ipt insider

IPT InsiderInstitute for Professionals in Taxation®

The SALT Professionals Community

March 2015

In this Issue

President's Corner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2News You Can Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3Calendar of Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15Property Tax Calendar . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16CMI & CCIP Exam Schedule . . . . . . . . 16ABA/IPT Tax Seminars . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17IPT Live Webinars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18Credits & Incentives School . . . . . . . . . 18Sales Tax School II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Basic State Income Tax School . . . . . . 19Advanced State Income Tax School . . . 19IPT 39th Annual Conference . . . . . . . . . 20Real Property Tax School . . . . . . . . . . . 20Upcoming Local Luncheon . . . . . . . . . . 21Sales Tax School I Highlights . . . . . . . . 22Member Spotlight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24New Members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25In Memoriam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Just One More . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27Property Taxation 4th Edition . . . . . . . . 27State Business Income Taxation Book 28Become an IPT Sponsor . . . . . . . . . . . 28CMI Corner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29CMI & CCIP Candidate Connection . . . 30Challenge Exam Policy Update . . . . . . 31

Not quite the newsletter you were expecting? We are excited to introduce the IPT Insider, the new “go to” resource for news and information created specifically for IPT members . It looks different, but has all of the information you need, plus a little bit extra, in a more efficient package.

You told us that you value the information in the Tax Report and Member News, but sometimes find the newsletters overwhelming, too lengthy and difficult to navigate. In response to your feedback, the IPT Insider was developed, combining the Tax Report and Member News into one monthly periodical that is posted to ipt .org the first of every month .

IPT Insider isn’t just two newsletters consolidated into a single publication . We have made thoughtful changes that will make the content stronger and more relevant . An Editorial Committee,

co-chaired by Clark Calhoun, Esq ., and Brian Goldstein, Esq ., was created to oversee the articles, determining if they are meaningful to IPT members and provide the type of insight that members can really use .

We added a new feature that shines the spotlight on IPT members . We will interview a variety of members from across all disciplines and ask them about their experiences with IPT, where they found the value within the organization, and a little about their hobbies and aspirations . This is all in an effort to get to know each other better, learn some best practices and build a stronger professional network .

We also rearranged a bit . You will find all the articles placed together in a section, and the school, symposium and conference information in another . CMI news, IPT updates and member recognition will be sectionalized

as well . The career opportunities information will now be available exclusively on ipt .org and will continue to be updated as new opportunities are submitted .

The creation of IPT Insider is the first, small step in a plan to develop better communication practices throughout IPT . In the coming months, we’ll look at all of our communications vehicles and evaluate what we need to add, eliminate and refine to improve the overall IPT member experience . If you have any thoughts or suggestions on ways to communicate or on the newsletter, send an email to the new Communication Manager, Jennifer Newman at jnewman@ipt .org .

Welcome to IPT Insider

State &

Local

IncomeProperty

Credits &

Incentives

Value

Added Sale

s

&Us

e

mailto:[email protected]

March 2015 IPT Insider 2

IPT OFFICERS President Arthur E. Bennett, CMI Property Tax Assistance Co., Inc.

First Vice President Margaret C. Wilson, CMI, Esq. Wilson Agosto LLP

Second Vice President Chris G. Muntifering, CMI General Mills, Inc.

BOARD OF GOVERNORS Immediate Past President Arlene M. Klika, CMI Schneider

Carolyn L. Carpenter, CMI, CPA JMC Express, Inc.

Leslie S. Fisher, CMI E. I. Du Pont de Nemours and Company

Garfield A. Grant, CMI, CPA DuCharme, McMillen & Associates, Inc.

Rick H. Izumi, CMI ITA, LLC

Kenneth R. Marsh, CMI TransCanada Pipelines Limited

Faranak Naghavi, CPA Ernst & Young LLP

Carolyn M. Shantz, CMI, CPA Superior Energy Services

Andrew P. Wagner, CMI, JD, LLM FedEx Corporation

Allan J. Wells, CMI ABB Inc.

CORPORATE COUNSEL Lee A. Zoeller, CMI, Esq. Reed Smith LLP

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Cass D. Vickers

ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS: Brenda A. Pittler Charles Lane O’Connor

This publication is designed to provide accu-rate information for IPT members and other tax professionals. However, the Institute is not en-gaged in rendering legal, accounting, or other professional services. If legal advice or other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent professional should be sought. Re-print permission for articles must be granted by authors and the Institute. Send address changes and inquiries to Institute for Profes-sionals in Taxation®, 1200 Abernathy Road, NE, Building 600 Suite L-2, Atlanta, Georgia 30328 Telephone (404) 240-2300/Fax (404) 240-2315.

Arthur E . Bennett, CMI President June 2014-2015

Welcome to IPT Insider, the redesigned newsletter where you can get important IPT information and SALT insight on the legislation, regulations and issues that matter most to you. I think that you will find the new format easier to navigate and that you will be able to access the information you need more quickly .

One thing we really focused on in the redesign was incorporating more depth and thought leadership content into the articles, supplying you with practical solutions to the issues you face every day . We created an Editorial Committee that includes representation from across all of our disciplines, and they have been tasked with developing articles that will provide information on the latest industry topics . As a team they will work to ensure the articles give you insight and perspective to help you find workable resolutions for the issues most important to you .

My thanks to Editorial Committee Co-Chairs Clark Calhoun, Esq ., and

Brian Goldstein, Esq ., for agreeing to lead this team . I also thank the committee members: Marty Wilson, CCIP, Jennifer Zimmerman, Esq ., Jennifer Y . Barber, Esq ., Brett R . Carter, Esq ., Eric H . Langberg, CPA, Sylvia F . Dion, CPA, Rachel A . Le Mieux, CMI, CPA, Steven G . Mills, CMI, Evan B . Rice, Esq ., Peter H . Schnore, Esq ., Teresa L . Sharp, CMI, CPA, and Alex Baulf, who have graciously agreed to give their time and energy to this valuable effort .

As in the past, IPT members are called upon to provide the content for the articles, so I ask in advance for your assistance when these committee members call on you!

Overall, the goal in revitalizing the newsletter and focusing on the articles is to keep providing content that you find informative and valuable . If you have any feedback or suggestions on the IPT Insider, I encourage you to send it to IPT’s Communication Manager, Jennifer Newman, at jnewman@ipt .org .

I am very excited to see the plans coming together for this year’s Annual Conference to be held June 28 – July 1, 2015, at the Hilton San Diego Bayfront . San Diego is a beautiful place to visit, known for its perfect weather, many family attractions and nearly 70 miles of beaches . Our theme this year is ANCHORS AWEIGH in tribute to San Diego’s maritime legacy, and it will be an informative, yet fun, conference . I encourage you to make plans to attend .

As we continue to plan the conference, I am especially enthusiastic about the strong agenda of sessions and subject matter that we plan to include . The Conference Planning Committee has been hard at work developing the roster of general sessions, breakout meetings and networking events to ensure the

(Continued on page 3)

President’s Corner



conference is a good investment of your time . I extend my sincere thanks to Conference Planning Committee Chair Nancy Flagg, CPA and the committee for all of their hard work . You will see more information about the conference in the coming weeks as the final touches are put in place. I hope to see you there!

On a somber note, I would like to acknowledge the IPT members we lost recently . IPT founding member and first IPT president Derek McCleery, CMI, passed away February 26, 2015 . In 1976, Derek and his colleagues had a vision to create an organization with the mission to educate, enlighten and enhance the community of tax professionals, objectives that IPT upholds to this day . He ushered in many IPT “firsts” including the first CMI designation, Annual Conference, tax school, and the first iteration of this newsletter . After he retired he continued to support and help strengthen IPT, and ultimately in some way influenced all that IPT has become, and I thank him for it .

We also mourn the passing of Walt Beyer, CMI, who served as president in 1985-86, and was a founding and influential member of IPT. I thankfully acknowledge the work he did to help build this organization .

Past President Carolyn Elerson, CMI, who served in 2005-06, also recently passed away . I had the pleasure of working with her as Overall Conference Chair for the Annual Conference in Huntington Beach, California, in 2006 . She was a wonderful leader, a true professional and I thoroughly enjoyed working with her .

We also lost Greg Lafakis, Esq ., whom I taught alongside in the early years of the Intermediate Real Property Tax School at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville . Greg was a staple as an instructor in our property tax programs and was a thoughtful and memorable lecturer who shared his knowledge with many members . All of them will be truly missed .

I also would like to report that in conjunction with our Executive Committee Budget meeting, I had the pleasure and honor of presenting some opening remarks during the Sales Tax School I at the Georgia Tech Hotel and Conference Center on February, 22, 2015 . There were 212 students in attendance, and I thoroughly enjoyed meeting and “talking shop” with many of them .

In closing I would like to extend my thanks to all the committees and IPT members for your work in building a stronger organization . Your efforts are appreciated .

Arthur E . Bennett, CMI President

news You Can use

CREDITS AND INCENTIVES

America’s Unemployed Youth: How Tax Credits and Incentives May

Alter the Dilemma Facing a Jobless Generation

Employer tax incentives were a big part of the 2014 tax landscape . From the $8 .7 billion Boeing Co . deal to Nevada’s winning bid to lure Tesla, states used megadeals to attract jobs to their respective jurisdictions . Recently, states have undertaken the task to incentivize, through tax credits or grants, the hiring of paid interns in hopes of rebuilding youth employment rates .

Jennifer A. Zimmerman, Esq. Horwood Marcus & Berk Chartered

Northbrook, IL Phone: (312) 606-3247

E-mail: jzimmerman@hmblaw .com

Article begins on page 5



Tax Tribunal Issues First Ruling Regarding Scope of Authority of

Tax Tribunal JudgeIn a case of first impression for the newly-established Alabama Tax Tribunal, the Alabama Department of Revenue challenged the Tribunal’s ability to decide a question of law when the pro se taxpayer did not specifically raise the argument in its notice of appeal or at the hearing . Chief Judge Bill Thompson held that the Tribunal did have the ability to decide the legal issue: whether the Department’s lodging tax regulation exceeded the scope permitted by the levying statute; which holding was supported by the Taxpayer Fairness Act that created the Tribunal; and the legislative history and the Department’s own mission statement . The states considering an independent tax tribunal, as well as states with existing tax tribunals should consider clarifying the tribunal's authority with respect to questions of law or legal arguments not raised by the taxpayer in their pleadings, but yet relevant to the ultimate issue of the taxpayer’s correct liability .

Bruce P. Ely, Esq. Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

Birmingham, AL Phone: (205) 521-8366 E-mail: bely@babc .com

James E. Long, Jr., Esq., CPA Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

Birmingham, AL Phone: (205) 521-8626

E-mail: jelong@babc .com


SALES AND USE TAX

State Tax Developments for Pass-Through Entities and their Owners-

Apportionment of Income for Corporate Partners

This is the third in a series of articles that will address some of the many challenging state and local tax issues faced by pass-through entities, including tiered groups of such entities . This article, which focuses on apportionment of income for corporate partners, discusses the issues surrounding the business/nonbusiness determination, highlights the state’s various characterizations of partnership interests, and reviews the methods prescribed by the states to apportion what it deems to be business income of pass-through entities . The article also underscores the complexities involved in apportionment for pass-through entity owners when states’ methods vary depending on whether there is a unitary relationship between the flow-through entity and the owner, or on the type of interest held by the owner .




