recent state and local tax developments
TRANSCRIPT
Online CLE
Recent State and Local Tax Developments
1.25 General CLE credits
From the Oregon State Bar CLE seminar 18th Annual Oregon Tax Institute, presented on June 7 and 8, 2018
© 2018 Annie Huang, Jeffrey Vesely. All rights reserved.
ii
Chapter 7
Recent State and Local Tax Developments—Presentation Slides
Annie HuAng
Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLPSan Francisco, California
Jeffrey Vesely
Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLPSan Francisco, California
Chapter 7—Recent State and Local Tax Developments—Presentation Slides
7–ii18th Annual Oregon Tax Institute
Chapter 7—Recent State and Local Tax Developments—Presentation Slides
7–118th Annual Oregon Tax Institute
18th Annual Oregon Tax InstitutePortland, OregonJune 8, 2018
Recent State and Local Tax Developments
Jeffrey M. VeselyPillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP
Annie H. HuangPillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP
AGENDA
Case of the Millennium, aka South Dakota v. Wayfair Impact of Federal Tax Reform on States Other SALT Legislation of Note Recent SALT Cases Alternative Apportionment/Sales Factor Issues
2 | Recent State and Local Tax Developments
Chapter 7—Recent State and Local Tax Developments—Presentation Slides
7–218th Annual Oregon Tax Institute
Case of the Millennium—Wayfair
• When are remote sellers required to collect sales/use taxes?• National Bellas Hess, Inc. v. Department of Revenue (1967)• Quill Corp. v. North Dakota (1992)• Direct Marketing Association v. Brohl (2015)• South Dakota v. Wayfair Inc. (2018)
3 | Recent State and Local Tax Developments
National Bellas Hess (1967)
• Mail order case in which remote seller with no physical presence in Illinois was not required to collect use tax on sales of tangible personal property in the state
• “The many variations in rates of tax, in allowable exemptions and in administrative and recordkeeping requirements could entangle National’s interstate business in a virtual welter of complicated obligations to local jurisdictions with no legitimate claim to impose a fair share of the cost of local government…the very purpose of the Commerce Clause was to ensure a national economy free from such unjustifiable local entanglements.”
4 | Recent State and Local Tax Developments
Chapter 7—Recent State and Local Tax Developments—Presentation Slides
7–318th Annual Oregon Tax Institute
Quill (1992)
• Remote catalog sellers with no physical presence in North Dakota were not required to collect use tax on sales of tangible personal property in the state
• Supreme Court focused on the burdens on interstate commerce• “The bright-line rule of Bellas Hess furthers the ends of the dormant
Commerce Clause.”• Settled expectations• Compliance burdens• Invited Congress to act
5 | Recent State and Local Tax Developments
Responses to Quill Physical Presence Requirement• States enacted legislation and promulgated regulations
o Agency nexus rules• Affiliate nexus• Click-through nexus
o Purchaser Information Reporting (Colorado)
• Sought federal legislation imposing use tax collection responsibility on vendors without physical presence
o Marketplace Fairness Act; Remote Transactions Parity Act• Collection obligation triggered if certain in-state sales thresholds met
6 | Recent State and Local Tax Developments
Chapter 7—Recent State and Local Tax Developments—Presentation Slides
7–418th Annual Oregon Tax Institute
Direct Marketing Association (2015)
• Use tax information reporting requirement for out-of-state vendors found to be constitutional
• Justice Kennedy concurring opinion calling for a case to reexamine Quill.
