Posted tagged ‘retroactive’

Update on Supreme Court Retroactivity Litigation

April 6, 2017

By Adam Koelsch

As previously reported on the SALT Blawg, Chamberlain Hrdlicka attorneys Stewart M. Weintraub and Adam M. Koelsch, together with Peter L. Faber of McDermott, of Will & Emery LLP, filed in the U.S. Supreme Court an amicus brief on behalf of the American College of Tax Counsel in support of the petitioners challenging a retroactive repeal of tax legislation by the state of Michigan.  Although the petitioners and the amici had asserted various reasons for granting certiorari, the most prominent of those assertions was that the repeal, stretching seven years into the past, violates the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Subsequent to those submissions, the Supreme Court removed from its conference calendar the petition submitted in another pending retroactive tax legislation case from Washington state (Dot Foods, Inc. v. State of Washington), presumably to consider it jointly with the Michigan cases at a later date, and also ordered Michigan to submit a response to the petitions filed — moves widely seen as signaling that the Court is interested in addressing Due Process issue.

Michigan has since submitted its response, setting forth a novel basis for denying cert.:  that the 2014 legislation challenged by the petitioners — which repealed retroactive to 2008 a statute authorizing a three-factor apportionment election that had existed since 1970 — was a “legislative clarification” of a 2008 Business Tax statute that had supposedly mandated single-factor apportionment for all prospective years, and was therefore not retroactive at all.  Thus, according to Michigan, application of that principle of state statutory-construction law constitutes an adequate and independent state law ground to uphold the decision of the Michigan state court, thereby depriving the Supreme Court of jurisdiction to review the issue.

Not so, replied the petitioners.  IBM and Skadden Arps submitted reply briefs on March 24 and 27, respectively.  IBM’s brief challenged the assertion that the doctrine of “legislative clarification” in fact exists, and asserted that the any new law that applies to activities (or tax years) in the past is, by definition, retroactive.  Skadden Arps, in its brief, added that the Michigan Court of Appeals had never mentioned the doctrine in its decision, while explicitly acknowledging the statute’s retroactive effect, and that, in any event, “the Supremacy Clause does not allow federal retroactivity doctrine to be supplanted by the invocation of a contrary approach to retroactivity under state law.”  On March 28, a brief filed on behalf of Goodyear Tire, Deluxe Financial Services, and Monster Beverage reiterated the arguments of IBM and Skadden Arps.

The briefs for the Michigan petitioners and for the petitioners in Dot Foods will all be considered during the Court’s conference on April 13, and the Court’s decisions could be announced as early as April 17.

Here, you can find copies of:  the Michigan response briefthe IBM reply briefthe Skadden Arps reply brief, and the Goodyear et al. reply brief.

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…)