Joanna Fu Simek, CPA, MST BKD, LLP Chicago, Il

Phone: (630) 282-9612 Email: jsimek@bkd .com


INCOME TAX






CREDITS AND INCENTIVES

America’s Unemployed Youth: How Tax Credits and Incentives May

Alter the Dilemma Facing a Jobless Generation

Jennifer A. Zimmerman, Esq. Horwood Marcus & Berk Chartered1



America's Jobless Generation

The Great Recession ended over five years ago, but for many millennials, the future remains bleak . America’s young adults are frustrated in the face of

weighty student loans and a sluggish job market . Though the unemployment rate among young Americans has declined from its April 2010 peak of 19 .6 percent, just 63 .4 percent of young people age 18-29 are employed .2 About a third of that total are employed part-time, with many of those in college . The unemployment rate of workers under the age of 25 stood at 14 .3 percent in July, more than twice the overall rate .3

Disproportionately high youth joblessness is not surprising in a recession; young workers are always far more affected by an employment crisis than older workers . The young are often inexperienced and lower skilled and typically the first to be laid off or shut out of the job market. Employers looking to cut back on their workforces target lower-skilled workers first, both because they contribute less to the entity’s success and because they are easier to replace when the economy picks back up .

Particularly troubling about the current situation, though, is that researchers in the United States have found that youth unemployment leaves a “wage scar” that can persist into middle age .4 Young people who endure early spells of

1 The author would like to thank Allison C . Hintz, a law clerk in her third year at DePaul University School of Law, for her assistance with this article .

2 Billy Hamilton, Generation Jobless: Can State Tax Incen-tives Help?, Tax Analysts (Dec . 9, 2014) .

3 Id.

4 Generation Jobless, The economisT (Apr . 27, 2013), avail-able at http://www .economist .com/news/international/21576657-around-world-almost-300m-15-24-year-olds-are-not-working-what-has-caused .

unemployment are likely to have lower wages and greater odds of future unemployment than those who don’t suffer similar unemployment bouts . This problem is not on the shoulders of only the young . If young workers earn less and consume less, the U .S . economy (and global economy) will be negatively impacted . Greater proportions of their children will be poor, and their children’s poverty will stunt the next generation’s economic prospections .

Tax ConsequencesAs young Americans lose out on higher wages and salaries, federal and state governments suffer reduced revenue . By one study, high levels of youth unemployment have caused federal and state governments to lose an estimated $8 .9 billion in revenue .5 This figure does not take into account the losses associated with sales tax from the inability to afford major purchases, such as homes and vehicles . Governments are, of course, looking for ways to recoup these lost funds . Tackling youth unemployment is not just good ethics . It’s good economics .

Credits & Incentives: Reducing Youth Unemployment

One suggested course of action to curb youths’ inexperi-ence and, as a result, the high youth unemployment rate is the use of internships, both paid and unpaid .6 Seen by employers as more important than where a job applicant attended school, what the applicant majored in, or had as his or her GPA, internships are designed to provide outside-the-classroom experience to the inexperienced .

The number of unpaid internships is increasing, fueled by employers’ desire to keep costs low and students’ eagerness for experience they can put on their résumé . A common defense of the unpaid internship is that even if the position does not pay wages now, it will pay off in the form of a job and possibly higher wages later . Unpaid internships, however, can be somewhat disturbing . In certain cases, unpaid internships have actually displaced paid employees and interns have been without educational supervision and mentorship .7 Additionally, unpaid interns

5 Hamilton, Generation Jobless: Can State Tax Incentives Help? .

6 Amanda Gutterman, 5 Solutions to the Youth Unemploy-ment Crisis You Probably Haven’t Thought Of, The huffingTon PosT (Oct . 25, 2014), available at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/25/youth-unemployment-solutions_n_6044310 .html .

7 Unpaid internships in compliance with The Fair Labor Standards Act must, among other things, provide vocational education and refrain from substituting interns for paid




are sometimes victims of “The Devil Wears Prada” mentality and are seen by employers as grunt workers to whom they can offload all their menial tasks.8 Further research indicates a flaw in the original premise – unpaid internships simply don’t work in providing young people much, if any, advantage in their hunt for a permanent job .9

Government ActionsIf one answer to the problem of high youth unemployment is to increase the number of legitimate internships, thereby increasing the number of job opportunities for young Americans, the next natural question must be how to incentivize legitimate job-producing internships . Because the jobless climate affects a majority of the country, a case could be made for federal grants or tax breaks .

In September 2014, Sen . Bernard Sanders, I-Vt ., and Rep . John Conyers Jr ., D-Mich ., introduced bicameral legislation titled the “Employ Young Americans Now Act .”10 The legislation provided for an initial appropriation of $5 .5 billion in grants to states and local governments for fiscal year 2015. The legislation planned to generate job opportunities for one million young Americans and offer job training to hundreds of thousands more . However, with no further action taken beyond the legislation’s introduction, the bill died in the previous Congress .

The current Congress leaves much to be desired in the way of passing legislation geared toward providing job opportunities or training . Moreover, Congress has cut a billion dollars from youth jobs programs over the past decade .

Therefore, states are perhaps better prepared for the task at hand . Indeed, a handful of states have designed programs that use tax credits or grants to provide incentives for businesses to hire high school and college students for paid internships or apprenticeships . At least eight states currently have such incentive programs: Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New York, North Dakota,

employees . Alex Williams, For Interns, All Work and No Payoff, n.Y. Times (Feb . 14, 2014), available at http://www .nytimes .com/2014/02/16/fashion/millennials-internships .html?_r=0 . The case of Walling v. Portland Terminal Co., 330 U .S . 148 (1947), outlines six requirements to satisfy in order to qualify for an exemption from paying interns . 8 Id. 9 See Id. 10 Employ Young Americans Now Act, S . 2832, 113th Cong . (2014) .

Ohio and Rhode Island .11 A majority of those states, Minnesota, Missouri, New York, North Dakota and Rhode Island, use tax credits . Alternatively, Iowa, Nebraska, and Ohio make direct grants to businesses that hire qualifying interns .

Fiscally, states are strapped . Virtually all the programs are structured in a way that limits their fiscal impact. Most limit the number of interns a company can employ under the program and often the amount of credits or grants is limited to a percentage of the intern’s salary or a fixed dollar amount .

For example, Iowa’s grant program limits businesses to three interns eligible under the program at a maximum grant of $3,100 per intern, $1 equal to every $2 paid by the business . Also, in North Dakota, the employment credit is limited to 10 percent of an intern’s compensation for up to five interns per business, in addition to a limit on each individual business of $3,000 in total credits .

Some states focus their incentive programs on certain industries or business size . The Iowa program is limited to small and mid-size companies in the advanced manufacturing, biosciences and information technology industries employing 500 or fewer employees . Ohio’s program provides grants for internships in businesses involved in advanced energy, advanced manufacturing, advanced materials, bioscience, IT, instruments, controls and electronics, and power and propulsion .

Minnesota. Minnesota is one state that uses tax incentives to induce employers into hiring youth workers . Minnesota’s program states the number of interns and dollar amount of the tax credit, while limiting the program’s application to eligible internships in “greater Minnesota .” The internship provision creates a refundable credit against the corporate franchise tax for eligible employers in an amount equal to 40 percent of the compensation paid to a qualified intern certified to the business by an eligible college or university . The maximum credit

11 Other states have outwardly declined to adopt such pro-grams . For example, in March, 2013, New Jersey Gov . Chris Christie conditionally vetoed legislation that would have provid-ed tax credits to employers for wages that they pay to student interns . In doing so, Christie framed his concern as to whether the measure would actually spur full-time jobs . The bill, A-1271, envisioned a credit against employers’ corporation business or gross income taxes for what they paid to “qualified interns” in tax years 2013 and 2014 . According to estimates, the program would have reduced state revenues under those taxes by $7 million over those same years . N .J . Assembly, A-1271, 215th Leg . (2012) .



available is $2,000 per intern . Total statewide tax credits are capped at $2 million per year, which breaks down to 1,000 internships annually that Minnesota expects to fund .

“Greater Minnesota” includes areas outside the counties of Anoka, Carver, Chisago, Dakota, Hennepin, Isanti, Ramsey, Scott, Sherburne, Washington and Wright . The program basically applies to areas outside the Minneapolis-St . Paul metropolitan area . Open to students attending public or private nonprofit universities in Minnesota, a student must be attending a participating college or university and have completed 50 percent of the necessary credits to graduate in order to be eligible .

In addition, participating colleges and universities must approve the businesses in order for them to be eligible for the credit . Businesses must then certify that the intern wouldn’t have been hired but for the tax credit . This certification is to insure that the business is actually hiring an additional intern that it otherwise would not have . Recipient businesses must also certify that the intern hasn’t worked for the business before in the same or similar job and hasn’t previously participated in the program . Furthermore, businesses have to agree to pay the interns at least the state minimum wage, currently $8 per hour, and have the interns work a minimum of sixteen hours per week for at least eight weeks .

Missouri. Missouri also has a program that gives tax breaks for internships to those individuals and businesses that contribute to a range of programs designed to help young people . Recipient individuals and businesses can apply the credits to income tax, corporate franchise tax, bank tax, insurance premiums tax, and other financial institution tax . To receive the 50 percent tax credit, a business can either hire an intern, or it can contribute, for example, to an at-risk youth program and one of the other approved programs to help young Missourians .

Nebraska. With similar goals to traditional incentive programs, grant programs work differently while still providing businesses with an incentive to hire qualified interns . For example, InternNE, Nebraska’s grant program, awards grants of up to fifty percent of the cost of an internship, with a maximum of $5,000 per internship . Businesses that hire students receiving federal Pell grants (need-based grants to low-income undergraduate and certain post baccalaureate students to promote access to postsecondary education) can receive a grant of up to 75 percent of the internship’s cost and an additional $2,500 per internship . InternNE allows businesses to be approved for up to five interns per location and up to ten interns companywide in each fiscal year.

InternNE is open to full-time students and recent gradu-ates from a Nebraska college or university or Nebraska residents enrolled full time or recently graduated from a college or university outside of Nebraska .

New York. New York, in a move distinct from the tax credit and grant programs previously mentioned, uses a minimum wage reimbursement credit to reimburse employers for part of the difference in the upcoming minimum wage increase .12 New York’s minimum wage was set at $7 .25 per hour at the time of the legislation . The passed legislation approved an increase, set to take effect in three increments between 2014 and 2016, of the minimum wage up to $9 an hour . Once the minimum wage reaches $9 an hour, employers will pay 40 cents and taxpayers $1 .35 of the extra $1 .75 an hour workers will be paid .