7 | Recent State and Local Tax Developments
Wayfair (2018)
• South Dakota enacted remote use tax collection legislation in response to Justice Kennedy’s comments in DMA
o Economic nexuso Remote sellers required to collect use tax if $100,000 in sales or 200
separate transactions during the previous or current yearo Legislation designed to get a case before the US Supreme Court as quickly as
possibleo Prospective application
8 | Recent State and Local Tax Developments
Chapter 7—Recent State and Local Tax Developments—Presentation Slides
7–518th Annual Oregon Tax Institute
Wayfair—Other States’ Actions
• Many other states enacted similar economic nexus legislation with varying sales/transaction thresholds
• Some states’ laws require use tax collection to the extent permitted by the US Constitution, with or without physical presence
• Some states enacted information reporting laws similar to Colorado• Some states enacted laws with innovative nexus theories such as
cookie/software nexus, among others
9 | Recent State and Local Tax Developments
Wayfair
• Wayfair became the vehicle to challenge Quill• An extremely limited record in the courts below• Lower courts held the South Dakota law to be unconstitutional• In January 2018, US Supreme Court agreed to review the case• Numerous amicus briefs• April 17, 2018, oral argument held • Decision expected in June
10 | Recent State and Local Tax Developments
Chapter 7—Recent State and Local Tax Developments—Presentation Slides
7–618th Annual Oregon Tax Institute
Wayfair
• Possible Outcomes/Issueso Quill is upheld
• Invitation to Congress to act…againo Quill is overturned
• Retroactive vs. prospective application• Uniform nexus standard? Number of sales? Is one sale enough?• Different taxable items? Exemptions?
o Case is remanded because record is limited• Further proceedings to examine the extent of burdens on sellers
11 | Recent State and Local Tax Developments
Wayfair—Why Important to Oregon Taxpayers?• Sales by Oregon taxpayers into other states—what standards apply for
requiring use tax collection?• What nexus standards should apply to other taxes in Oregon or other
states?• Is physical presence a viable standard for income taxes, gross receipts
taxes, B&O taxes, other taxes?• Will information reporting be endorsed by the Court
12 | Recent State and Local Tax Developments
Chapter 7—Recent State and Local Tax Developments—Presentation Slides
7–718th Annual Oregon Tax Institute
Impact of Federal Tax Reform on States
• Repatriation• Global Intangible Low-Taxed Income (GILTI)• Foreign Derived Intangible Income (FDII)• Base Erosion Anti-Abuse Tax (BEAT)• Cap on SALT Deduction
13 | Recent State and Local Tax Developments
Impact on States—General Principles
• Key is how an individual state conforms to the IRCo Rolling conformityo Automatic conformityo Selective conformity
• Another key is how the state defines its tax baseo Is it a line 28 state?o Line 30?
14 | Recent State and Local Tax Developments
Chapter 7—Recent State and Local Tax Developments—Presentation Slides
7–818th Annual Oregon Tax Institute
Repatriation (IRC 951(a), 965(a), 965(c))
• Does the state conform to the new provisions?• Relevance of statutory dividends received deduction provisions under
state lawo Is the 951(a) income a dividend for state income tax purposes?o Is the 965 income a dividend for state income tax purposes?
• Potential constitutional issueso Kraft v. Iowa—Different treatment of domestic vs. foreign dividends?o Sales factor—If the receipts are not included in the sales factor, does this
violate the external consistency test of the Commerce Clause?
15 | Recent State and Local Tax Developments
Deemed Repatriation—California
• Selective conformity state• Conforms to the IRC as January 1, 2015—selectively• Déjà vu all over again?• In 2004-2005, when IRC 965 was enacted, many of the same issues arose• California does not currently conform to IRC 965
o Raises issues of dividend elimination vs. partial deduction and foreign investment interest offset• Water’s Edge Elections
o Subpart F income means Subpart F income as defined in IRC 952o Inclusion ratio not affected by IRC 965
• Effect of RTC 25116o For water’s edge purposes, California automatically conforms to amendments to the IRC,
provided there was already conformity to the IRC provisions being amended
16 | Recent State and Local Tax Developments
Chapter 7—Recent State and Local Tax Developments—Presentation Slides
7–918th Annual Oregon Tax Institute
Actual Repatriation—California
• California does not conform to IRC 245A• Deduction of dividends depends upon whether filing on a worldwide or
water’s edge basiso Full elimination under RTC 25106o 75% dividends received deduction under RTC 24411
• Foreign investment interest offset under RTC 24344
• Are the dividends business or nonbusiness income?
17 | Recent State and Local Tax Developments
Actual Repatriation—California
• Sales factor reflectiono Should the dividends be included in the sales factor?o Should they be excluded because they are occasional and substantial?o How should they be sourced?
