures. Typically, a change in a state s nexus standard is made by a state s legislature pursuant to statute, and the MTC s model enactment was intended to be statutory in nature. Therefore, aggrieved companies may argue that the revenue departments in Colorado and Connecticut do not have the necessary authority to adopt specific nexus standards that attempt to describe the concept of substantial nexus. Sales Tax Nexus Developments The controversial Amazon rule that applies to sales and use tax has received a great of deal of publicity. This continued in 2010 when a New York appellate court considered the constitutionality of the Amazon rule. Further, Oklahoma greatly expanded its sales tax nexus standards for retailers U.S. 274 (1977).
6 Grant Thornton LLP - 6 Amazon Rule In 2008, New York enacted a sales tax nexus provision for Internet retailers that is commonly called the Amazon rule. 18 The definition of vendor was amended to include Internet retailers that actively encourage Web site owners residing in New York to advertise for the Internet retailer in return for a commission on sales resulting from the followed link. A presumption of taxability exists if the Internet retailer generated more than $10,000 through these referrals during the last four quarterly sales tax periods. The presumption may be rebutted if the Web site owner did not engage in any solicitation in New York that would result in a finding of nexus under constitutional standards. In November, the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court partially affirmed the dismissal of complaints filed by Amazon.com and Overstock.com challenging the constitutionality of the Amazon rule. 19 The Appellate Division held that the Amazon rule does not violate the Due Process Clause, Commerce Clause or Equal Protection Clause on its face. However, the Appellate Division reinstated the cases to determine whether the statute violates the Due Process Clause and Commerce Clause as applied to Amazon and Overstock. The Amazon litigation in New York is being closely watched because other states have either enacted their own Amazon rule or are considering this type of legislation. 20 The fact that an appellate court has determined that the statute is constitutional on its face is significant, although it is likely that the litigation will be considered by the New York Court of Appeals, the state s highest court. The fact that the constitutionality of the statute has been upheld may further encourage other states to enact this type of legislation in 2011, even though it is likely that this particular litigation ultimately will take several years to resolve. 18 N.Y. TAX LAW 1101(b)(8)(vi); TSB-M-08(3)S, New York State Department of Taxation and Finance, May 8, 2008; TSB-M-08(3.1)S, New York State Department of Taxation and Finance, June 30, This provision is referred to as the Amazon rule by many tax professionals because the provision appears to target companies like Amazon.com and other online retailers outside New York that pay New York advertisers commissions for sales generated from advertisements that link to online retailers Web sites. 19 Amazon.com, LLC v. New York State Department of Taxation and Finance, New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, No /08, Nov. 4, 2010; Overstock.com v. New York State Department of Taxation and Finance, No /08, Nov. 4, Amazon legislation has been enacted in North Carolina (N.C. GEN. STAT (b); N.C. GEN. STAT (33c)) and Rhode Island (R.I. GEN. LAWS (a)(2)). Also, the Illinois legislature approved the Amazon rule in January H.B. 3659, passed by the Illinois House and Senate on Jan. 6, 2011.
7 Grant Thornton LLP - 7 Oklahoma s Expansion of Nexus In 2010, Oklahoma enacted legislation adding new provisions that greatly expand the definition of retailer for purposes of Oklahoma sales and use tax. 21 The new standards are based on a substantial ownership interest, controlled groups and contracts to perform installation or maintenance services. Under the legislation, there are two instances in which the existence of a substantial ownership interest may result in an out-of-state retailer being engaged in the business of selling tangible personal property for use in Oklahoma. The first situation applies where an out-of-state retailer holds a substantial ownership interest in, or is owned in whole or in substantial part by, a retailer maintaining a place of business within Oklahoma. 22 The second situation applies when an out-of-state retailer holds a substantial ownership interest in, or is owned in whole or in substantial part by, a business that maintains a distribution house or warehouse in Oklahoma that delivers property sold by the retailer to consumers. 23 The legislation also provides that an out-of-state retailer is presumed to be engaged in business in Oklahoma if it is part of a controlled group of corporations that has a component member that is a retailer engaged in business in Oklahoma. 24 This presumption may be rebutted by evidence that during the calendar year the component member that is a retailer engaged in business in Oklahoma did not engage in any of the activities described in the provision dealing with substantial ownership interests on behalf of the retailer. The statute adopts the federal definitions of controlled group of corporations 25 and component member. 26 Because this statute adopts federal income tax definitions, sales and use tax practitioners will need to become familiar with this aspect of federal income tax law. Finally, any retailer making sales of tangible personal property to purchasers in Oklahoma by mail, telephone, the Internet or other media that has a contractual relationship with an 21 OKLA. STAT. tit. 68, OKLA. STAT. tit. 68, b(1)(b). In this situation, if the out-of-state retailer sells the same or a substantially similar line of products as the related Oklahoma retailer under the same or a substantially similar business name, or the Oklahoma facilities or employees of the related Oklahoma retailer are used to advertise, promote or facilitate sales by the out-of-state retailer, the out-of-state retailer will be deemed to be engaged in the business of selling tangible personal property for use in Oklahoma. 23 OKLA. STAT. tit. 68, b(2). In this situation, the out-of-state retailer is deemed to be engaged in the business of selling tangible personal property for use in Oklahoma, without any other conditions. 24 OKLA. STAT. tit. 68, d. 25 IRC 1563(a). 26 IRC 1563(b).