New York’s program is less concerned with future job opportunities as it is with preventing teenagers from being squeezed out of jobs by the higher wage rate . Employers will receive tax credits for seasonal employees ages sixteen to nineteen who are still in school . In contrast to the aforementioned credit and grant programs, New York’s program is without a cap on the amount of tax credits available or the types of businesses to which the credits will generally be available . The overall cost of the program is also not capped, though estimates put the cost at $230 million over the first four years.

Concerns about cost are evident . New York’s incentive package alone could cost more than a quarter of a billion dollars over the first four years of inception. An additional concern is that employers will use the credit as an incentive to substitute teenagers for adult workers in low-paying jobs, effectively replacing one problem with another .

North Dakota. Under North Dakota’s Internship Employment Credit program, an entity is allowed an income tax credit for employing an individual under an internship program located in North Dakota .13 The program allows for a credit equal to ten percent of the entity’s compensation paid to the intern, for up to five interns employed simultaneously . An employer is allowed no more than $3,000 of credits for all tax years . An intern must be enrolled in a college or vocational technical education program majoring in a field related to the work

12 Glenn Coin, New York’s Minimum Wage tax Credit Slammed as Poorly Designed and Wasteful, sYracuse.com (Apr . 28, 2013), available at http://www .syracuse .com/news/index .ssf/2013/04/new_yorks_minimum_wage_tax_cre_1 .html .

13 N .D .C .C . § 57-38-01 .24 .(Continued on page 8)


to be performed in the internship. Further, the employer must supervise and evaluate the intern. The internship must qualify for academic credit.

Rhode Island. With an eye towards remedying the continuing shortage of highly skilled workers in Rhode Island, the state legislature passed the Rhode Island Employers’ Apprenticeship Tax Credit.14 The tax credit applies to new machine tool & metal trade apprentice or plastic process technician apprentice. Specifically, the credit program provides for a tax credit equal to the lesser of 50 percent of actual wages paid to a qualifying apprentice or $4,800. Though Rhode Island’s program does not specifically target young workers, it does provide for a combination of on-the-job learning and related classroom instruction. To qualify, the apprentice must be enrolled in a registered qualified program through the Rhode Island Department of Labor and Training’s State’s Apprenticeship Council.

The Economics of a Jobless Generation

Growing national debate is centering on the value of employer credit and incentive programs and whether they actually create jobs or merely shift work from one location to another. Credit packages targeted to reduce youth unemployment are different. State programs are unlikely to displace youth internships from one locale in favor of another because the incentives are simply not of high enough calibers. The incentives are strong enough to encourage the hiring of qualified interns without being so large as to draw one business from its current jurisdiction to the jurisdiction offering tax credits or grants for paid interns.

Credit and incentive programs certainly don’t come free. They must be financed somehow, through reduced spending or raised taxes. Either way, taxpayers will be affected by a state’s choice to implement a credit or grant program targeting youth unemployment. Taxpayers will, indirectly or directly, front the cost. The extra cost to taxpayers may be justified. America’s youth are not the only individuals impacted by sluggish hiring. One study suggests that joblessness will account for a staggering $20 billion in lost earnings over the next decade.15 This equates to about $22,000 per person.16 Every year of

14 R.I. Gen. Laws § 44-11-41 (2014).

15 Elizabeth Jacobs, Twelve Ways to Fix the Youth Un-employment Crisis, Governance StudieS at BrookinGS (May 2014), available at: http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2014/05/22-youth-unemployment-crisis-workforce--jacobs.

16 Sarah Ayers, The High Cost of Youth Unemployment,

high youth unemployment results in lower tax revenue and higher safety net expenditures for federal and state governments. The cost of high youth unemployment amounts to approximately $9 billion in foregone tax revenue and benefits paid out each year at the federal and state level. With credit and grant programs stimulating the reduction in youth unemployment, taxpayers will benefit through a broader tax base and increased revenues for federal and state governments.

ConclusionMore than a one-third of the United States’ population of 300 million consists of individuals under the age of thirty. The unemployment problem plaguing America’s youth is large in scope and strong in persistence. Growing evidence indicates that without immediate action, the effects of the Great Recession and youth unemployment will linger for years. States are correct in seeking a solution, trying new approaches. However, concern about the structuring of incentive programs is not misplaced as there is little research about the effectiveness of these programs on the unemployment rate. What is true is that tax incentives and grants may provide a useful stimulus to private sector job decisions. The risk of losing a full generation of workers comes with serious consequences – consequences so dire that the risk and costly investment of credit and incentive programs may be well worth it.

Washington DC: Center for American Progress (Apr. 5, 2013), available at https://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/up-loads/2013/04/AyresYouthUnemployment1.pdf.


SALES AND USE TAX

Tax Tribunal Issues First Ruling Regarding Scope of Authority of

Tax Tribunal JudgeBruce P. Ely, Esq.

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP Birmingham, AL

Phone: (205) 521-8366 E-mail: bely@babc .com

James E. Long, Jr., Esq., CPA Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

Birmingham, AL Phone: (205) 521-8626

E-mail: jelong@babc .com

Chief Judge Bill Thompson of the newly-established Alabama Tax Tribunal ("the Tribunal") issued his first, and a key, ruling involving the scope of his

authority when the taxpayer, Stone Bridge Farms of Cullman, Alabama, does not specifically raise a viable argument or defense in its notice of appeal . This raises the question of whether a tax tribunal judge may invalidate an Alabama Department of Revenue (the “Department”) regulation, even though the taxpayer challenging the underlying assessment did not attack the regulation in its pleadings or at the hearing . Stone Bridge Farms, LLC v. State of Alabama Department of Revenue, Ala . Tax Tribunal Docket No . S . 14-510 (January 27, 2015) .

The case involves a taxpayer that owns and rents facilities for special events such as weddings, rehearsal dinners, and receptions in rural Cullman County . Initially, the facility included only a wedding chapel, a banquet room, and other buildings . It was undisputed that the rental proceeds from these specific facilities were not subject to the lodgings tax . However, beginning in January 2013, the taxpayer began renting three nearby chalets on the property to overnight guests, typically those involved with a wedding at the adjacent facility . At that point, the taxpayer began filing lodgings tax returns and paying lodgings tax on the chalet rentals .

The Department audited the taxpayer and assessed it for additional lodgings tax on the proceeds from the rental of the wedding chapel, banquet room and any other facility on the property used by the guests that previously had not been subject to lodgings tax . The Department relied on its Regulation 810-6-5- .13, which requires the collection of lodgings tax on all rented facilities “where rooms or other accommodations are offered for the use

of travelers, tourists or other transients . . .” That is, pursuant to the regulation, once any part of the taxpayer’s facilities became subject to lodgings tax, the rentals from all facilities became subject to the tax .

The taxpayer’s CEO, who had appealed the final assessment, did not attend the hearing or file a brief. Nevertheless, Chief Judge Thompson ruled that the regulation was invalid because it expanded the scope of the lodgings tax beyond the levy permitted by the statute, and voided the final assessment. Instead of challenging the substance of the ruling, the Department raised a procedural defense in its application for rehearing . It argued that the taxpayer’s failure to raise the issue of the overbroad regulation barred the Tax Tribunal from ruling in favor of the taxpayer on that ground .

This procedural challenge has broad implications to tax practitioners and, of course, to the authority of the new Alabama Tax Tribunal . If the Department’s position was correct, then the burden would presumably be on both the taxpayer and the Department to raise every argument in their pleadings or at the hearing before the Tribunal; otherwise, the Tribunal would lack jurisdiction to even consider these questions of law . This would create a heavy burden for any taxpayer, especially pro se taxpayers (including in-house counsel or tax managers of corporate taxpayers) who frequently appear before the Tribunal . It would also deliver a significant blow to the new Tribunal as a “user-friendly” forum to resolve tax disputes .

Chief Judge Thompson rejected the Department’s attempt to limit the Tribunal’s scope of authority and ability to review questions of law:

I agree that if a taxpayer disputes a final assessment on factual grounds, the taxpayer must present evidence that the final assessment is incorrect. . . . This case can be distinguished, however, because the relevant facts, as stated in the Department’s answer, are not disputed, and the case involves a purely legal issue . That is, the case does not involve a disputed issue of fact .

He ruled that by appealing in a timely manner, the taxpayer had invoked the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, and that the validity of the regulation was also before the Tribunal because the Department cited the regulation as the basis for the assessment in its answer . He also added that “the Alabama Legislature has empowered the Tax Tribunal to increase or decrease a final assessment upon appeal ‘to reflect the correct amount due’.” See Ala . Code § 40-2A-7(b)(5)d .1 .





As additional support for the distinction between questions of law versus fact, the judge also cited new Tax Tribunal Regulation 887-X-1- .6, which provides that the Tribunal’s final order may “grant such relief and invoke such remedies as deemed necessary by the tribunal judge for a fair and complete resolution” of the case . He added: “[f]undamental fairness mandates that a taxpayer should not be required to pay a tax that is not due under Alabama law .”

The Department’s attorneys argued that the Tribunal was in essence placing the burden of proof on the Department to justify the validity of its assessments, and that the Tribunal had “effectively become an advocate for the [t]axpayer.” The judge flatly rejected both arguments, referring to the fundamental premise for the establishment of the Tribunal last year: “By establishing an independent Alabama Tax Tribunal . . . this chapter provides taxpayers with a means of resolving controversies that ensures both the appearance and the reality of due process and fundamental fairness .” Ala . Code § 40-2B-1(a) .

The judge asserted that if the Department’s position was upheld, it would cause the taxpayer to pay “a tax that is not due under Alabama law, because the taxpayer’s pro se representative may not have properly plead the taxpayer’s case… If that position is accepted, then small businesses and non-lawyer taxpayers could fall prey to procedural and other legal traps, and would in practical effect be forced to hire an experienced attorney to represent them in an appeal before the Tribunal, which is clearly contrary to the intent of the Legislature .” To buttress that statement, the judge cited a recent article in Business Alabama Monthly in which one of the principal authors and sponsors of the bill made essentially the same point .

Citing the Department’s mission statement to administer Alabama’s revenue laws in an equitable manner, the judge added a strong personal note:

In my 38-plus years as an employee of the Revenue Department, first as an assistant counsel and then for 31-plus years as the Department’s Chief Administrative Law Judge, I personally observed that the Department’s employees, and especially those in its operating divisions, almost universally applied the proverbial Golden Rule and took the position that a taxpayer should only pay the correct tax due, nothing more or less . Unfortunately, it appears that this case is an exception to that commendable mindset… Rather, the Department’s position is that the [t]axpayer should be required to pay

lodging tax that isn’t due … based on what most citizens of Alabama would consider a procedural or technical trap .

