Bloomberg BNA releases its 2015 state tax survey

Taxpayers are always trying to obtain certainty regarding their tax issues. Unfortunately, it is not possible to achieve 100% certainty when the facts are complex and the state's rules are grey. Consequently, the taxpayer and adviser generally review all binding authority (statutes, regulations, cases, etc.) and unbinding authority (informal guidance, etc.) to develop support for a tax position. This is why we have the lovely 'levels of assurance' such as the 'realistic possibility of success' (33%), 'substantial authority' (40%), or 'more likely than not' (> 50%).

Depending on the situation, taxpayers are commonly balancing risk and the amount of dollars to spend to chase down this elusive certainty.  Accordingly, taxpayers are trying to attain the most cost-effective and practical solution that reduces risk to an acceptable level. Thus, other factors (business, legal, financial) may determine how much effort is taken to support a specific tax position, resulting in some taxpayers choosing to default to paying more tax to avoid risk.

Bloomberg BNA released its 2015 Survey of State Tax Departments this week, which according to BBNA, clarifies each state’s position on the gray areas of corporate income tax and sales and use tax administration, with an emphasis on nexus policies. 

BBNA has added new sections addressing income and sales tax nexus for registration with state agencies, as well as sales tax nexus for drop shipment transactions. The survey also has a new focus on each state’s rules for sourcing sales factor receipts for income tax purposes. 

As I have stated in previous posts, surveys like this provide great insight into how a state will treat certain issues and fact patterns. The problem is that many answers provided by the state may not be based on actual statutes and regulations or court rulings. The answers may be based on internal policy or simply be an interpretation of a grey area (right or wrong). Regardless of the basis, the states' answers help a company formulate a conclusion.

You can download the report for FREE, just go here.

retroactively changing state tax legislation creates uncertainty

COST or (Council on State Taxation) recently urged the U.S. Supreme Court to hear a court case involving the state's ability to retroactively change legislation enacted eight years earlier (Hambleton v. State of Washington). The case involves Washington's estate tax, but has implications for other tax types (income tax and sales tax).

what are the limits?

COST's amicus brief discusses the history of the courts allowing retroactive changes to legislation and the limits imposed. According to COST, some courts have found as little as 16 months excessive and other courts have found more than ten years permissible. COST mentions that the Court has held that retroactive changes are allowed to carry out the intent of legislation enacted slightly more than one year before. The broad range and lack of uniformity among the states not only creates compliance concerns for taxpayers, but also carries the potential for violating the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

uncertainty creates burden

Taxpayers generally take positions based on their own risk tolerance. Taxpayers who have a high risk tolerance may be willing to take positions based on their interpretation that a grey area of tax law is not constitutional or vague. These types of taxpayers run the risk of a state not only assessing additional tax, interest and penalties, but also are exposed to a state's ability to retroactively change its law in its favor.

Taxpayers with a lower risk tolerance may choose to take a conservative position and follow the grey are of tax law despite how obvious it may be that the law is unconstitutional or vague. These types of taxpayers may choose to file amended returns claiming a refund of the tax paid. In this case, the taxpayer is protected from being assessed additional taxes, interest and penalties. However, the taxpayer is still exposed to a state's ability to retroactively change its law in its favor resulting in the disallowance of the taxpayer's refund claim. 

In both situations, taxpayers may incur compliance costs, consulting fees, attorney fees, court costs, etc. before the issue is resolved. Additionally, while the issue is being litigated or considered, the uncertainty creates additional exposure for current tax years. 

I agree with COST, and urge the U.S. Supreme Court to consider this case not only for the reasons asserted by COST in their amicus brief, but also because states have an obligation to create a stable and reasonable compliance environment that doesn't keep taxpayers guessing.

market-based sourcing uniformity project continues

The Multistate Tax Commission (MTC) UDITPA Section 17 Work Group recently released its Working Draft Model for Market-Sourcing Regulations. 

States who have recently adopted market-based sourcing have similar guidelines. The goal is to develop uniformity for current and future states that enact market-based sourcing for determining the sourcing of sales of services, intangible property and other non-tangible personal property for multistate income tax apportionment purposes. 

The Working Draft provides insight into where the MTC is going and how complicated market-based sourcing really is. The support for switching to market-based sourcing from the costs-of-performance method is partially based on the claim that it is easier to implement. I think the 44-page document speaks for itself.

Check out the Working Draft and my previous posts regarding market-based sourcing for more information.

2015 state tax amnesty programs - should your company apply?

Is amnesty the way forward? Does your company have past liabilities that need paid without paying penalties or interest? Should your company participate in a state's amnesty program or utilize the state's Voluntary Disclosure Program?

These questions plague companies when faced with identified compliance exposure and failures for multiple tax years. Some states offer one-time, short time-frame amnesty periods allowing companies to come forward, file prior year tax returns, and pay tax with the promise of future compliance. Depending on the specifics of the state's amnesty program, penalties and/or interest may be abated.

Key to remember: if your company has exposure and does not come forward, then the state may assess more significant penalties and interest when it finds your company later.

The Council on State Taxation (COST) has put together a great matrix of 2015 state tax amnesty programs. Check it out here.

Also, if you would like to read more about amnesty, check out my previous posts here.

Specifically, you may like: Amnesty and Voluntary Disclosure Agreements: What, When, Why?

How to request alternative apportionment in South Carolina

On June 1, 2015, the South Carolina Department of Revenue published Revenue Procedure 15-2. The purpose of the Revenue Procedure is to provide a procedure for a taxpayer to request use of an alternative apportionment method if the taxpayer believes that the prescribed statutory formula does not fairly represent the extent of the taxpayer’s business activities in South Carolina. This request is an “Application for an Alternative Apportionment Method under Code Section 12-6- 2320(A).” 

South Carolina also released Revenue Ruling 15-5. The Revenue Ruling addresses some of the issues that may arise when South Carolina requires or a taxpayer requests an alternative allocation or apportionment method, including combined unitary reporting. Noted in the Ruling is that the Department may require and a taxpayer may request combined unitary reporting as an alternative method, if reasonable. Combined reporting can be used to effectuate equitable apportionment of the taxpayer’s income when separate entity reporting does not fairly represent the taxpayer’s business activity in South Carolina. If the Department requires combined reporting, the Department will apply the Finnigan method to apportion the unitary income using a two-step process (as described in the ruling).

For prior posts on South Carolina and alternative apportionment, including the recent South Carolina Supreme Court Case, click here.

Nevada enacts 'commerce tax'

Nevada has signed into law (SB 483) the imposition of a new 'commerce tax' on each business entity engaged in business in Nevada whose gross revenue in a fiscal year exceeds $4 million. 

The Nevada gross revenue is determined by taking gross revenue and making specific adjustments.

Note: there is no adjustment for cost of goods sold.

Revenue is sitused to Nevada differently depending on the source of revenue (i.e., tangible property, real property, services, etc.).

Note: Services are sitused using market-based sourcing methodology (i.e., where the purchaser receives the benefit of the service).

The tax rate will vary based on the industry of the taxpayer.

The tax year begins July 1, 2015 and the first report is due 45 days following June 30, 2016.

Bottom Line

Taxpayers are now subject to a new tax in Nevada, similar to Texas' gross receipts tax, Washington's Business & Occupation Tax or Ohio's Commercial Activity Tax, but with deviation.

Taxpayers must prepare to comply, budget and navigate this new tax (burden).