Archive for the ‘Franchise Tax’ category

Don’t Delay – Pennsylvania’s 2017 Tax Amnesty Program Starts Today

April 21, 2017

By Jennifer Weidler Karpchuk

As of today, April 21, 2017, Pennsylvania’s 2017 Tax Amnesty Program has officially commenced.  Those individuals with potential Pennsylvania tax liabilities should consider taking advantage of the program, which is slated to run through June 19, 2017.  During those sixty (60) days, the Pennsylvania Department of Revenue will waive all penalties and half of the interest for anyone who participates.  For more information, see our previous blog post hereContact us to find out if amnesty is the right choice for you.

Start of Pennsylvania 2017 Tax Amnesty Program Draws Near – Do You Qualify?

February 24, 2017

By Jennifer Weidler Karpchuk

In less than two (2) months, Pennsylvania’s 2017 Tax Amnesty Program will commence.  Those individuals with potential Pennsylvania tax liabilities should consider taking advantage of the program, which is slated to run from April 21, 2017 through June 19, 2017.  During those sixty (60) days, the Pennsylvania Department of Revenue (“Department”) will waive all penalties and half of the interest for anyone who participates.

The program applies to delinquencies existing as of December 31, 2015 – whether or not the delinquency is known to the Department.  The litany of taxes eligible for the program includes:

  • Agriculture Cooperative Tax;
  • Bank and Trust Company Shares Tax;
  • Capital Stock or Foreign Franchise Tax;
  • Cigarette Tax;
  • Corporate Loans Tax;
  • Electric Cooperative Tax;
  • Employer Withholding Tax;
  • Financial Institutions/Title Insurance Company Shares Tax;
  • Fuel Use Tax;
  • Gross Premiums Tax;
  • Gross Receipts Tax;
  • Hotel Occupancy Tax (including state administered 1% local Hotel Occupancy Tax for Philadelphia and Allegheny);
  • Inheritance and Estate Tax;
  • Liquid Fuels Tax;
  • Malt Beverage Tax;
  • Marine Underwriting Profits Tax;
  • Motor Carriers Road Tax, for IFTA vehicles, PA portion only;
  • Motor Vehicle Carriers Gross Receipts Tax;
  • Mutual Thrift Institutions Tax;
  • Oil Company Franchise Tax;
  • Parimutuel Wagering and Admissions Tax;
  • Personal Income Tax;
  • Public Transportation Assistance (“PTA”);
  • Public Utility Realty Tax;
  • Realty Transfer Tax, including Local Realty Transfer Tax;
  • Sales and Use Tax, including Local Sales and Use Tax for Philadelphia and Allegheny;
  • Surplus Lines Tax;
  • Unauthorized Insurance Tax; and
  • Vehicle Rental Tax.

Notably, the 2017 Tax Amnesty Program does not include Unemployment Compensation (which is administered by the Department of Labor and Industry), nor does it include any tax administered by another state, local government, or the Federal government.

Pursuant to the program, the taxpayer is responsible for paying the principal tax due, plus one-half interest.  The Department will, in turn, rescind any liens or other enforcement actions for that debt; waive all penalties associated with the debt; waive one-half interest; and waive any fees (ex. lien filing fees or collection agency fees).

Along with the payment for all taxes and one-half of the interest, all missing tax returns or reports must be filed no later than June 19, 2017.  However, a taxpayer with unknown liabilities reported and paid pursuant to the Tax Amnesty Program is eligible for a limited look-back period whereby the taxpayer will not be liable for any taxes of the same type due prior to January 1, 2011.

Those taxpayers who are eligible for the 2017 Tax Amnesty Program, but do not participate will be subject to a five-percent (5%) non-participation penalty.  Generally speaking, individuals, businesses and other entities with state tax delinquencies as of December 31, 2015 (whether known or unknown to the Department) are eligible to participate in the program.  However, any taxpayer who participated in the Department’s 2010 Tax Amnesty Program is ineligible to participate in the 2017 program.  Taxpayers who have entered into Voluntary Disclosure Agreements with the Department are likewise ineligible to participate.  Nevertheless, taxpayers who have entered into deferred payment agreements with the Department are eligible for the 2017 Tax Amnesty Program.  Notably, a taxpayer who applies for tax amnesty forfeits all future appeal rights for liabilities paid through the program.

Business taxpayers may request a statement of account that shows all liabilities by visiting e-TIDES at http://www.etides.state.pa.us.  Individual taxpayers may review account information, including all liabilities, by visiting the Personal Income Tax e-Services Center at http://www.doreservices.state.pa.us.  Please contact us if you need assistance in determining whether you qualify for the 2017 Tax Amnesty Program and whether participation in the program is the right choice for you.