In conclusion, he pointed out the potential waste of resources since the taxpayer could appeal an adverse ruling of the Tribunal to circuit court, raise the validity of the regulation in question at that level, and have a trial de novo . “Not resolving an issue while it is before the Tribunal would thus cause an unnecessary waste of time and expense for the [t]axpayer and the Department and also waste the circuit court’s time and resources .”

As Chief Judge Thompson’s ruling makes clear, one of the overriding goals of a state-level tax tribunal, court, board or commission is to provide a system that is fair to both the taxpayer and the state department of revenue – in appearance and in reality . While it is unknown whether the Department will appeal this ruling to circuit court, this case is especially instructive for any state considering establishing an independent tax tribunal or court . According to Eileen Sheer and the AICPA’s State and Local Tax Technical Resource Panel (TRP), only sixteen states still lack some form of an independent tax tribunal . While Alabama joined the majority of states last year with the passage of the Alabama Taxpayer Fairness Act, there are similar proposals currently pending in New Mexico and Washington .

The states considering an independent tax tribunal, as well as states with existing tax tribunals of whatever stripe, should consider clarifying the authority of their tribunal with respect to questions of law or legal arguments not raised by the taxpayer in its pleadings but yet relevant to the ultimate issue of determining the taxpayer’s correct liability . And this authority should not be limited to appeals involving pro se taxpayers .

© February 22, 2015 . Bruce P . Ely/ James E . Long, Jr ./ Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP . All rights reserved .


INCOME TAX

State Tax Developments for Pass-Through Entities and their Owners-

Apportionment of Income for Corporate Partners1




Joanna Fu Simek, CPA, MST BKD, LLP Chicago, Il

Phone: (630) 282-9612 Email: jsimek@bkd .com

Taxation of corporate partners in multistate partnerships raises interesting problems because in many circumstances the corporate partner itself

is subject to multistate taxation and therefore must be engaged in the process of apportioning and allocating its income on a multistate basis .

The underlying constitutional premise is that any taxpayer doing business in several states has a right to have its income fairly apportioned among the taxing states . The most common method to divide the income is by using a formula that compares the taxpayer’s property, payroll and sales in a particular state with those same factors everywhere . Flow-through entities apportion their income to a state using the state’s specified apportionment formula . The entity is also required to notify its partners of the distributive share of state source income – generally via a state specific Form K-1.

Furthermore flow-through entities are generally required to decide whether income is business or non-business income, in order to determine the distributive share of income attributable to each state . If the income is determined to be non-business income, it will be allocated to a specific jurisdiction; whereas if it is determined to be business income, it will be apportioned among the states where the entity has activity as described above . The difference between allocating and apportioning partnership income could have a material impact on a

1 The authors would like to thank Allison C . Hintz, a law clerk in her third year at DePaul University School of Law, for her assistance with this article .

corporation’s state-blended rates utilized for provision purposes and could go as far as turning an otherwise non-cash paying taxpayer into one that pays cash taxes .

Thus, two questions often arise with respect to corporate partners: (1) is the business/nonbusiness income determination made at the partner or partnership level; and (2) will the corporation’s income from the partnership be determined on an “aggregate” basis or “entity” basis for purposes of computation of the corporate income tax base .

Business/Nonbusiness DeterminationThe last 20 years reflect a substantial increase in use of pass-through entities, but states always seem to be playing “catch-up” with changes in the way business is being done . As a result, one area in which there is little guidance is whether the business/nonbusiness determination is made at the partner or partnership level . As a result, most states have not addressed the issue of whether the business/nonbusiness income determination is made at the partner or partnership level . There are a few exceptions . Alabama, Arizona, California, Illinois and Pennsylvania have all provided direct guidance on this issue . Alabama2, California3 and Illinois4 require that the determination be made at the partnership level, but Arizona5 and Pennsylvania6 require that it be done at the partner level .

For a partnership’s non-business income, the determination of the state to which the income should be allocated will depend on the sourcing rules in the states at issue . The income will be attributed to the state or states that are considered to be the source of the income . For example, Illinois and California require that non-business income, which is determined at the partnership level, should be sourced to the state where the partner is domiciled, unless the partner has attained a business situs in the state .

Other states require that the non-business income be determined at the partner level, which yields different results because the corporate investment in the partnership is typically treated as an intangible asset .

2 ala. admin. code r . 810-27-1-1- .09 .

3 cal. code regs. tit . 18 § 25137-1(a) .

4 ill. admin. code tit . 86, § 100 .3500(b)(1) .

5 ariz. rev. sTaT. § 43-1412 .

6 061 Pa code § 153 .29 .





A handful of states, including Arkansas7, Louisiana8, Mississippi9 and Oklahoma10, presume that a corporate partner’s distributive share of income or loss is non-business income . They therefore require separate allocation with regard to such income .

Despite the position of these few states, one may assume that most states consider income to be “business income” unless the taxpayer can prove otherwise . This theory is reinforced by the Multistate Tax Commission (MTC) regulations, which construe the Uniform Division of Income for Tax Purposes Act (UDITPA), that establish a presumption in favor of apportionment in stating, “the income of the taxpayer is business income unless clearly classifiable as non-business income.”11 New Jersey, however, has taken the position in Chiron Corp. v. Director, Division of Taxation12 that there is a presumption against finding a unitary relationship between a corporate partner and partnership in the context of partnership factor flow-through. Absent a unitary finding, partnership income is treated as non-business income and separately allocated to a state based on the appropriate sourcing rules for that state .

ApportionmentAssuming that a business income determination has been made, the next step is to determine how the income is to be apportioned . Like the business/nonbusiness determination, states have adopted several different approaches. Most states follow the “aggregate” or “flow-through” approach . Under this approach, partnership income is aggregated with the corporate partner’s business income . The total business income is then apportioned using an apportionment formula that combines the corporate partner’s distributive share of the partnership’s apportionment factors with the corporation’s own apportionment factors . In other words, the apportionment factors flow-through from the partnership to the corporate partner .

An example of the “aggregate” approach is: A corporation has a 60% interest in a partnership . The corporate partners calculate their apportionment factor by including 60% of the partnership’s payroll, property and sales (assuming

7 ark. code ann. § 26-51-405 . 8 la. rev. sTaT. ann. § 47:204 . 9 miss. code ann. § 27-7-25 . 10 okla. sTaT. tit . 68, § 2363 . 11 MTC Reg . IV .1 .(a) . 12 Chiron Corp . v . Director, Div . of Taxation, 21 N .J . Tax 528 (Tax Ct . 2004) .

that the state uses a three-factor apportionment formula) .

On the other hand, under the “entity” approach, a partnership is treated as a separate entity distinct from its partners and the corporation is taxed on its distributive share of the partnership income determined separately . If the corporate partner has operations of its own in the state, it computes its own state apportioned income and adds to the result the income from the partnership’s K-1 .

An example of the “entity” approach is: A corporate partner has a 60% interest in a partnership that earns $100 of income . If apportionment is calculated at the partnership level and the partnership computes a 50% apportionment factor in a state, the partner would include $30 of partnership income in its tax base in that state, which is 60% of the partnership’s income in the state after apportionment (i .e . $100 x 50% = $50, and $50 x 60% = $30) .

A few states, including California13, Illinois14, Michigan15 and New Jersey16, require the flow-through of apportionment factors only if the corporate partner and the partnership are unitary . The analysis in states that take a unitary approach becomes more complicated considering states’ differing unitary standards . For example, in California, traditionally a unitary relationship existed if any of three unity tests was satisfied. These tests include the Mobil three-factor test17, the three unities test18, and the contribution and dependency test19 .

In a recent case, ComCon Production Services I, Inc. v. California Franchise Tax Board20, California attempted

13 cal. code regs. tit . 18 . § 25137-1 . If partners and part-nership are not unitary, but the income is considered business income, partners must apportion partnership income separately from their other business income . 14 ill admin. code tit . 86, § 100 .3380 . 15 mich. comP. laws §§ 206 .661(2), 206 .663(1) . 16 n.J. admin code § 18:7-7 .6 . 17 Mobil Oil Corp . v . Comm’r, 445 U .S . 425 (1980) (con-sisting of functional integration, centralized management, and economies of scale) . 18 Butler Bros . v . McColgan, 17 Cal . 2d 664 (Cal . 1941) (consisting of unity of ownership, unity of operation, and unity of use) . 19 Edison Cal . Stores, Inc . v . McColgan, 30 Cal . 2d 472 (Cal . 1947) (consisting of whether the operation of the portion of the business done within the state is dependent upon or contributes to the operation of the business without the state) . 20 ComCon Prod . Servs . I, Inc . v . California Franchise Tax Bd ., Los Angeles Superior Court, No . BC489779 .



to prove that Comcast and its subsidiary QVC formed a unitary business . Comcast presented evidence that focused chiefly on the three Mobil indicia . Under the Mobil test, unity is established with a showing of centralized management, functional integration, and economies of scale between the entities in question . The Franchise Tax Board, however, focused on the application of the contribution and dependency test, which focuses on whether the entities contribute to, or depend on, one another, in its attempt to affirmatively show unity between Comcast and QVC .

The court rejected the State’s contentions and held that the evidence presented at trial demonstrated that none of the unitary tests were satisfied. In its decision, the court relied on the Mobil indicia of a unitary business, which it found incorporated the contribution and dependency test . Relatedly, a few California courts have noted that, while using slightly different terminology, the Mobil indicia and the three unities test look to the same basic factors, with the most emphasis placed on centralized management (unity of use) and functional integration (unity of operation) . In the aggregate, these decisions could be interpreted as meaning that the Mobil indicia are the sole factors used to determine whether a unitary relationship exists in California and that the contribution and dependency test is simply a subset of the Mobil test . As ComCon illustrates, a unitary relationship analysis can be complex and confusing . The uncertainty surrounding such a determination is only amplified if there is more than one test to determine unity .

On the other hand, there are some states that provide much clearer guidance for making a unitary determination . For example, in Michigan, a taxpayer is unitary with a flow-through entity if that taxpayer:

• Owns or controls, directly or indirectly, more than 50% of the ownership interest with voting rights or ownership interests that confer comparable rights to voting rights of the flow-through entity, and

• The taxpayer has business activities or operations with the flow-through entity that (1) result in a flow of value between or among persons in the group, or (2) are integrated with, are dependent upon, or contribute to each other .21

Another point to consider when making a unitary determination is that generally limited partners are not considered to be unitary with the partnership due to the

21 mich. comP. laws § 206 .663(1) .

passive nature of the relationship (as always though in the state and local tax world, there is no hard and fast rule to such effect applied by the states) . The converse is not necessarily true however, i .e . whether a general partner is unitary with the partnership is a factual determination made in accordance with the particular state’s rules .