• Distortion and factor representation issues• Earnings and profits issues
o California and federal differenceso Ordering of dividends—Apple and Fujitsuo Were the earnings and profits already taxed by California in 2004/2005 when taxpayers took
advantage of the original enactment of IRC 965?o Deferred intercompany stock account
18 | Recent State and Local Tax Developments
Chapter 7—Recent State and Local Tax Developments—Presentation Slides
7–1018th Annual Oregon Tax Institute
Repatriation—Oregon Response
• SB 1529 (signed by Governor)o Gross, not net, repatriation amount included in the tax base, with such gross
amount subject to the dividends-received deduction of 70 or 80 percent depending on ownership
o Ensures taxpayers do not receive double deductiono Tax haven law repealed
• Under tax haven law (ORS 317.716), Oregon may already have taxed some of the income now deemed repatriated
• Credit for taxes attributable to this income allowed to alleviate any double taxation
19 | Recent State and Local Tax Developments
GILTI (IRC 951A and IRC 250)
• Purpose is to discourage US companies from moving business operations to low tax foreign countries
• Carrot and stick approach• Stick
o US corporation must include in income certain income of a foreign affiliate that is taxed abroad at a rate lower than the US rate and that exceeds a 10% return on the affiliate’s tangible property (IRC 951A)
• Carroto US parent can deduct 50% of its GILTI (IRC 250(a)(1)(B))
20 | Recent State and Local Tax Developments
Chapter 7—Recent State and Local Tax Developments—Presentation Slides
7–1118th Annual Oregon Tax Institute
GILTI—State Impact
• Conformity to IRC 951A and/or IRC 250?• Is the income a dividend?
o Not E&P related?o Does the particular state’s dividends received deduction provisions apply?
• Potential constitutional issueso Should the receipts be included in the sales factor?o Separate vs. combined stateso Is factor representation required?
21 | Recent State and Local Tax Developments
GILTI—California
• California does not conform to IRC 951A• GILTI is not subpart F income for California purposes (IRC 952)• If filing worldwide, earnings should have already been taxed
o Possible elimination of the income, if considered to be a dividend
• If filing water’s edge, earnings should not yet have been taxedo If a dividend, a 75% dividends received deduction possibleo Foreign investment interest offset may apply
• Federal/ California basis and E&P differences
22 | Recent State and Local Tax Developments
Chapter 7—Recent State and Local Tax Developments—Presentation Slides
7–1218th Annual Oregon Tax Institute
FDII—State Impact
• States may feel that they do not need to provide an added incentive to that provided by the US
• Possibly separate FDII from the GILTI• States that conform to federal taxable income would have to
affirmatively decouple• FDII deduction is a special deduction under IRC 241-250
o Several states now decouple from special deductions
23 | Recent State and Local Tax Developments
Base Erosion Anti-Abuse Tax—State Impact
• The BEAT is a federal alternative minimum tax• States that use federal taxable income as a base will not automatically
conform to the BEAT because it does not adjust federal taxable income• Many states already have an AMT. Why add a new one?• Potential constitutional issues
24 | Recent State and Local Tax Developments
Chapter 7—Recent State and Local Tax Developments—Presentation Slides
7–1318th Annual Oregon Tax Institute
Cap on SALT Deductions
• Number of states have enacted legislation to attempt to avoid the new cap on SALT deductions
• New Yorko Optional employer-based payroll tax systemo State charitable contribution funds
• New Jerseyo Taxpayers who donate to a newly created charitable fund can receive a credit up to 90% toward their
property tax bills and the contributions may be claimed as charitable deductions
• IRS Responseo Notice 2018-54 (May 23, 2018)o IRS announced that it will be proposing regulations which will address federal income tax treatment of
some payments made by taxpayers in an attempt to circumvent the new limit on SALT deductions
25 | Recent State and Local Tax Developments
Other SALT Legislation of Note
• Head Taxeso Seattle (Amazon Tax)
• Apply to businesses with $20 million or more in gross annual receipts• Rate of $.14 per hour worked by their employees (approximately $275 per
employee per year)• Tax would apply to 585 businesses or 3% of the city’s employers• Generate $47 million annually• Fund housing and services to combat homelessness
o Cupertino and Mountain View considering head taxes• Aimed at Apple and Alphabet
o Constitutional Issues?