8 Grant Thornton LLP - 8 entity to provide and perform installation or maintenance services for the retailer s purchasers within Oklahoma are included within the definition of retailer. 27 Out-of-state retailers that have ownership affiliations or other relationships with in-state retailers or businesses will need to consider the new provisions and determine whether they now have nexus with Oklahoma for sales and use tax purposes. The new Oklahoma nexus standards governing out-of-state retailers with related parties located in Oklahoma are intricately designed in many cases to require registration by retailers that do not have actual physical presence in the state. Note that Oklahoma s expanded nexus standards are accompanied by new disclosure and notification requirements. 28 In addition, Colorado enacted expanded affiliate nexus and out-of-state retailer notification requirements in 2010 that are broader than and distinct from the Oklahoma requirements. 29 Further, New York previously adopted affiliate nexus standards in In light of this growing trend, other states may consider adopting a similar nexus approach in States have taken different approaches to taxing sales from out-of-state retailers that do not have nexus with the state under a traditional physical presence nexus standard. States such as New York, North Carolina and Rhode Island have enacted Amazon legislation to subject these sales to tax. A second approach, used by Colorado, New York and Oklahoma, is to impose tax on out-of-state retailers through affiliate or related-party nexus. This method either outlines presumptions of nexus which can be rebutted in certain circumstances, or automatically results in an irreversible finding of nexus. A third approach, adopted by Colorado in 2010 but currently inoperative due to a preliminary injunction recently issued by a federal district court, 31 imposes notification requirements on out-of-state retailers with a certain level of sales within the state. This approach is related to the sales and use tax nexus issue because the burdens imposed on out-of-state retailers by this approach tends to encourage voluntary registration with the state, akin to the forcing of an admission of nexus. All three of these approaches are controversial and have been subject to criticism. However, states desperately need to increase tax revenue. In 2011, it will be interesting to see which states adopt or reject these approaches. The information contained herein is general in nature and based on authorities that are subject to change. It is not intended and should not be construed as legal, accounting or tax advice or opinion provided by Grant Thornton LLP to the reader. This material may not be applicable to or suitable for specific circumstances or needs and may require consideration of nontax and other tax factors. Contact Grant Thornton LLP or other tax professionals prior to taking any action based upon this information. Grant 27 OKLA. STAT. tit. 68, e. 28 OKLA. STAT. tit. 68, ; OKLA. ADMIN. CODE 710: COLO. REV. STAT (3)(b)(II), (3). 30 N.Y. TAX LAW 1101(b)(8)(i)(I), (v)(b). 31 The Direct Marketing Association v. Roxy Huber, Civil Case No. 10-cv REB-CBS, Order Granting Motion for Preliminary Injunction (U.S. Dist. Ct. Colorado, Jan. 26, 2011).
9 Grant Thornton LLP - 9 Thornton LLP assumes no obligation to inform the reader of any changes in tax laws or other factors that could affect information contained herein. No part of this document may be reproduced, retransmitted or otherwise redistributed in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including by photocopying, facsimile transmission, recording, re-keying or using any information storage and retrieval system without written permission from Grant Thornton LLP. Tax professional standards statement This document supports the marketing of professional services by Grant Thornton LLP. It is not written tax advice directed at the particular facts and circumstances of any person. Persons interested in the subject of this document should contact Grant Thornton or their tax advisor to discuss the potential application of this subject matter to their particular facts and circumstances. Nothing herein shall be construed as imposing a limitation on any person from disclosing the tax treatment or tax structure of any matter addressed. To the extent this document may be considered written tax advice, in accordance with applicable professional regulations, unless expressly stated otherwise, any written advice contained in, forwarded with, or attached to this document is not intended or written by Grant Thornton LLP to be used, and cannot be used, by any person for the purpose of avoiding any penalties that may be imposed under the Internal Revenue Code.