2011 Year-End SALT Update

January 6, 2012

 by Jennifer Weidler

ARIZONA

Arizona DOR Finds Nexus for Sales Representatives Providing Customer Support and Training

Of course it had nexus: Arizona DOR rules that corporation has substantial nexus due to presence of sales representatives who provide customer support and training.

(more…)

Weekly SALT Update Nov. 7, 2011

November 7, 2011

 By Paul Masters with contributions by Jennifer Weidler in Chamberlain’s Philadelphia office.

State Regulations and Public Notices

California Board of Equalization issues a proposal to amend the definition of “retailers engaged in business in this state,” in conformance with AB 155. It will take effect either September 15, 2012 or January 2013. The effect of this change would be to expand the requirement for retailers to register with the Board and remit California use taxes, or to be subject to payment of these use taxes on such failure to remit.

Utah State Tax Commission notifies public of proposed rule change implementing three-factor formula for apportionment It also requires services to be “inUtah” if the benefit inUtah exceeds that received in any other state, and sets forth rules for the apportionment of income from intangible property.

Indiana Department of Revenue issues information bulletin on application of sales tax to restaurants, and a dealer must pay sales tax on the value of cars not used by sales staff, services to setup rented property are included as taxable as part of the rental receipts, cleaning agents do not qualify for manufacturing exemption, and no public transportation exemption for company that did not document sale of trucking services for hire – listed wrong on invoice. And in an expanded discussion, the DOR rules a manufacturer must pay use tax on HVAC equipment essential for manufacturing operations.

And then there were seven: Ohio revises its requirement for Ohio car dealers to collect Ohio sales tax on non-resident purchases of cars to be taken out of state, with collection required for seven states.

Colorado DOR revises FYI detailing responsibility of taxpayer to pay sales tax on vending machine receipts. Colorado DOR revises FYI 62 regarding rules on collecting local sales tax to be remitted to the state. (more…)

Weekly SALT Update – Nov. 3, 2011

November 3, 2011

 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.

Other Documents

None noted.

Weekly SALT News Update

October 31, 2011

 

 By Paul Masters

State DOR Letters and Policy Rulings

Illinois Department of Revenue has issued several rulings, including:

* explains how prescription drugs are taxed, and the Service Occupation Use Tax on tangible personal property transferred incident to sales of service;

* explains taxation of software maintenance agreements and the Service Occupation Tax;

* rules that a chemical manufacturer’s containers used to ship fluid products to customers are not subject to sales or use tax because (i) the customers sell the products in the containers and provide the manufacturer with a resale certificate at the time of purchase, and (ii) title to the containers is transferred to the customers;

* when a construction contractor permanently affixes tangible personal property to real property, the contractor is deemed the end user of that tangible personal property. As the end user, the contractor incurs Use Tax on the cost price of that tangible personal property. See 86 Ill. Adm. Code 130.1940 and 86 Ill. Adm. Code 130.2075.;

* the “gross receipts” portion of the Retailers’ Occupation Tax is explained;

* information or data that is electronically transferred is not considered tangible personal property;

issues a detailed (and excellent) ruling on the application of the Service Occupation and Use taxes in connection with engineering services provided along with the sale of custom bridges;

* rules that integrally connected equipment to agricultural equipment (exempt) may also be exempt;

* a ruling regarding the new exemption for property used to repair aircraft; and

* in a significant ruling on Medicare, the DOR rules that in order for a Medicare payment to be exempt from sales tax, the payment must be made directly to the government. Any payments made to a patient or insurance company that would later be reimbursed by the government are subject to tax. It is all in the planning.

 

State Regulations and Public Notices

Ohio releases updated taxability matrix for Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement.

 

State Legislative Affairs

Ted Poe is a conservative representative from Texas. Jackie Speier is a liberal representative from California. And they agree on one thing: states should be able to require Internet retailers to collect sales and use tax absent traditional nexus. H.R. 3179 has been introduced, and it has the support of representatives from both parties in several states, including Arkansas, California, Florida, New York, Tennessee, and Texas. It is known as the Marketplace Equity Act of 2011, and is the first bill that has a real chance of passage.


Judicial and Administrative Decisions

Michigan Tax Tribunal details factors to rely on in determining the proper valuation of commercial property. The case included a traditional battle of the experts (three against one), with the one prevailing because of a more careful study, ample explanation as to the reasoning employed, and better comparables.

 

Other Documents

None noted.

Weekly SALT News Update

October 18, 2011

State DOR Letters and Administrative Rulings

Illinois Office of Administrative Hearings respects the entity, and rules Department of Revenue cannot go after owner of corporation for use tax liability on vessel use in Illinois. Use tax is not a trust tax. It also rules that the foreign corporate owner of a vessel used in Illinois for 30 days/year has sufficient nexus to allow Illinois to impose use tax on value of vessel. Taxpayer allowed credit for tax paid outside the state. Correct tax base for assessment of use tax is the purchase price reduced by depreciation prior to first use in Illinois.