It is interesting to note that one state, Georgia, specifically looks to the type of interest held by the partner in determining what apportionment approach applies . In Georgia, the flow-through of apportionment factors occurs if the foreign partner is a general partner . However, when a foreign partner is a limited partner, the partnership’s income is apportioned and allocated at the partnership level and the foreign partner’s distributable share of the partnership’s Georgia income is subject to allocation .22

Corporate partners that engage in business with the flow-through entities in which they own an interest must also determine whether a state will require elimination of these intercompany transactions for purposes of calculating the apportionment factor . For example, Michigan provides that sales between a taxpayer and a flow-through entity unitary with that taxpayer must be eliminated when calculating the apportionment sales factor .23 Complexities may arise when the intercompany transaction takes place indirectly or with an affiliate. In addition, some states have only specified the elimination of intercompany transactions between partners and a partnership24, but have not expanded the elimination for Limited Liability Companies (LLCs) and their members . However, at least one state, Oregon25, specifically provides for elimination between a corporate member and LLCs, but does not address transactions between partners and a partnership .

All of the above mentioned issues are also relevant when a tiered partnership structure exists . Income and apportionment factors can be flowed up through numerous levels of entities, depending upon applicable state law .

Finally, there is one more consideration with respect to Joyce/Finnigan issues . When determining sales to be thrown back or out, is the determination made at the partnership level or the partner level? In Joyce states, each entity’s apportionment factors are calculated independent of the others and then combined . Thus, a partnership’s sales to a state where it doesn’t have nexus

22 ga. comP. r. & regs. 560-7-7- .03 . 23 MCL 206 .663(3) . 24 IL DOR Ruling IT 08-0001-PLR (5/19/08) (If unitary and all partners are members of the same unitary group, intercom-pany transactions are eliminated) . 25 OR Reg . Sec . 150=314 .650(9) .



may be subject to throwback despite the fact that the corporate partner has nexus in such state .

ConclusionAs outlined in the first two articles in this series, given the constant changing nature of states’ treatment of pass-through entities and their owners, it is critical for such persons to vigilantly monitor changes, particularly relating to apportionment, in an effort to avoid unknown tax liabilities and unnecessary penalties .


IPT 2015 CALENDAR OF EVENTS

ABA-IPT Advanced Income Tax Seminar The Ritz-Carlton Hotel New Orleans, LA March 16 - 17, 2015

ABA-IPT Advanced Sales/Use Tax Seminar The Ritz-Carlton Hotel New Orleans, LA March 17 - 18, 2015

ABA-IPT Advanced Property Tax Seminar The Ritz-Carlton Hotel New Orleans, LA March 19 - 20, 2015

IPT Live Webinar Unleash the Potential: The Due Process Clause March 26, 2015 2:00 - 3:00 p .m . EST

IPT Live Webinar Regional Sales Tax Update: Southern States April 1, 2015 2:00 - 3:00 p .m . EST

Credits & Incentives School The Cliff Lodge Salt Lake City, UT April 20 - 23, 2015

Sales Tax School II Marriott Kingsgate Conference Center Cincinnati, OH April 26 - May 1, 2015

Basic State Income Tax School The Cliff Lodge Salt Lake City, UT May 31 - June 5, 2015

Advanced State Income Tax School The Cliff Lodge Salt Lake City, UT May 31 - June 5, 2015

CMI Sales Tax Exams Hilton San Diego Bayfront San Diego, CA June 26 - 27, 2015

CCIP Exams Hilton San Diego Bayfront San Diego, CA June 27 - 28, 2015

CMI Income Tax Exams Hilton San Diego Bayfront San Diego, CA June 27 - 28, 2015

CMI Property Tax Exams Hilton San Diego Bayfront San Diego, CA June 27 - 28, 2015

IPT Annual Conference Hilton San Diego Bayfront San Diego, CA June 28 - July 1, 2015

Real Property Tax School AT&T Executive Education Center Austin, TX July 19-24, 2015

Property Tax School Georgia Tech Hotel & Conference Center Atlanta, GA August 9 - 13, 2015

CMI Sales Tax Exams Renaissance Esmeralda Resort Indian Wells, CA September 25 - 26, 2015

Sales Tax Symposium Renaissance Esmeralda Resort Indian Wells, CA September 27 - 30, 2015

Value Added Tax Symposium Renaissance Esmeralda Resort Indian Wells, CA September 30 - October 2, 2015

Personal Property Tax School Georgia Tech Hotel & Conference Center Atlanta, GA October 11 - 15, 2015

CMI Income Tax Exams JW Marriott Austin Austin, TX October 31 - November 1, 2015

CMI Property Tax Exams JW Marriott Austin Austin, TX October 31 - November 1, 2015

CMI Credits and Incentives Exams JW Marriott Austin Austin, TX November 2 – 3, 2015

Income Tax Symposium JW Marriott Austin Austin, TX November 1 - 4, 2015

Property Tax Symposium JW Marriott Austin Austin, TX November 1 - 4, 2015

Credits & Incentives Symposium JW Marriott Austin Austin, TX November 3 - 6, 2015

Please check IPT’s online Calendar of Events for additional programs that may be added .


Property Tax Calendar ~ April 2015

This information is provided by International Appraisal Company (IAC) and is provided for quick reference/reminder purposes only . IPT and IAC make no guar-antee to completeness or accuracy and are not re-sponsible for errors or omissions or for any results from the use of this information . We strongly suggest confirmation of all information with local taxing juris-dictions .

Appeals Due:AZ* DE* HI* IA* KY* NC* ND* OK* SD* VA*

KS 4/1

MN 4/30 Tax Court (Prior Year)

NJ 4/1

NY Corning, Nassau County Rochester (Local)

ND Townships - 1st Monday; Cities - 2nd Monday

DC By 4/1

VA* Assessor Reviews

Personal Property Filing Dates: AZ CA FL GA LA ME MS . . . . . . . . . . . .4/1CO MD TX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4/15AK* VT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4/20SC* VA* WA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4/30

Assessment Dates:ME 4/1VT 4/1

* Dates vary, check jurisdiction

2015 CMI & CCIP Exam Schedule

CMI Sales Tax Exams:June 26 – 27, 2015 Hilton San Diego Bayfront San Diego, CaliforniaSeptember 25 – 26, 2015 Renaissance Esmeralda Resort and Spa Indian Wells, California

CMI Property Tax Exams:June 27 – 28, 2015 Hilton San Diego Bayfront San Diego, CaliforniaOctober 31 – November 1, 2015 JW Marriott Austin Austin, Texas

CMI Income Tax Exams:June 27 – 28, 2015 Hilton San Diego Bayfront San Diego, CaliforniaOctober 31 – November 1, 2015 JW Marriott Austin Austin, Texas

CCIP Exams:June 27 – 28, 2015 Hilton San Diego Bayfront San Diego, CaliforniaNovember 2 – 3, 2015 JW Marriott Austin Austin, Texas

Applications must be received in the IPT office 90 days prior to the examination date. Potential candidates are encouraged to plan ahead to avoid missing the application deadlines and thus the opportunity to sit for the exam . Visit the IPT website for all deadlines and to download an application .


Best Practices for the Tax Administration of Income Taxes

Best Practices for Managing Audits and Litigation in Today’s Challenging Environment

Traps for the Unwary in Dealing with the Major Business Taxes – Income, Gross Receipts and Margin Taxes

State of State Taxation – Views from the Bench

Does PL 86-272 Cover More Than You Think?

Statutes of Limitation (RARs)

The Revival of Due Process - An Update on Economic Nexus

How to Build an Audit File on “Unitary-ness”

Combined Reporting – A Case Study

An In-depth Look at the New MTC Rules and Recent State Developments on Apportionment Issues

Remaining Ethical During These Times of Cost Cutting

ABA/IPT Advanced Tax SeminarsMarch 16 - 20, 2015

The Ritz-Carlton ~ New Orleans, LA

Bringing together business tax professionals

Brochure Registration

Hotel Reservations: King Bed Accommodations or Double Bed Accommodations

Remaining Ethical During These Times of Cost Cutting

The Annual Big Easy Brawl: The Panelists Go Head-to-Head “Discussing” Current State and Local Tax Issues

The Tough Compliance Issues Associated with Taxing Services

Sales Taxation of Loyalty Programs

Local Tax Issues: Keeping Up With the Other 9,948 Sales and Use Tax Collectors

Potpourri

Ask the Collector!

Economic Substance, Sham Transactions

National Multi-State Sales and Use Tax Update

Fact or Fiction? Cooperation and Communication between Tax Professionals and Their Inside/Outside Advisors

Fee Simple and Leased Fee Valuations: Distinctions with Real and Subtle Differences

Judges of General Jurisdiction: How to Present a Winning Case

Valuation Issues for Senior Housing

No Place But Up – Interest Rates, Rents, Prices, Real Estate and the Economy

Roundtable: Perspectives on Valuation Issues

Practical Applications of the Commerce Clause to Preempt Property Taxes on Inventory in Transit

Regional Mall Valuations . . . Market Solutions to Win Your Case

Murder, Mischief, Mayhem and Property Values: What Happened Next Door?

Roundtable: Update on Key States

Are We Having Fun Yet? The Valuation of Entertainment Venues

Ethics in a Tax Practice: Are They Mutually Exclusive?

INCOME TAX SEMINARMARCH 16-17, 2015

SALES/USE TAX SEMINARMARCH 17-18, 2015

PROPERTY TAX SEMINARMARCH 19-20, 2015

Join Us in the Big Easy!


IPT Live WebinarsUnleash the Potential:

The Due Process Clause March 26, 2015, 2:00 - 3:00 p .m . EST

Regional Sales Tax Update: Southern States

April 1, 2015, 2:00 - 3:00 p .m . EST

IPT’s second Credits and Incentives School will take place at the Cliff Lodge near Salt Lake City, Utah, from April 20 - 23, 2015 . The school covers the fundamentals of credits and incentives and is designed for individuals who have a basic knowledge of the topic . The registration fee covers 9 .5 hours of pre-requisite web-based coursework, approximately 22 .5 hours in a face-to-face school, and six hours of additional E-learning electives . The pre-requisites must be completed prior to the school . In the live portion of the school, emphasis is placed upon student participation via a case study and group discus-sion . Successful completion of all three segments and the school examination is required . The faculty represents a broad-based set of backgrounds and many decades of experience .

Online Registration Registration FormBrochure Hotel Reservation

Credits and Incentives SchoolApril 20 - 23, 2015

The Cliff Lodge, Salt Lake City, Utah

Regional Sales Tax Update: Southern States

April 1, 2015The Southeastern update will discuss recent develop-ments in indirect taxes in southeastern states, including: Florida, Georgia, North Carolina and South Carolina . The webinar will include legislative updates, department rulings and court cases . Topics include: Florida’s enact-ment of an industrial machinery and equipment exemp-tion; Georgia’s broadening of its manufacturing exemp-tion to include consumable supplies; the current status of the Georgia high technology exemption; North Carolina’s codification of the terms “real property contractor” and “retailer-contractor”; North Carolina’s treatment of service contracts; and the broadening of South Carolina’s medi-cal exemption .Click here to register .