State & Local Tax Alert Breaking state and local tax developments from Grant Thornton LLP New Mexico Supreme Court Holds Online Retailer Has Substantial Nexus for Gross Receipts Tax Due to In-State Retailer
State & Local Tax Alert Breaking state and local tax developments from Grant Thornton LLP Minnesota Tax Court Holds Merchandisers Create Corporate Income Tax Nexus for Out-of-State Distributor The Minnesota
State & Local Tax Alert Breaking state and local tax developments from Grant Thornton LLP U.S. Bankruptcy Court Rules Imposition of Oregon Corporate Excise Tax on Out-of-State Holding Company Was Unconstitutional
State & Local Tax Alert Breaking state and local tax developments from Grant Thornton LLP Release date October 19, 2011 New Jersey Throwout Rule Litigation and Potential Issues In Whirlpool Properties,
State & Local Tax Alert Breaking state and local tax developments from Grant Thornton LLP Release date May 16, 2011 States California California Enacts Voluntary Compliance Initiative, Expands Tax Shelter
Presenting a live 110 minute webinar with interactive Q&A Nexus Reviews: Uncovering State Sales or Income Tax Obligations Designing an Effective Internal Process to Identify Potential Tax Exposures THURSDAY,
State & Local Tax Alert Breaking state and local tax developments from Grant Thornton LLP GT Perspective on the Marketplace Fairness Act The Marketplace Fairness Act (MFA), currently under consideration
State & Local Tax Alert Breaking state and local tax developments from Grant Thornton LLP Maryland Tax Court Holds Intangible Holding Company Had Corporate Income Tax Nexus The Maryland Tax Court has held
State taxation in a global environment factor presence nexus considerations for foreign companies by Charlie Fischer, Deloitte Tax LLP Spring 2015 FEATURED ARTICLES ISSUE 121 MARCH 5, 2015 State Taxation
State & Local Tax Alert Breaking state and local tax developments from Grant Thornton LLP Illinois Enacts Legislation to Create Independent Tax Tribunal On August 28, Illinois Governor Pat Quinn approved
State & Local Tax Alert Breaking state and local tax developments from Grant Thornton LLP San Francisco Voters Approve New Gross Receipts Tax On November 6, San Francisco voters approved Measure E, which
State & Local Tax Alert Breaking state and local tax developments from Grant Thornton LLP Michigan Enacts Legislation Designed to Eliminate Multistate Tax Compact Apportionment Election Refunds Allowed
State & Local Tax Alert Breaking state and local tax developments from Grant Thornton LLP South Carolina Holds Electric Utility Company Is Manufacturer, Gross Proceeds Not Includable in Sales Denominator
State & Local Tax Alert Breaking state and local tax developments from Grant Thornton LLP Nevada Enacts Budget Bill Including New Commerce Tax On June 9, 2015, Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval signed legislation
Growing Number of States Enact Amazon Affiliate Nexus Statutes Critics Call Laws Unconstitutional; Congress Considers Legislative Solution Prepared By: The Tax Group Written By: Ivan H. Golden 1 1 Special
State & Local Tax Alert Breaking state and local tax developments from Grant Thornton LLP Texas Comptroller Amends Revised Texas Franchise Tax Cost of Goods Sold Rule On June 5, the Texas Comptroller of
Release date State & Local Tax Alert Breaking state and local tax developments from Grant Thornton LLP New York Tax Tribunal Holds State Could Not Force Combined Reporting with One of Taxpayer s Subsidiaries
State & Local Tax Alert Breaking state and local tax developments from Grant Thornton LLP Louisiana Enacts Income and Franchise Tax Changes Which May Require Taxpayer Action by June 30, 2015 On June 19,
State & Local Tax Alert Breaking state and local tax developments from Grant Thornton LLP Texas Appeals Court Denies Use of Compact s Three-Factor Formula As Revised Texas Franchise Tax Is Not Considered
Georgia Chamber of Commerce s 2011 Tax Forum November 3, 2011 Stephen Kranz Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP Washington, D.C. Warren Townsend Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Bentonville, AR Online Sales Taxes and
State & Local Tax Alert Breaking state and local tax developments from Grant Thornton LLP Louisiana Enacts Three-Period Tax Amnesty Program Louisiana has enacted a tax amnesty program that will be held
State & Local Tax Alert Breaking state and local tax developments from Grant Thornton LLP Michigan Court of Appeals Holds Certain Cloud Computing Not Subject to Use Tax On October 27, 2015, the Michigan
Multistate Tax State Tax Matters August 7, 2015 In this issue: Income/Franchise: New Jersey: General Guidelines Issued for Determining Whether Select Activities Create Corporation Business Tax Nexus...