26 | Recent State and Local Tax Developments
Chapter 7—Recent State and Local Tax Developments—Presentation Slides
7–1418th Annual Oregon Tax Institute
Other SALT Legislation of Note
• City taxes on transportation network company services and private transit vehicle services
o San Francisco• Ballot proposal to add a new gross receipts tax category• Aimed at Uber and Lyft• Is it constitutional?
o Oakland• Ballot proposal to charge a tax per pick up• Aimed at Uber and Lyft• Is it constitutional?
27 | Recent State and Local Tax Developments
Other SALT Legislation of Note
• Californiao Sales tax on services
• Senate Bill No. 993o 3% tax on services specifically purchased by businesses with income over $100,000o Intended to be revenue neutral and would broaden the tax baseo State’s 7.25% sales tax rate would be reduced by 2 percentage points by 2020o Would not apply to services sold by California businesses to out-of-state buyerso Some out-of-state businesses selling services into California would have to collect
and remit the tax
28 | Recent State and Local Tax Developments
Chapter 7—Recent State and Local Tax Developments—Presentation Slides
7–1518th Annual Oregon Tax Institute
Recent SALT Cases
• Oregono Comcast Corporation and Subsidiaries v. Department of Revenue, Supreme Court
No. S064698• Argued January 18, 2018• Case involves the application of Oregon’s interstate broadcaster special apportionment
formula• Should it be applied to all members of a consolidated group, even those members
which are not interstate broadcasters?o Capital One Auto Finance Inc. v. Department of Revenue, Supreme Court No.
S064803• Argued May 7, 2018• Case involves the issue whether the corporate excise tax may be applied to a business
with no physical presence in the state
29 | Recent State and Local Tax Developments
Recent SALT Cases
• New Jerseyo Kraft Foods Global Inc. v. Division of Taxation, NJ Superior Ct., App. Div. No.
A-1157-16T1 (May 17, 2018)• Taxpayer’s deduction of interest paid to its parent on intercompany loans was
disallowed• Court concluded that the taxpayer did not meet the unreasonable exception• Compare with Beneficial New Jersey v. Director of Taxation, NJ Tax Docket No.
009886-2007 (2010)• Compare with Apple Inc. v. Franchise Tax Board, 199 Cal.App.4th 1 (2011)
30 | Recent State and Local Tax Developments
Chapter 7—Recent State and Local Tax Developments—Presentation Slides
7–1618th Annual Oregon Tax Institute
Recent SALT Cases
• Pennsylvaniao Nextel Communications of the Mid-Atlantic, Inc. v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,
Department of Revenue, Supreme Court of Pennsylvania No. 6 EAP 2016 (2017)• Court held that the net loss carryover which restricted the amount of loss a
corporation could carry over from prior years as a deduction against its 2007 taxable income to whichever is higher, 12.5% of the corporation’s 2007 taxable income or $3 million, violated the State’s Uniformity Clause
• The Court refused to grant a refund to the taxpayer• Taxpayer has filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the US Supreme Court arguing
that under the 14th Amendment it should be granted its request for a refund• May 18, 2018, the DOR issued Corporation Tax Bulletin 2018-02, stating that the
Supreme Court’s decision in Nextel will not be applied to other taxpayers for years before 2017
31 | Recent State and Local Tax Developments
Recent SALT Decisions
• Utaho See’s Candies, Inc. v. Auditing Division of the Utah State Tax Commission, No.
140401556 (Utah 4th Judicial Dist. Ct. 2016)• Court held that the Utah State Tax Commission abused its discretion by denying
the taxpayer a deduction for royalty expenses paid to a related party when the transaction amount was supported by a transfer pricing study
• Case pending on appeal to the Utah Supreme Court
32 | Recent State and Local Tax Developments
Chapter 7—Recent State and Local Tax Developments—Presentation Slides
7–1718th Annual Oregon Tax Institute
Recent SALT Cases
• Michigano Honigman Miller, et al., v. City of Detroit, Case No. 336175, Mich. Ct. App.