Recorded Distance Learning Courses are Available at IPT.org

Unleash the Potential: The Due Process Clause

March 26, 2015This session will provide an overview of due process analysis to date, with a focus on the U .S . Supreme Court cases addressing the Due Process Clause and the state tax cases that have applied it to negate the state’s taxing authority .Click here to register .

2015 IPT Sales Tax School II:Theory and Practice for the Experienced Sales

& Use Tax Professionals

April 26 – May 1, 2015Marriott Kingsgate Conference CenterUniversity of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio

The school is composed of the 16 general sessions shown below, followed by breakout sessions which expand on the material .

Ethics Constitutional Issues Advanced Topics in

Retailing Advanced Topics in

Leasing Advanced Audit

Management Taxpayer Remedies Statistical and Block

Sampling Mergers & Acquisitions Tax Planning Taxation of Computer

Software & Services Advanced Topics in

Telecommunications Advanced Topics in

Manufacturing Advanced Topics

in Construction Contracting

Advanced Topics in Oil and Gas

Taxation of Electronic Commerce

Managing the Sales Tax Function

Online Registration Registration FormBrochure Hotel Reservation


This school is a thorough, five-day program that provides an in-depth examination of the complex problems state income tax professionals face, including nexus and en-tity concerns, separate and consolidated/combined return issues, apportionment complexities, reorganizations and mergers, tax planning nuances, and more .

Topics Include: State of the States Evaluating Risk in Nexus and PL 86-272 Issues Nonbusiness Income:

Recent Cases & Remaining Questions Unitary Business:

Core Theory & Recent Applications Case Study:

Differences Between Unitary and Non-Business State Tax Issues for Foreign Affiliates Complex Problems in Combined Reporting and

Advanced Return Mechanics Case Study: Combined Reporting Advanced Problems in Mergers & Acquisitions Tax Planning Case Study: Tax Planning Passthroughs — Advanced Issues Case Study: Passthroughs Advanced Issues in Using and Accounting for Net

Operating Losses SALT Tax Provisions and Accruals IFRS: What the Future Holds for SALT Thorny Issues with “Other” Business Taxes: Margin

Tax, Franchise Tax, B&O, Etc . Apportionment — Current Issues with Factors:

Market vs . COP, Joyce vs . Finnigan, Gross vs . Net, (MTC Compact)

Apportionment — Weighing Constitutional Issues Apportionment — Seeking Alternative Relief Case Study: Tax Apportionment Related Party Transactions:

Transfer Pricing, 311(b) Distributions, etc . Case Study: Related Party Transactions Coordinating Federal and State RARs and

Compliance Taxpayer Remedies:

The How To’s of Tax Controversies Ethics

This school is focused on teaching fundamental state in-come tax concepts and practices. The five-day program is designed to provide the essential state tax building blocks for those students with less than five years income tax experience . The curriculum includes a thorough review of basic in-come tax concepts, such as apportionment, nexus and the unitary business principle . It also provides an intro-duction to more advanced issues and features specif-ic courses on accounting principles, income tax audits and compliance, as well as best practices for researching and documenting income tax issues . The curriculum will also provide an introduction and analysis of recent trends, such as states’ greater emphasis on the sales factor and resort to gross receipts taxes . The format of this school includes lectures as well as in-teractive case studies and group discussions . Students will benefit from the insight and diversity of experiences of faculty, which consist of tax professionals from public and private companies and top accounting and law firms.

Topics Include: State of the States Jurisdiction to Tax, Part 1:

Federal Constitutional Limitations Jurisdiction to Tax, Part II: Nexus and P .L . 86-272 Determination of Income Tax Base Case Study: Nexus and P .L . 86-272 What is a Unitary Business Income Subject to Allocation Income Tax Filing and Compliance Common Issues in Mergers and Acquisitions Fundamentals of Formulary Apportionment Pass Through and Disregarded Entities Allocation and Apportionment Tax Return Basics Handling an Income Tax Audit Tax Provisions 101 Case Study: Tax Provisions Researching and Documenting Findings Ethics

BASIC STATE INCOME TAX SCHOOLThe Cliff Lodge ~ Salt Lake City, Utah

May 31 - June 5, 2015

ADVANCED STATE INCOME TAX SCHOOLThe Cliff Lodge ~ Salt Lake City, Utah

May 31 - June 5, 2015

Mark your calendar!Information for each of these schools will be available soon on IPT's website.


Photo by Joanne DiBona

IPT’s 2015 Annual Conference is a two and one-half day program designed to inform, educate and connect IPT members, providing them with the knowledge and re-sources they need to be successful . The conference is intended for all IPT members and other associated indi-viduals, and features IPT’s annual business meeting, as well as in-depth presentations by industry experts on a number of current issues important to our industry . At the conference, you will have a forum to discuss and debate the issues most important to you and the opportu-nity to participate in deep-dive discussions on current and emerging topics . You will also have ample opportunity to network with your colleagues, reconnecting with some and meeting new ones . Set in sunny San Diego, the conference will be held in the beautiful Hilton San Diego Bayfront, which has a spec-tacular waterfront location, numerous amenities, spa ser-vices and daily poolside specials that you and your family

can enjoy during your stay . Because of the US Navy’s strong presence in San Diego, it was natural that the conference’s theme is ANCHORS AWEIGH, in respectful homage to San Diego’s proud maritime history . You can expect to see more about this nautical theme in the com-ing months . The Hilton Bayfront is located steps from the downtown Gaslamp Quarter and PETCO Park and is minutes from the San Diego airport . During your stay in San Diego, you can visit the USS Midway Museum, Balboa Park, Sea-World, the San Diego Zoo, and over 68 miles of beaches . There is a lot to do in San Diego, and you can do it all in San Diego’s famed “perfect weather .”Space is limited, so make your plans to attend as soon as possible for several days of learning, networking and a little bit of fun . See you in San Diego!

Real Property Tax SchoolAT&T Executive Education Center

July 19 - 24, 2015 ~ Austin, Texas

This is a comprehensive, five-day school for property tax professionals who have at least three years of full-time experience in the real property tax area . The purpose of the program is to provide students with fundamental and integrated knowledge of property tax principles, concepts and technical skills essential to the field. The course is designed to provide a deep dive into the real property tax valuation process and related subjects . Registration information will be available ninety days prior to the course . The Property Tax School must either be successfully challenged, or attended and passed, before an individual can take the Real Property Tax School. For more information on challenging the Property Tax school, visit www.ipt.org.


North Carolina Triangle Area Thursday, March 26, 2015Time: 11:30 a .m .

Place: 18 Seaboard Restaurant located at 18 Seaboard Avenue #10, in Raleigh (information and directions at http://www .18seaboard .com/)

Speaker: The Honorable Lyons Gray Secretary of Revenue State of North Carolina

Topic: Looking Forward at the Department of Revenue

Contact: Kirk Neely at Kirk .Neely@us .abb .com

Upcoming IPT Local Luncheons

Join the Texas Taxpayers and Research Association (TTARA) for upcoming luncheons where updates on budget and tax issues will be discussed . Click here for more information .

Other Meeting of Interest:

Charlotte AreaFriday, March 20, 2015Time: 11:30 a .m .

Place: The Duke Mansion 400 Hermitage Road, Charlotte, NC http://www .dukemansion .com/

Speaker: Jason Sullivan, CPA Partner, International Tax Dixon, Hughes, Goodman LLP

Topic: FATCA: Not Just for Financial Institutions

Contact: Kathy Foster at kathleen .foster@dimensiondata .com

Delaware Valley Wednesday, March 11, 2015Time: 11:30 a .m .

Place: Drinker Biddle One Logan Square, Suite 2000 Philadelphia, PA

Speaker: Joseph C . Bright, Esq . Member, Cozen O’Connor

Topic: Pennsylvania’s new market-sourcing apportionment rules

Contact: Kaitlin A . McKenzie-Fiumara at Kaitlin .McKenzie-Fiumara@dbr .com

http://www.18seaboard.com/


http://www.dukemansion.com/




INSTRUCTORS

2015 Sales Tax School I HighlightsThis year’s program was held on the campus of Georgia Tech in Atlanta on February 22 – 27, 2015, and was at-tended by 212 individuals from the United States and Canada . Seventeen instructors presented during the school, volunteering to share their insight and expertise with IPT students . We thank them for their many efforts . This year was especially difficult due to inclement winter weather, which prevented some from attending and wreaked havoc for the entire week. Everyone, instructors, students and staff, weathered the storm and showed flexibility and understanding that ultimately made the school a success .Brenda S . Kelley, CMI, CPA, was this year’s school chair, and Kathleen L . Peavley, CMI, was its vice chair . IPT President Arthur E . Bennett, CMI, opened the program and welcomed the students to Atlanta .Take a look at some who were there starting with the instructors .

Jesse R . Adams II Esq .

Jones Walker LLP New Orleans, LA

Kimberly Burkey CMI, CPA

Crowe Horwath LLP Atlanta, GA

Rodney L . Cole CMI

Essilor of America Inc .Dallas, TX

Christian Eduardo Diaz The Coca-Cola Company

Atlanta, GA

Rolston A . Dyer CMI

The Coca-Cola Company Atlanta, GA

William F . Fox Ph .D .

University of Tennessee Knoxville, TN

Garfield A. Grant CMI, CPA

DuCharme, McMillen & Associates, Inc . Sugar Land, TX

Josie Ann Henneke CMI, CPA

Kemper CPA Group LLP Greenfield, IN

Brenda S . KelleyCMI, CPA (Chair)

Fontaine & Kelley, LLPHartsburg, MO

William J . McConnell CMI, CPA, Esq .General Electric

Company Ft . Myers, FL

LiKeisha G . Mills CMI

DuCharme, McMillen & Associates, Inc .

Irving, TX

Samantha C . Maqueo CMI

General Solutions Associates, LLCAlpharetta, GA


2015 Sales Tax School I SponsorsWe would like to thank the following companies for their sponsorship .

2015 Sales Tax School I Highlights (continued)

Lynn L . Monsalvatge CMI

The Home Depot Atlanta, GA

Kathleen L . Peavley CMI (Vice Chair);

HD Supply Orlando, FL

Allan WellsCMI

ABB Inc . Cary, NC

INSTRUCTORS (continued)

MORE HIGHLIGHTS

50

Paul Douglas Nagode CMI

Deloitte Tax LLPAtlanta, GA

Michele D . Swanson CMI

Turner Broadcasting System, Inc .Atlanta, GA

Breakout SessionThere were five sets of breakout sessions dur-ing the school . Each of the 212 students were placed in one of the eight breakout groups . They worked together to share knowledge and problem solve .

Opening SessionThe general sessions are the backbone of the school . This is where we come together to learn about the topics that are the foun-dation of the school . We then separate into breakout groups where we deep dive into the subject matter .

QuizA quiz and final examination are part of the week long program .