I. Introduction The attached model legislative language is a proposal for expanding sales/use tax collection requirements through state lawmaking. The proposal consists of three primary parts: 1. Nexus
State & Local Tax Alert Breaking state and local tax developments from Grant Thornton LLP Idaho Supreme Court Addresses Cost of Performance Application On October 29, the Idaho Supreme Court upheld a district
December 2007 Volume 14 Number 11 State Tax Return Nexus And Web-Related Activities: How The New York "Grinch" Tried To Ruin The Holiday Spirit Maryann B. Gall Columbus (614) 281-3924 Carolyn Joy Lee New
Relief from Effects of Amazon Laws - Multistate Tax Commission Voluntary Disclosure by Betty J. Williams 1 and Ulises Pizano-Diaz 2 Given the current economic climate and the ever increasing global nature
BENJAMIN J. CAYETANO GOVERNOR MAZIE HIRONO LT. GOVERNOR RAY K. KAMIKAWA DIRECTOR OF TAXATION SUSAN K. INOUYE DEPUTY DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION STATE OF HAWAII P.O. BOX 259 Honolulu, Hawaii 96809 January
OREGON Multistate Taxation and E-Commerce John H. Gadon Lane Powell Spears Lubersky LLP 601 S.W. Second Avenue, Suite 2100 Portland, Oregon 97204-3158 (503) 778-2100 www.lanepowell.com I. Oregon and the
Cloud Computing and Affiliate Nexus Jonathan Feldman Charlie Kearns Eric Tresh July 20, 2011 1 Agenda Cloud Computing What is Cloud Computing? Nexus Characterization Determines Taxability State Taxability
State & Local Tax Alert Breaking state and local tax developments from Grant Thornton LLP North Carolina Enacts Significant Income, Franchise and Sales Tax Legislation, Contingent Upon Further Legislative
www.pwc.com Multistate US tax issues for inbound companies By Joel Walters, Maureen Pechacek, and Todd Roberts. The authors give special thanks to Michael Santoro. September 2013 This article was originally
State Tax Nexus General Concepts Linda Joers Senior Manager, Deloitte Tax LLP Milwaukee, Wisconsin December 1, 2011 Agenda General Nexus Principles Income Tax Nexus Sales/Use Tax Nexus Taxpayer Responses
October 2013 Illinois Provisions of Click-Through Nexus Law Held Void The Illinois Supreme Court held that the definition provisions in Public Act 96-1544 (H.B. 3659), Laws 2011, the sales tax click-through
State & Local Tax Alert Breaking state and local tax developments from Grant Thornton LLP Texas Comptroller Issues Letter Ruling Discussing Sales Tax Treatment of Various Internet and Cloud Computing Services
SOURCING OF SALES APPORTIONMENT FACTOR OF THE NH BUSINESS PROFITS TAX Income from Services and Intangibles New Hampshire Department of Revenue Administration Presentation to the House Ways & Means Committee
Sales Taxation of Cloud Computing Accounting & Financial Women s Alliance Annual Conference New Orleans September 29, 2014 Laurie Wik, Tax Director, DuCharme, McMillen & Associates, Inc. Learning Objectives
Battle California! Sales Tax Nexus Gets Even More Interesting by Thomas H. Steele and Kirsten Wolff Thomas H. Steele is a partner and Kirsten Wolff is an associate with Morrison & Foerster LLP, San Francisco.