Virginia Tax Commissioner rules that a taxpayer cannot include a foreign corporation that did not have nexus with Virginia into its combined Virginia corporate income tax return. Further, the taxpayer failed to follow proper procedure to claim a valid business purpose to exclude factoring fees required to be added back. In another ruling, it finds that a corporate officer who had no responsibility for financial reporting matters was not personally liable for unpaid use tax pursuant to Va. Code § 58.1-1813. The occasional sale exemption applies for a school that engages in sales of surplus items once per year (or every other year). In fact, as long as no more than three such sales occur each year, the sales are exempt. A manufacturer who leases a vending machine used to dispense exempt safety equipment used in the manufacturing process are subject to sales tax. The dispensing of exempt safety equipment is not an exempt activity, and the activity is not used directly in the manufacturing process.

 

State Regulations and Public Notices

The California Franchise Tax Board issues Cal. Admin. Code tit. 18, § 25128.5 that clarifies the single sales factor filing election now available to multistate taxpayers that must apportion their business income derived from sources in California. It applies to tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2011. It issues a 15-day notice for comment for proposed § 25136 relating to sales of other than tangible personal property. It arguably broadens the scope, but is offered as an attempt to capture the original intent of the original regulation. It further defines the meaning of “mixed intangible,” looks to the location of the benefit of the service for approximating sales.

Indiana Department of Revenue revises Directive No. 5 as to the proper tax treatment for income paid to entertainers in the state. It classifies the treatment based on (i) employees of a promoter, (ii) independent contractors, and (iii) employees of a production company. It also revised Information Bulletin No. 88 regarding the tax treatment of non-resident professional athletes playing in Indiana. It revises Information Bulletin No. 39 to reflect the new single-factor sales apportionment for non-resident individuals. And Information Bulletin No. 11 for sales tax is revised to further lay out the proper taxation of purchases (and exemption for consumables), as well as clarifying when an exemption certificate for the purchase of food from a restaurant is proper.

Utah State Tax Commission issues rule effective October 1, 2011 regarding proper allocation of gross receipts attributable to Utah. If the corporation does not have an office in Utah from which the sales are negotiated or effected, then the receipts allocable to Utah are (i) those resulting from performance of services with greater benefit in Utah than any other state, and (ii) sale of goods for delivery in state regardless of title terms. Utah State Tax Commission has promulgated final rule 884-24P-033 that modifies guidance on the assessment of personal property tax for business property and motor vehicles.

Wisconsin Department of Revenue revised Tax Publication 207, which provide guidance for contractors as to the payment of sales tax. Notable changes are relating to equipment being provided by an operator, and conformity with Chula Vista case.

Ohio Department of Revenue has began a push to let the public know about a new use tax amnesty program that began in October. This is a key opportunity for businesses to come into compliance in connection with use tax in Ohio.

New York State Department of Taxation and Finance releases a summary of 2011 legislative changes to the sales tax.

 

State Legislative Affairs

California modifies existing law to require not only the reimbursement of sales tax paid by a manufacturer to replace a vehicle under the state’s “Lemon Law,” but to also reimburse any payment of use tax by the manufacturer. AB 1069 has extended the California film tax credit, an amount based on a percentage of expenditures for the production of a qualified motion picture in California, or, where the qualified motion picture has relocated to California or is an independent film, to July 1, 2015. AB 291 extended the additional $0.006 per gallon tax for storage of petroleum in underground tanks through January 1, 2014.

Tennessee’s governor announced an agreement with Amazon to bring in more jobs and $350 million in capital investment as Amazon agrees to begin collecting Tennessee sales tax effective January 1, 2014 unless a national “solution” first arises. The Legislature would have to approve the agreement, with a bill to be introduced in January.

Reps. Womack (R) and Speier (D) announced that they are cosponsoring Amazon legislation in the U.S. House. It would empower states to require online retailers to collect sales and use tax even if the retailer lacks a physical presence. The bill will be known as the Marketplace Equity Act.

 

Judicial and Administrative Decisions

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division affirms the decision of the Tax Court, published at 25 N.J. Tax 398 (Tax 2010), granting the Director,

Division of Taxation, summary judgment dismissing the Estate’s complaint with prejudice and denying an inheritance tax refund.  The court rules that the three-year limitation on requesting inheritance tax overpayment refunds, set by N.J.S.A. 54:35-10, is enforceable; and the Square Corners Doctrine does not apply to the facts of this case so as to preclude application of N.J.S.A. 54:35-10.