(January 18, 2018)• Court concluded that for purposes of the City of Detroit Income Tax Act, law firm
services rendered by an attorney physically located in Detroit on behalf of a client located outside the City must be sourced for sales factor purposes based on where the client received the services
• Conversely, the Court held that services provided to a client in Detroit is considered to be in-city services and sourced to the City
• Detroit is aggressively pursuing nexus issues where a taxpayer has no physical presence in the City or is a member of a unitary business, part of which is being conducted in the City
33 | Recent State and Local Tax Developments
Alternative Apportionment
• Uniform Division of Income for Tax Purposes Act (UDITPA) was approved by the National Commission on Uniform Laws as a Model Act in 1957
o Addressed equitable allocation and apportionment of income via 3-factor formula (property, payroll, and sales)
o Sec. 18 provided for variation when standard formula did not fairly represent the extent of the taxpayer’s business activity
34 | Recent State and Local Tax Developments
Chapter 7—Recent State and Local Tax Developments—Presentation Slides
7–1818th Annual Oregon Tax Institute
UDITPA Section 18 Standard
• Principal drafter of the Act, Professor William Pierce, wrote:o Departures from the basic formula should be avoided except where reasonableness
requires. Nonetheless, some alternative method must be available to handle the constitutional problems as well as the unusual cases, because no statutory pattern could ever resolve satisfactorily the problems for the multitude of taxpayers with individual business characteristics
35 | Recent State and Local Tax Developments
Fair Apportionment
• State apportionment formula must satisfy Due Process and Commerce Clauses
o Commerce Clause requires that income be fairly apportioned. Container Corp. of Am. v. Franchise Tax Bd., 463 U.S. 159, 169 (1983)
o Fairness means internally/externally consistent, not discriminatory
• But Sec. 18 is “not confined to correcting unconstitutional distortions”o Microsoft Corp. v. Franchise Tax Bd., 39 Cal.4th 750 (2006); Twentieth Century Fox
Film Corp. v. Department of Revenue, 700 P.2d 1035, 1039–1040 (Or. 1985)
36 | Recent State and Local Tax Developments
Chapter 7—Recent State and Local Tax Developments—Presentation Slides
7–1918th Annual Oregon Tax Institute
Improper Use of Section 18
• Professor Walter Hellerstein expressed his concerns as follows:o “ [R]eliance on UDITPA’s Section 18 (the ‘equitable apportionment’ provision) to get
to the ‘right’ conclusion is troublesome not merely because it overrides the standard statutory provisions (as does every variation from UDITPA based on equitable apportionment), but because it does so in a context that hardly seems to constitute one of the ‘unusual fact situations’ that the UDITPA draftsmen identified as justifying a deviation from the statute…”
37 | Recent State and Local Tax Developments
Burden of Proof
• MTC Report of the Hearing Officer, Oct. 25, 2013o Professor Richard Pomp stated in the Report that:
• “It seems obvious to many courts that the burden should be placed on the party invoking alternative apportionment because that party is asking permission to deviate from the general rules on apportionment an allocation. On the other hand, there is a presumption of correctness that accompanies a department’s assessment. If that applies in the context of alternative apportionment, the taxpayer would always have the burden of proof.”
