• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to secondary sidebar

Alston & Bird Tax Blog

  • Home
  • Services
  • Contacts

State and Local Tax Incentives

State and Local Tax Advisory – California Voters Approve Proposition 39, but Significant Questions Remain Regarding How Corporate Taxpayers Can Apportion Their Income

November 12, 2012 By Jasper L. (Jack) Cummings, Jr. and Edward Tanenbaum

This advisory discusses the recently approved Proposition 39, a California ballot initiative that requires corporations conducting a multistate business to apportion their income using a single-sales factor apportionment formula beginning January 1, 2013. Two other recent developments in California raise significant questions regarding the effectiveness of Proposition 39’s single-sales factor apportionment requirement. In Gillette Co. v. Franchise Tax Board, the Court of Appeal of California held that a corporate taxpayer could elect to apportion its income using either the statutory formula [...]Read more

Filed Under: Corporate - State, State & Local Tax Advisory, State and Local Planning, State and Local Tax Incentives Tagged With: Proposition 39

State & Local Tax Advisory – Significant Development in New York: New York Supreme Court Strikes Down MTA Payroll Tax

August 28, 2012 By Jasper L. (Jack) Cummings, Jr. and Edward Tanenbaum

This advisory discusses the New York Supreme Court’s recent holding that the Metropolitan Commuter Transportation Mobility Tax (“MTA payroll tax”) was passed unconstitutionally and thus is invalid. This decision potentially impacts all companies with operations in the New York City area and its development should be closely monitored. The advisory is provided in PDF on the Alston & Bird website: http://www.alston.com/advisories/salt-advisory-mta-payroll-tax  [...]Read more

Filed Under: State & Local Tax Advisory, State and Local Planning, State and Local Tax Incentives

State & Local Tax Advisory: Gillette: Not Exactly a Close Shave – California Court of Appeal Approves Taxpayers’ Compact Elections, Leaving FTB in a Lather

July 26, 2012 By Jasper L. (Jack) Cummings, Jr. and Edward Tanenbaum

It was perhaps viewed as a close shave prior to the California Court of Appeal’s issuance of its opinion in Gillette Co. & Subsidiaries v. Franchise Tax Board, No. A130803 (Ct. App., July 24, 2012), but in fact, the court soundly rejected the California Franchise Tax Board’s (FTB) arguments that taxpayers were not entitled to make a so-called “Compact election” and file California tax returns using the Uniform Division of Income for Tax Purposes Act’s (UDITPA) equally-weighted, three-factor apportionment formula. This advisory explains how the court’s decision [...]Read more

Filed Under: Controversies - State, Corporate - State, State and Local Planning, State and Local Tax Incentives, State Tax Litigation

The MTC Section 482 Proposal

July 20, 2012 By Jasper L. (Jack) Cummings, Jr. and Edward Tanenbaum

A memorandum dated July 19, 2012, from the MTC Counsel to the chair of the MTC Income and Franchise Tax Uniformity Subcommittee proposes adoption of a uniform regulation akin to, or actually adopted under the states’ version of, I.R.C. Section 482. The proposal is posted on the MTC website. The regulation would authorize a forced combination of two affiliates that have engaged in a nonrecognition asset transfer that the state deems to separate income from related expenses. The proposal will be considered at the MTC meeting on July 29, 2012. The proposal has these unusual and questionable [...]Read more

Filed Under: Controversies - State, Corporate - State, State and Local Planning, State and Local Tax Incentives, State Tax Litigation

“Technical” Revenue Laws Changes in North Carolina

July 5, 2012 By Jasper L. (Jack) Cummings, Jr. and Edward Tanenbaum

On June 21, 2012, the North Carolina General Assembly enacted its annual updates and so-called technical revisions of the revenue laws. Session Law 2012-79. Affiliated Corporations. GS 105-130.2(a) is amended to add a definition of “affiliate” for all corporate income tax purposes. Originally, the corporate tax part referred to affiliate in two places: GS 105-130.6, which authorized correcting non-arms-length pricing between affiliates, and GS 105-130.5, listing the North Carolina adjustments to federal taxable income. Two of those adjustments were and still are adjustments for pricing [...]Read more

Filed Under: Controversies - State, Corporate - State, Sales and Use Tax, State and Local Planning, State and Local Tax Incentives, State Tax Litigation

  • Go to page 1
  • Go to page 2
  • Go to Next Page »

Primary Sidebar

As a service of Alston & Bird’s Tax groups, this blog focuses on current issues and events in international, federal, state and local tax and wealth planning of interest to business.

Subscribe

Receive email notifications when new posts are added.

Check your inbox or spam folder to confirm your subscription.

Tags

401(k) ACA Affordable Care Act audit BEAT CARES Act CFC Corporate Tax Planning covid-19 Delaware ERISA Escheat FATCA FBAR FDII Gift cards GILTI international tax IRA IRS Kelmar New York nexus OECD qualified plans Quill RUUPA SCOTUS Section 351 Section 355 Section 367 Section 385 section 482 section 965 State legislation Subpart F Supreme Court Tax Court Tax Cuts and Jobs Act tax reform TCJA Treasury Unclaimed property UP Wayfair

Secondary Sidebar

Categories

Recent Posts

  • PTET Elections: Don’t Let Them “Pass” By Unnoticed in M&A Transactions
  • Post-Roe Issues for Health Plan Sponsors: Navigating the Rapidly Changing Legal Landscape
  • Litigate, Legislate and Repeat: The Delaware Escheat Law Spin Cycle
  • Looking Back at Georgia’s 2022 Legislative Session
  • Diving into IRS’s Annual Report on Advance Pricing Agreements: Can APMA Overcome Its Sisyphean Task?

Archives

Copyright © 2023 · Alston & Bird · All Rights Reserved. Privacy.