Randy Barnes Did you ever dream of sailing the high seas, captaining your own boat in the waters of the Atlantic? Randy Barnes has . In fact, it’s an item that is high on his bucket list . Randy is relatively new to IPT, joining in August of 2014 . He says that his experience with IPT has helped him recognize the nuances of the various taxing jurisdictions around the

country, and given him tips on how to deal with them .

Randy is the president of Integrity Tax Consulting, a firm that focuses on real and personal property tax services and is located in Fort Wayne, Indiana . Randy joined IPT because of the wealth of continuing education opportunities we offer and to help grow his professional network, which has connected him to professionals from across the country .

He recalls that one of his best experiences as an IPT member was during the Property Tax Symposium held in Fort Lauderdale, Florida last November . He enjoyed meeting and interacting with all of the other tax professionals, and really felt he gained a lot of insight and knowledge from the open exchange of ideas and best practices that took place during the sessions .

Randy and his wife of 25 years have two grown children and like to spend time near the water, whether it is on a beach in Florida or by a lake in the Midwest . He likes to play golf and looks forward to the day when he is navigating the waters off the Florida Keys .

Jim Sinnott, CMIWhen Jim Sinnott first joined IPT, it was 1976 and he was working as a corporate tax manager at General Foods Corporation . IPT was a new organization with the purpose of bringing tax professionals together to help solve problems through the exchange of information and learning from each other, and it grew to become so much more .

Jim fondly remembers attending IPT's inaugural conference at The Carousel Inn, a small hotel outside Cincinnati, with around 70 property tax professionals in attendance . After attending about 25 annual conferences since then, he has seen the event grow into a robust event with hundreds of attendees, top notch subject matter and an increased ability to connect with tax professionals .

IPT has been a part of Jim’s career every step of the way . He is a CMI and has experienced membership both as a corporate tax representative at General Foods and SCM Corporations and as an outside consultant after establishing his own consulting firm in 1986. Jim still runs Tax Management Associates, Inc ., a taxpayer advocate real estate and personal property tax consulting firm that covers the needs of clients throughout the Northeast (he adamantly reminds us that his firm is in no way related to the assessor audit firm of the same name).

All in all, Jim believes that his involvement with IPT has helped him immeasurably throughout the years . IPT has helped him expand his expertise and, by serving many years as an instructor at the basic property tax school and a frequent symposium presenter, he has had the opportunity to share that knowledge with others . As the original chair of the Local Luncheon program in the NYC metropolitan area, he grew his professional network while inviting others to join his .

Jim and his wife Anne make their home in Greenwich, Connecticut. So if you’re there this summer, you may find Jim on the golf course, volunteering for various animal rights organizations, or simply at home cheering on his beloved Yankees .

Member SpotlightWelcome to our new feature, Member Spotlight, which shines the light on individuals from all areas of IPT’s membership . The purpose is simply to provide members another opportunity to connect by learning about each other’s interests and experiences . Each month we will select two members, ask them a few questions and get to know them a little better . We will focus on choosing members who have different perspectives, areas of expertise and professional responsibilities, all of which will help tell the story of IPT, who we are and what we do . Enjoy!


NEW MEMBERS

PROPERTY TAX MEMBERS

*Elizabeth Arriaga American Water Cherry Hill, NJ

Terry Bishop Altus Group Limited Toronto, ON

Kevin Blaisure Property Tax Advocates, Inc . Irving, TX

Johnny Paul Cook PepsiCo, Inc . Plano, TX

Porsche Farr Florida Power & Light (FP&L)/ NextEra Energy, Inc . Juno Beach, FL

Lani Merda Saputo Cheese USA, Inc . Lincolnshire, IL

Jason K . Nelsen Property Reserve Inc . Salt Lake City, UT

Michael J . Snyder CONSOL Energy Inc . Canonsburg, PA

SALES TAX MEMBERS

*Elizabeth Arriaga American Water Cherry Hill, NJ

Travis Austin Grant Thornton LLP Oklahoma City, OK

Michael Bontrager Walgreen Co . Deerfield, IL

Lisa Bo Young Cha Grant Thornton LLP Dallas, TX

Jennifer Elwick Michaels Stores, Inc . Fort Worth, TX

Patricia Feller Grant Thornton LLP Chicago, IL

Christian Galicia Stronghold Ltd . La Porte, TX

SALES TAX MEMBERS, continued

Theismon Giles Michaels Stores, Inc . Irving, TX

Lynisha I . Grey Georgia-Pacific LLC Kennesaw, GA

Daisy Jacinto Deloitte Tax LLP Sacramento, CA

Nola Jackson Dollar Tree Stores, Inc . Chesapeake, VA

*Carol Johnston Brookfield Renewable Energy Group Ottawa, ON

James D . Jones, Esq . Boardwalk Pipelines, LLC Houston, TX

Jessica Jones GoDaddy .Com LLC Scottsdale, AZ

*Sabahudin Jonic Karl Storz Endoscopy- America, Inc . El Segundo, CA

Keith G . Landry, Esq . Keith G . Landry, LLC Atlanta, GA

Dennis Marshall Deloitte Tax LLP Chicago, IL

Lynda Marucheau DPR Construction Sacramento, CA

*Rebecca McCarty Philips Electronics North America Corp Andover, MA

Laura McClish BKD, LLP Indianapolis, IN

Jose Melendez Acushnet Company Fairhaven, MA

Lani Merda Saputo Cheese USA, Inc . Lincolnshire, IL

SALES TAX MEMBERS, continued

Sarah Melton TaxConnex, LLC Roswell, GA

Meghan Morgan Ryan, LLC Bellevue, WA

*Matthew Overaker Johann Haltermann LTD Houston, TX

Adina Phillips Hein & Associates Dallas, TX

Carley A . Roberts, Esq . Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP Sacramento, CA

Juan Rodriguez Walgreen Co . Deerfield, IL

Marc Dalton Speer Ernst & Young LLP Tulsa, OK

Jace A . Stamper, Esq ., LL .M . Ernst & Young LLP Nashville, TN

*Kimberly Toomer GreatAmerica Financial Services Corporation Cedar Rapids, IA

Therese Trotter GM Financial Company, Inc . Fort Worth, TX

Joseph Wagner Michaels Stores, Inc . Irving, TX

Melissa Warren LKQ Corporation Nashville, TN

Hannah Yoo, J .D . Ernst & Young LLP Chicago, IL

Joshua Zamarron McGladrey LLP Dallas, TX

*Denotes Regular Member


Derek S. McCleery, CMI, of Newtown, Connecticut, died peacefully at his home surrounded by family on February 26, 2015 . Mr . McCleery was born in Bangor, Northern Ireland, and immigrated with his wife, Iris M . McCleery, to America in 1953 . He is survived by son Ian Michael McCleery, and daughters Sharron (Steve) Lavatori, Siobhan (Chris) Santini, and Stephanie (Robb) Heering, and by eight grandchildren Jeff Lavatori, Brandon, Michael, and Morgan Santini, and Robb Jr ., Kyle, Derek, and Connor Heering .

Derek was a founding member of IPT and was the organization’s first president, helping shape and define IPT’s mission, purpose and ethical standards . During his tenure, he and his colleagues established IPT, gave us our vision and implemented an infrastructure that would grow stronger over time and evolve into the organization we have today .

He led the first full IPT membership meeting on October 19, 1976, in Atlanta with 125 individuals in attendance. Derek was the first person with a CMI designation . He worked diligently with IPT co-founders to create the first iteration of IPT’s schools, presiding over and teaching at the first one, which was held in conjunction with IPT’s first Annual Conference in 1977 in Cincinnati . He also reached out to the Canadian Property Tax Association to support the exchange of ideas throughout North America . Derek remained involved with IPT throughout its history and within the past several years, participated in IPT ethics programs .

Derek was the senior vice president of Gulf & Western Industries until his retirement at age 50 . During his retirement years he continued to

work as a consultant in ad valorem taxation . He was very active in many community organizations, including the Boys and Girls Club, The Community Center, Board of Tax Review, Historical Society and St . Stephen's Church .

Derek had a passion for his chosen field and the vision to create an organization that would help tax professionals navigate the increasing complexities of the industry . Through his professional life and charitable work, Derek was a man driven by the need to help others grow and thrive, and thousands of lives are the better for it .

Most, though, say they will remember the simple pleasures of spending time with him . He had a wonderful Irish brogue, a true gift for storytelling and a laugh that filled up a room. He will be missed .

INCOME TAX MEMBERSErin Digan Grant Thornton LLP Dallas, TX

Kevin Lindley Grant Thornton LLP Dallas, TX

Catherine McClaine DPR Construction

Sacramento, CA

Ryan Poynter Grant Thornton LLP Dallas, TX

CREDITS & INCENTIVES MEMBERSJennifer A . Carroll, Esq . True Partners Consulting LLC Dallas, TX

Jennifer Paedon Lockheed Martin Corporation Sunnyvale, CA

Rebecca D . Truelove Ernst & Young LLP New York, NY

Leo Winter Grant Thornton LLP Iselin, NJ

NEW MEMBERS, continued

Derek S. McCleery, CMI IPT President 1976-1978

In Remembrance of Derek S. McCleery, CMI


The 4th Edition of the Property Taxation Book is Now Available!

The 4th edition of the Property Taxation book has been updated and is now available in a convenient new format! The book includes updated content, paired with the essential information that is useful to tax professionals at every stage of their career .

Member feedback revealed that at almost 650 pages, the book was too cumbersome to carry when traveling. This made it difficult to use the resource outside of the office. To solve this issue, the book was condensed into a flash drive, which is user-friendly, easily searchable and highly portable . You will notice the difference!

The flash drive costs $100 for IPT members, $125 for those employed by companies with IPT members and $175 for non-members . Order your copy today at ipt .org .

IPT’s Policy Statement on Member Entertaining

Institute Policies: The Institute has a longstanding policy which prohibits any planned hospitality suites or entertaining by individual members for business solicitation purposes . All social events are scheduled by the Institute, and each mem-ber’s participation in these activities is most appreciated .

Members attending IPT events should make every effort to attend each social and business function, thereby supporting the organization . The Institute has a strict policy prohibiting non-IPT literature, the distribution of gifts (except exhibit and permitted sponsor materials), and the solicitation of business during an IPT event . Use of IPT registration lists (any school, symposium, seminar or conference registration list, or the Membership Directory) for business solicitation is also pro-hibited .

If you feel that you are being solicited at an IPT program or function, please advise the person soliciting you that his or her solicitation is unwanted . If the behavior persists, please notify the IPT staff immediately so the matter can be directly addressed .

We expect that all attendees will comply fully with these of-ficial policy positions of the IPT Board of Governors.

Thank you .

1JUST MORE Members who refer at least one new member to IPT will be entered into a prize drawing

at IPT’s Annual Business Meeting . Each time you refer a new member to IPT, your name will be placed in the drawing . In order to receive recognition and the opportunity

to participate in the drawing, please make sure the person(s) you refer includes your name on his or her application. As we grow our membership, IPT can bring you better benefits, such as greater educational opportunities . Please participate in the Just One More Campaign and help in the continued growth of IPT . Individuals who referred one or more new members during the previous month are listed below .