June 2009 State Tax Return Volume 16 Number 2 Tax Amnesty Update Karen H. Currie Dallas (214) 969-5285 We return to this space to update you on the ever-changing world of tax amnesty. The economic challenges
FAQ: Golden parachute payments under Section 280G Companies that are planning for a merger or acquisition have various issues to consider as they prepare for the transaction, one of the issues being golden
Friends With Benefits Received? A Comparison of Market Sourcing Rules by Jeffrey A. Friedman and Michele L. Pielsticker often look to where the benefit of the service was received. Determining the receipt
Statement of Information Concerning Practices of Multistate Tax Commission and Signatory States Under Public Law 86-272 Originally adopted by the Multistate Tax Commission on July 11, 1986 Revised version
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS PROVIDENCE, SC. DISTRICT COURT SIXTH DIVISION THOMAS A. PALANGIO D/B/A : CONSUMER AUTO SALES : : v. : A.A. No. 11-093 : DAVID M. SULLIVAN, TAX : ADMINISTRATOR
Multistate Tax State Tax Matters July 31, 2015 In this issue: Maryland: Tax Court Finds Companies Have Nexus Based on Enterprise Dependency with In-State Affiliates... 1 New York City: Department of Finance
2 Business Income Tax 2 BUSINESS INCOME TAX PART A: GENERAL TAX PROVISIONS AND ADMINISTRATION OF CREDITS 1. FEDERAL TAX CONFORMITY South Carolina income tax laws conform substantially to the federal income
State & Local Tax Advisory April 3, 2006 Insights Into Recent Regulatory, Judicial and Legislative Developments Atlanta Charlotte New York Research Triangle Washington, D.C. California Annual LLC Fee Held
BEFORE THE HEARING OFFICER OF THE TAXATION AND REVENUE DEPARTMENT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO IN THE MATTER OF THE PROTEST OF CHARLES L. FORKNER NO. 98-32 ID. NO. 02-327122-00 1, PROTEST TO ASSESSMENT NO.
October 2014 District of Columbia Reduced Tax Rates, Single Sales Factor, Other Changes Adopted Permanent District of Columbia budget legislation makes numerous significant changes to the corporation franchise
FTA Annual Conference June 17, 2012 Jeffrey A. Friedman, Sutherland Harley T. Duncan, KPMG Hey You! Get Off Of My Cloud! 1 Agenda Cloud Computing What is Cloud Computing? Nexus Characterization Determines
UNDERSTANDING NEXUS TO AVOID UNEXPECTED LIABILITY ONESOURCE Indirect Tax The Tax & Accounting Business of Thomson Reuters Presenter: NICOLE HUBERTY February 7, 2013 Upcoming Events Webinars: February 12,
The State Board of Equalization Welcomes You to the Basic Sales and Use Tax Seminar Welcome to the California State Board of Equalization s presentation on Basic Sales and Use Tax. 1 About This Presentation
MTC THREE-FACTOR ELECTION IN CALIFORNIA, MICHIGAN, AND TEXAS Giles Sutton, Jamie C. Yesnowitz, Chuck Jones, Terry Conley, Terry Gaul, and Ralph Ourlian* of Grant Thornton LLP look at whether the business
STATE TAX CONSIDERATIONS FOR STOCK PLAN PROFESSIONALS A. William Caporizzo Kimberly B. Wethly Julie Hogan Rodgers WilmerHale February 25, 2008 Table of Contents I. State Taxation of Optionee...1 A. State
Journal of Multistate Taxation and Incentives (Thomson Reuters/Tax & Accounting) Volume 24, Number 7, October 2014 SHOP TALK Damned if You Collect, Damned if You Don't: Retailers Caught Between Consumer
Multistate Tax State Tax Matters April 3, 2015 In this issue: Articles: Inside Deloitte: Navigating State Taxation in a Global Business Environment... 1 Arkansas: New Law Updates State Conformity to Internal
Sales and Use Taxes Today Presented by Michelle Mann JPMS Cox, PLLC December 5, 2013 Shopping in Stores (Point of Sale) Catalogue Shopping over Phone (Mail Order) 1 Shopping over World Wide Web (Electronic
Multistate Tax State Tax Matters October 9, 2015 In this issue: Income/Franchise: California: San Francisco Controller Announces Payroll Expense Tax Rate for 2015... 1 Income/Franchise: Texas: Proposed
TAXING THE CLOUD: State and Local Tax Issues and Implications of Cloud Communications Services on Cloud Computing Jonathan S. Marashlian Allison D. Rule The media buzz surrounding cloud computing and industry
Model Regulation Service June 2004 MODEL REGULATION TO REQUIRE REPORTING OF STATISTICAL DATA Table of Contents Section 1. Section 2. Section 3. Section 4. Section 5. Section 6. Section 7. Section 8. Section