• “The Hearing Officer concludes that the view that the party invoking alternative apportionment has the burden of proof reflects general principles of American jurisprudence…”
38 | Recent State and Local Tax Developments
Chapter 7—Recent State and Local Tax Developments—Presentation Slides
7–2018th Annual Oregon Tax Institute
Application of UDITPA 18
Vodafone Americas Holdings, Inc. v. Roberts, 486 S.W.3d 496 (2016)• Upheld Commissioner’s imposition of market-based sourcing as an alternative
apportionment method instead of cost of performance as provided by statute
• Vodafone’s sales factor included only its sales of tangible personal property to Tennessee customers
• Under cost of performance, Vodafone excluded all revenues from its delivery of wireless services to Tennessee customers
• Commissioner acted within scope of discretion
39 | Recent State and Local Tax Developments
Application of UDITPA 18
ESPN Productions, Inc. v. Indiana Dep’t of State Revenue, No. 49T10-1312-TA-00076 (Ind. Tax Ct., Apr. 22, 2016)• The Department refused to apply cost of performance methodology with respect to
licensing and advertising revenues• Instead, the Department applied an audience factor methodology, which does not
appear in any statute or regulation• Taxpayer challenged the use of the audience factor on various grounds, including
violation of the APA• After a hearing on Taxpayer’s summary judgment motion in August 2015, the
Department agreed to a complete abatement of the assessments issued to Taxpayer
40 | Recent State and Local Tax Developments
Chapter 7—Recent State and Local Tax Developments—Presentation Slides
7–2118th Annual Oregon Tax Institute
Application of UDITPA 18
Target Brands, Inc. v. Department of Revenue, Case No. 2015CV33831, Colorado District Court (Jan. 27, 2017)• Target Brands (TBI) was an IP holding company which the Court found was doing business in the State,
because it licensed its IP for use by its parent, Target Corporation, in the State• Under the standard three-factor formula for 1999-2008 and single sales factor formula beginning in 2009,
TBI had no property, payroll or sales in Coloradoo Colorado was a cost-of-performance state
• The Court held that the Department’s application of the alternative apportionment provisions was proper• However, the Court concluded that the Department’s proposed alternative formula was not reasonable
o The Department eliminated all of TBI’s three factors and substituted a single new factor to apportion TBI’s income – the sales factor of TBI’s parent, Target Corporation
o The Court held that TBI’s property and payroll factors needed to be included
41 | Recent State and Local Tax Developments
Sales Factor/Market-Based Sourcing
States are moving away from the traditional income-producing activity/cost of performance methodology for sourcing receipts from services and income from intangible assets
42 | Recent State and Local Tax Developments
Chapter 7—Recent State and Local Tax Developments—Presentation Slides
7–2218th Annual Oregon Tax Institute
Sales Factor/Market-Based Sourcing
43 | Recent State and Local Tax Developments
Sales Factor/Market-Based Sourcing
44 | Recent State and Local Tax Developments
Chapter 7—Recent State and Local Tax Developments—Presentation Slides
7–2318th Annual Oregon Tax Institute
Sales Factor/Market-Based Sourcing
45 | Recent State and Local Tax Developments
Sales Factor/Market-Based Sourcing
46 | Recent State and Local Tax Developments
Chapter 7—Recent State and Local Tax Developments—Presentation Slides
7–2418th Annual Oregon Tax Institute
Sales Factor/Market-Based Sourcing (California)RTC 25136• Receipts from services
o Where was the benefit of the service received?
• Receipts for intangible propertyo Where was the intangible property used?
• Receipts from marketable securitieso Where is the customer located?
• Effective for tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2013
47 | Recent State and Local Tax Developments
Sales Factor/Market-Based Sourcing (California)Regulation 25136-2• Detailed set of rules
• Separate rules for services for individual and business customers
• Separate rules for income from marketing and non-marketing intangibles
• Applies cascading approach for analyzing marketo Contract with customer or taxpayer’s books and recordso Reasonable approximation
• Population approach permittedo Customer/License billing address
• Supposed to take into account the taxpayer’s effort and expense for compliance
• RTC 25137 special industry rules incorporated
48 | Recent State and Local Tax Developments
Chapter 7—Recent State and Local Tax Developments—Presentation Slides
7–2518th Annual Oregon Tax Institute
Alternative Apportionment Gaining Significance
Single Sales Factor Apportionment Plus
Market-Based Sourcing = ?
49 | Recent State and Local Tax Developments
Alternative Apportionment Gaining Significance
• Professor Pomp Commentso Transition to market-based sourcing is a demonstration of economic
development trumping good policyo Combined with the trend to single sales factor apportionment, market-based
sourcing distorts income by focusing on the customer’s location and ignoring capital and labor that helped generate the income
50 | Recent State and Local Tax Developments
Chapter 7—Recent State and Local Tax Developments—Presentation Slides
7–2618th Annual Oregon Tax Institute
Questions?
Jeffrey M. VeselyPillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP
San Francisco, CA(415) 983-1075
Annie H. HuangPillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP
San Francisco, CA(415) 983-1979
51 | Recent State and Local Tax Developments
Chapter 7—Recent State and Local Tax Developments—Presentation Slides
7–2718th Annual Oregon Tax Institute
Chapter 7—Recent State and Local Tax Developments—Presentation Slides
7–2818th Annual Oregon Tax Institute