The Kentucky Court of Appeals, in Department of Revenue v. St. Joseph Health Sys., Inc., et al, reversed a decision in which the lower court found that a gas broker was not a utility, and thus not subject to the utility gross receipts tax. KRS 160.613(1). The hospital had argued as an exempt entity it was not subject to the tax. This was a matter of statutory interpretation by the court, and the court undertook the review to interpret the statute “liberally.” Bob Hook Chevrolet Isuzu, Inc. v. Commonwealth Transportation Cabinet, 983 S.W.2d 488, 490 (Ky. 1998).  (Note: Texas narrowly construes tax statutes against the taxing authority – so quite possibly a different result in Texas.) Because the statute did not state the tax is imposed on a “public utility,” but instead it is imposed on “utility services,” it found that the gas broker was liable.

A three-member panel of the Vermont Supreme Court (not precedential) holds that a comparable provided by taxpayer to dispute assessed value sufficient to rebut presumption of validity of tax appraisal. The government appraiser must provide some evidence to support valuation.

The Washington Board of Tax Appeals rules that a prescription provider whose customers were enrollees of Washington’s Uniform Medical Plan did not qualify for the lower business and occupation tax rate for persons engaged in warehousing and reselling drugs for human use. The BDA focused on the definition requiring drugs to be resold to hospitals and health care providers. UMP is in the insurance business, and insurance companies are not included.

Illinois Department of Revenue Office of Administrative Hearings rules that food given away is subject to use tax.

Michigan Tax Tribunal rules that estimated audit was flawed because of auditor went to purchases to determine sales, as opposed to relying on Z tapes. Auditor’s judgment of inherent unreliability of Z tapes is not sufficient to disregard those records. Taxpayer’s documented close supervision of all sales, understanding of how to transact sales in conformance with tax code by the employees, as well as reconciliation of Z tapes to cash and credit card receipts. Internal controls are sufficient to ensure tax is property collected and reported. Michigan Tax Tribunal rules that former shareholder who sold interest in corporation and continued as president and employee was not a responsible corporate officer under MCL 205.27a(5).

New York Supreme Court rules in New York Mills Redevelopment Co. LLC, et al. v. Town of Whitestown et al. that a taxpayer must have actual notice of withdrawal of exemption, and that upon such date of actual notice the statute of limitations beings to run.

Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court rules in Procter & Gamble Paper Products Co. v. Commw. that pallet used to transport and hold products constitutes exempt packaging for sales and use tax purposes. This is a tax opportunity across the various states.

Ford Motor Co. sues the Florida Department of Revenue to overturn a decision that mandates Ford to pay use tax on parts provided by Ford to complete warranty repairs by repair shops.

Washington Department of Revenue issues a decision regarding agents for growers, warehousing and separate business, and fruit bin rentals. A fruit packing house asserts that its fruit sorting and packing income is exempt from the service and other activities B&O tax, alleging that its income was compensation for the “receiving, washing, sorting, and packing” of fruit from a grower.  It also protests the warehousing B&O tax assessed on amounts derived from its storage of fruit claiming that this activity was not a separate business activity from its fruit sorting and packing business. Taxpayer also protests the deferred sales tax/use tax assessed on fruit bin rentals. While income from performing the fruit sorting and packing services would be exempt if performed for a grower, the customer was a packing house, so no exemption. As to the separate business issue, the DOR pointed to Yakima Fruit Growers Ass’n v. Henneford, 187 Wash. 252, 60 P.2d 62 (1936), which analyzed the separate business issue as to growers, and rejected the taxpayer’s argument. Regarding the argument that sales and use tax did not apply, the DOR pointed to a lack of documentation to prove up that sales tax had already been paid, or to show that the bins belonged to the customers and rejected the claim. In another released decision, the Washington Department of Revenue rules that a grocery store does not qualify for the lower B&O rate slaughter houses due to processing of meat products in the store delis. Finally, it lays out in another ruling the proper tax treatment for certain amusement and recreation sales, and how that fits into the resale exemption for purchased items necessary to provide those services, all in the context of the B&O tax. It is a detailed ruling, and instructive for bifurcating sales of TPP from services, and how the resale exemption fits into that box.

 

Other Documents

It was a flyer for a New York school hockey team that gave the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance the motivation to enact the controversial Amazon law based on affiliate contact. Robert Plattner, Commissioner, stated that an employee of the Department received a flyer from his son’s hockey team, and the flyer touted that the hockey team would receive 6 percent of all sales purchased through Amazon. That appeared to be more like a commission, the active solicitation of sales in New York by Amazon, and along the lines of Scripto as opposed to Quill. The rest is history. Thanks to Amy Hamilton for her report.