State + Local Tax PRACTICE GROUP CHAIR Craig B. Fields 250 West 55 th Street New York, New York 10019 (212) 468-8193 firstname.lastname@example.org Morrison & Foerster is the first large law firm in the country to build
AICPA STATE TAX NEXUS GUIDE INTRODUCTION This practice guide was developed by the AICPA State and Local Taxation (SALT) Technical Resource Panel and related Task Forces to inform practitioners about state
NOTICE: The MBT was amended by 145 PA 2007 on December 1, 2007. Act 145 imposes an annual surcharge to taxpayers' MBT liability, as well as makes other changes. Some of the FAQs below have revised answers
Legislative Fiscal Bureau One East Main, Suite 301 Madison, WI 53703 (608) 266-3847 Fax: (608) 267-6873 June 5, 2001 Joint Committee on Finance Paper #104 Corporate Income and Franchise Tax -- Tax Treatment
State of South Carolina Department of Revenue 301 Gervais Street, P. O. Box 125, Columbia, South Carolina 29214 SC REVENUE RULING #97-15 SUBJECT: Public Law 86-272 and South Carolina Income Tax EFFECTIVE
Jay M. Chadha, Fulbright & Jaworski LLP A Q&A guide to sales and use tax law in Texas. This Q&A addresses key areas of sales and use tax law such as tax scope, multi-state transactions and collecting taxes
NO. CV 01 0506140S : SUPERIOR COURT RENAISSANCE MANAGEMENT : TAX SESSION COMPANY, INC. : JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF v. : NEW BRITAIN COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE SERVICES : SEPTEMBER 30, 2002 MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
The nuances of market-based sourcing of service revenue: Not all markets look the same Giles Sutton, Jamie Yesnowitz, Chuck Jones and Terry F. Conley * The nuances of market-based sourcing of service revenue
Congressional Impact on State Taxes Presentation Before the 3 rd Annual New Mexico Tax Policy Conference March 9, 2006 Joe Huddleston, Executive Director Multistate Tax Commission 1 Agenda Background Past
DEPARTMENT OF STATE REVENUE Letter of Findings: 06-0349 Individual Income Tax For the Year 2004 01-20060349.LOF NOTICE: Under IC 4-22-7-7, this document is required to be published in the Indiana Register
June 2009 State Tax Return Volume 16 Number 2 Georgia Court Ruling Spotlights Significant Complexities of 338(h)(10) Elections for State Income Tax Purposes Kirk Kringelis Atlanta (404) 581-8565 In most
NO. CV 11 6010197 JEFFERSON ALLEN, EVITA ALLEN : SUPERIOR COURT : TAX SESSION v. : JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF : NEW BRITAIN KEVIN SULLIVAN, COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE SERVICES : APRIL 29, 2015 MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
Multistate Tax EXTERNAL ALERT Multistate Impact of the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 March 5, 2013 Overview On January 2, 2013, President Barack Obama signed into law the American Taxpayer Relief
Chapter 105A. Setoff Debt Collection Act. Article 1. In General. 105A-1. Purposes. The purpose of this Chapter is to establish as policy that all claimant agencies and the Department of Revenue shall cooperate
2015 COST ANNUAL MEETING Chicago, Illinois State Tax Bad Debt Recovery Issues John Allan Partner, Jones Day Atlanta, Georgia Frank Julian Vice President, Macy s Cincinnati, Ohio David Otero Partner, Akerman
Bitcoin/Virtual Currency: Is it time for my state to provide formal guidance? Joel Waterfield Managing Director email@example.com 703.847.7595 2014 Grant Thornton LLP. All rights reserved. Discussion
Single Sales Factor Apportionment Art Auerbach, CPA, Damon DeSue, CPA Teresa Jordan, CPA, and Emily Walker VSCPA Efforts and Role Emily Walker VSCPA Government Affairs Director 1 VSCPA Efforts and Role
NAVIGATING STATE TAXATION IN A GLOBAL BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT Determining What s Unitary: Combined Filing Requirements and Options Peter Leonardis AIG Alysse McLoughlin McDermott Will & Emery LLP David Vistica
TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE REVENUE RULING # 06-27 WARNING Revenue rulings are not binding on the Department. This presentation of the ruling in a redacted form is information only. Rulings are made
MTC APPORTIONMENT AND ALLOCATION RULES FOR FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS On the July 8, 2008 definitions working group conference call, states were asked to submit written comments outlining the issues that each