Carla Faye AlfersZachary T . Atkins, Esq .Dean A . Barney, CMIJeffrey R . BurgherAndre B . Burvant, Esq ., CPALindsy CastroAngela Deamico, CMIJames Derbyshire, FRICS, MIMA, PLE

Marke C . GreeneCecil Douglas Gregory, Jr ., CPADarcy N . Kooiker, CPAWhitney LangStephanie Mills LeonardTodd A . Lard, Esq .Anthony LevatinoCatherine McClaineLisa G . McCoy

Faranak Naghavi, CPANola T . NewcombAnna O’HaraNaseem QussarKristen Renee Scherer, CMIAlexander St . Clair, CPAChristopher A . Stanton, CMI

C a r e e r s Helping to connect IPT members with careers, IPT connects great people with great opportunities. Visit the Career Opportunities page on the IPT website for career position descriptions and requirements.


Sponsor an IPT Event this Year!IPT’s 2015 Sponsorship program offers the opportunity for businesses to sponsor individual events (i .e ., continental breakfasts, lunches, receptions, breaks, internet service, charging station(s), and mobile app) at any of the symposia or at the Annual Conference . Below is a chart indicating the individual events and pricing for each of the programs . There are still many sponsorship opportunities available . For further information on how you can sponsor one of these events, please contact Helen Johnson at hjohnson@ipt .org .

Event: Annual Conference

Sales Tax Symposium

Value Added Tax

Symposium

Income Tax Symposium

Credits and Incentives

Symposium

Property Tax Symposium

Reception:S - $5,000M - $6,000T - $8,000

S - $7,500M - $7,500

W - $2,500Th - $2,500

S - $2,500M - $2,500T - $2,500

T - $4,000S - $5,000M - $5,000T - $5,000

Continental Breakfast:

M - $4,000T - $4,000W - $2,500

M - $4,000T - $4,000W - $3,000

Th - $1,000F - $1,000

M - $1,200T - $1,200W - $1,000

W - $2,000Th - $2,000F - $1,000

M - $2,500T - $2,500W - $2,000

Luncheons:M - $4,500T - $4,500

M - $4,500T - $4,500

Th - $1,500F - $1,500

M - $1,500T - $1,500

W - $2,500Th - $2,500

M - $3,000T - $3,000

Each Break:AM or PM $2,500 $2,500 $1,000 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000

Internet: $3,000 $3,000 $1,500 $1,500 $2,500 $2,500

Charging Stations: $2,500 $3,000 $1,500 $1,500 $2,000 $2,500

Mobile App: $2,000 $2,000 $1,500 $1,500 $2,000 $2,000

Strike-Through = Sponsorship no longer availableCompanies may also continue to sponsor any of our national programs as a regular General Sponsor . Click here for the 2015 General Sponsor application .

State Business Income Taxation Book

State Business Income Taxation includes contributions from some of the nation’s preeminent state business income tax practitioners, a virtual Who’s Who of SALT professionals . This treatise, derived from the authors’ many years of expertise in state business income taxation, is a vital reference tool . Let the leading state and local income tax experts provide you with the answers you need by purchasing this book and accompanying CD today!

Click here to order this vital resource .

[email protected]

[email protected]


Online IPT Ethics Courses AvailableThe newest IPT Ethics course, “Ethics in Tax and Life” with speakers Jack T . Bone, CMI and Joseph A . Vinatieri, Esq ., is now available! The course counts for 1 hour of IPT Ethics towards CMI continuing education credit . Course Description: Ethical standards and commitment to the interests of the taxpayer one represents are key elements of professionalism. Are these elements in conflict with each other? The question impacts taxpayers on a daily basis. In some contexts the answers are clear-cut. In others they are grayer in nature. Most will vary in the eye of the beholder. This session will address the critical importance of ethics to professionalism, and its relationship to one’s responsibility to the taxpayer. IPT now has three online IPT Ethics courses available for $50 each . You may register for and take any of these courses by signing in to the IPT website, going to the Distance Learning Page, and clicking on “Register” next to the course name .

Reminder: Online Continuing Education Tracking System for CMIsYou can no longer submit non-IPT Continuing Education to the IPT office through email, fax or mail. Rather, you will sign in to the IPT website, fill out the form and upload supporting documentation . This process allows for a timelier posting of CE to your report . Attendance at IPT programs will be automatically posted to this report with the exception of Local Luncheons . The Local Luncheon Chairs will continue to submit sign-in sheets to the IPT office.

To access your CMI Status Report: 1 . Sign In at www .ipt .org . 2 . Click on your name in the top right corner . 3 . Click on the “CMI Members” tab .4 . In the top right corner of this section, there is an

option to request your Status Report . Click that link and fill out the form.

5 . An email will be sent to the email address on file with IPT .

To submit non-IPT Continuing Education:6 . Sign In at www .ipt .org . 7 . Hover your mouse over “Professional Designations”

on the main blue menu bar, and click on “Application for Non-IPT Continuing Education Credit .”

8 . Fill out the form, attach the supporting documentation, digitally sign the form and click submit .

9 . You will receive a message that the form was submitted .

Continuing Education RequirementsEach CMI must complete at least 60 hours of relevant continuing business education during each five-year term as an active CMI . Of those 60 hours, at least 30 hours must be relevant to your tax specialty (i .e ., sales, property, or income tax) with 5 hours devoted specifically to ethics . Three of the ethics hours must be from IPT courses/programs . Included within the 30 specialty hours, each CMI must attend at least 12 hours at one IPT Annual Conference, IPT Academy, IPT Symposium, IPT School or IPT/ABA Seminar in their respective discipline (sales, property or income tax) within each five-year term. Board Policy states that all CE earned during a previous year must be submitted no later than 60 days following receipt of yearly status reports which will be available to CMIs in January . The last day to submit any CE credit earned during the 2014 Calendar year will be March 31, 2015 . Please note that we will not process or accept any credit earned prior to the preceding year . If you have any questions on the CMI designation or your current standing, please contact Emily Archer, Certification Officer, at earcher@ipt .org .

Thank you to IPT members who have already joined the IPT LinkedIn group as we now have over 3200 members . We encourage you to join the IPT

LinkedIn Discussion group and share the group with other tax professionals in your network .Follow IPT on Facebook and Twitter and "like" our Face-book page for updates on IPT event registration, photos, and other IPT news . If you have not already done so, please join these groups today by clicking on the icons below.Thank you for your continued support of IPT!

CMi Co r n e rCERTIFIED MEMBER

CMI • INST

ITUTE

FO

R PROFESSIONALS IN TAXATION® •



Planning to take the CMI or CCIP exam in 2015?Applications are now being accepted for the 2015 CMI & CCIP Exams . Potential candidates are encouraged to plan ahead to avoid missing the application deadline and thus the opportunity to sit for the exam . Applications are available on the IPT website .

2015 Annual Conference Exams – San Diego, CaliforniaThe exams held in conjunction with the Annual Conference in San Diego, California are scheduled for June 26 - 28, 2015 .Applications must be submitted 90 days prior to the examination date . The deadline for submitting applications for the June

2015 Exams is March 27, 2015 .Candidates are required to complete and submit

verification of any needed final requirements no later than May 13, 2015 .

Candidates must notify the IPT office of their intention to sit for the examination no later than May 27, 2015 .

2015 Sales Tax Symposium Exam – Indian Wells, CaliforniaThe exams held in conjunction with the Sales Tax Symposium in Indian Wells, California are scheduled for September 25 - 26, 2015 .Applications must be submitted 90 days prior to the examination date . The deadline for submitting applications for the

September 2015 Exam is June 26, 2015 .Candidates are required to complete and submit

verification of any needed final requirements no later than August 11, 2015 .

Candidates must notify the IPT office of their intention to sit for the examination no later than August 26, 2015 .

2015 Income Tax Symposium Exam – Austin, TexasThe exams held in conjunction with the Income Tax Symposium in Austin, Texas are scheduled for October 31 – November 1, 2015 .Applications must be submitted 90 days prior to the examination date . The deadline for submitting applications for the

November 2015 Exam is August 3, 2015 .Candidates are required to complete and submit

verification of any needed final requirements no later than September 16, 2015 .

Candidates must notify the IPT office of their intention to sit for the examination no later than October 1, 2015 .

2015 Property Tax Symposium Exam – Austin, TexasThe exams held in conjunction with the Property Tax Symposium in Austin, Texas are scheduled for October 31 – November 1, 2015 .Applications must be submitted 90 days prior to the examination date . The deadline for submitting applications for the




2015 Credits & Incentives Symposium Exam – Austin, TexasThe exams held in conjunction with the Credits & Incentives Symposium in Austin, Texas are scheduled for November 2 – 3, 2015 .Applications must be submitted 90 days prior to the examination date . The deadline for submitting applications for the




Please review the CMI Income Tax Applicant, CMI Property Tax Applicant, CMI Sales Tax Applicant or CCIP Applicant pages for a complete overview of the application process and eligibility requirements .

Candidate ConneCtion

CMi &

CCiP


At its November 9, 2014 meeting, the Board of Governors has made a number of changes of which you need to be aware .

School Prerequisites: Sales Tax School I has for a number of years been a prerequisite to Sales Tax School II . School I must either be successfully challenged or attended and passed before the individual can take on School II . Now similar requirements are applicable in Property Tax and Income Tax . Effective immediately, the Property Tax School will be a prerequisite to the Real Property Tax School and the Personal Property Tax School, and the Basic Income Tax School will be a prerequisite to the Advanced Income Tax School .

Challenge Experience Prerequisites: Effective with respect to challenge applications received by IPT after November 20, 2014, the following experience in the relevant field will be required of those wishing to challenge a School:

Basic Income Tax School: - 3 years full-time experienceSales Tax School I: - 3 years full-time experienceProperty Tax School: - 3 years full-time experienceAdvanced Income Tax School: - 5 years full-time experienceSales Tax School II: - 5 years full-time experience

Four years of full time experience in Credits and Incentives will be required of those wishing to challenge the C&I School . The Real Property Tax School and Personal Property Tax School may not be challenged .

Ethics: All Schools taught on or after January 1, 2015 will include a one-hour (50 minute) block of IPT-Code based Ethics . Those wishing to challenge a School will be required first to successfully complete a one-hour online ethics course, expected to be available at some time prior to January 1, 2015 .

In lieu of attendance at any IPT school for which a challenge exam is permitted, any member of the Institute in good standing shall be allowed to challenge a course via a written examination providing they meet specific requirements . Please read the Policy on Challenge Examinations and/or Challenge Exam Application . Once a challenge exam application is approved, the IPT member will receive an e-mail with information on downloading study materials that can be used to prepare for the exam . These materials are read-only . You may not print a copy of the materials, nor can a hard copy be sent to you by mail .

Challenge ExamsNew Policy:

ipt insider

Documents