Posts by Elizabeth PascalPartner
We have been trying to keep up with all of the questions from clients and practitioners regarding New York’s Pass-Through Entity Tax (PTET) with the deadline for making the 2021 annual election looming on October 15. We published a handy list of FAQs in State Tax Notes, covering the nuts and bolts of the PTET, state credits and the federal deduction.
Based on discussions internally, with other SALT practitioners, and with NYS representatives who were actively involved in the PTET legislation and guidance, we wanted to add a few more FAQs to our list.
For months we’ve all been waiting for the Tax Department to issue guidance on New York’s new Pass-Through Entity Tax (PTET), since the legislation passed in April 2021. And with the deadline to elect into the tax on October 15, 2021, little details—like how to actually make the election—remained up in the air! We did our part, with a recent article in Tax Notes State asking and answering some FAQs, but finally yesterday the Tax Department issued its own guidance, in the form of a technical services memo, entitled TSB-M-21(1)C, (1).
One of the least discussed but critical aspects of New York’s corporate tax reform is the impact on corporate partners who do not engage in business in New York other than by virtue of its ownership interest in a partnership doing business in New York. The combination of the laws governing corporate partners, and recent proposed interpretations of those laws in the newest revisions to New York’s draft regulations should give a corporate partner pause as to its New York tax exposure.
New York City corporate tax returns have already been filed for the 2018 tax year and NYC unincorporated business tax (UBT) returns are due October 15th. But barely a week before the UBT filing due date, on October 8, 2019, NYC released its long-awaited guidance (https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/finance/downloads/pdf/fm/2018/fm-18-11.pdf) on the attribution of interest deductions for taxpayers whose interest expense deduction was limited under Section 163(j) of the Internal Revenue Code, enacted as part of the Tax Cuts & Jobs Act (TCJA). Under that provision, a taxpayer’s deduction for business interest expense is limited to 30% of adjusted taxable income except in certain circumstances. Any unused interest expense may be carried forward to the following tax year. Note that the NYC Finance Memorandum is numbered 18-11, suggesting that it was originally intended for release in late 2018.
On March 31st an agreement was announced on the FY 2020 Budget. We wrote about the tax related highlights of the budget proposal when it was released back in January. We also recently commented here about the mismatch between the treatment of itemized deductions for individuals versus trusts. Recent guidance from the Tax Department clarified that individuals could itemize deductions at the state level even if they took the standard deduction on their federal return and could take deductions for items disallowed at the federal level. Initially, this seemed to only apply to only individuals, and not trusts and estates.
A few months ago, we wrote about the recent guidance that the Tax Department issued about itemized deduction decoupling (TSB-M-18(6)). The guidance addresses New York State’s decoupling from the federal treatment of deductions for individuals, but it was not initially clear whether these changes also apply to trusts and estates.
Clients who are domiciled in Texas, Florida, and US Virgin Islands may end up spending additional time in New York this year, due to Hurricanes Harvey or Irma. Those affected might be concerned about the impact of that additional New York time on their New York residency situation. Clients should be aware that the New York State Department of Taxation of Finance has not put out any information to taxpayers affected, or potentially affected, by these storms. To our knowledge, the Department has never issued an official policy regarding the treatment of days spent in New York due to a mandatory evacuation from a primary residence in another state, or damage to that residence.
The New York State Department of Taxation and Finance has been drafting new Corporation Franchise Tax Regulations to incorporate the changes made by the corporate tax reform legislation that went into effect in 2015.
The newest draft regulations address net operating losses carried forward from pre-2015 tax years. In order to preserve the value of unused NOLs that arose prior to 2015, New York has created a prior net operating loss conversion (PNOLC) subtraction pool that can be applied against apportioned income in post-2015 tax years.
Since the new corporate tax reform went into effect on January 1, 2015, the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance has been providing “general guidance” -- answers to frequently asked questions (FAQs) -- on topics of interest to taxpayers. Recently, the Tax Department clarified two administrative issues with combined filing under the new regime and issued an FAQ with respect to the proper completion of the apportionment schedule on the return.
On March 7th, a Superior Court in Connecticut issued a decision that could have a significant impact on some investment fund managers who live in Connecticut but manage funds in other states. In Jonathan A. Sobel v. Commissioner of Revenue Services, the Judge held that investment (and therefore intangible) income received by Mr. Sobel, a partner in a partnership that served as the general partner and advisor of certain investment funds, was New York source income and therefore Mr. Sobel could claim a credit on his 1997 and 1998 Connecticut resident tax return for taxes paid to New York (yes, the case has been going on that long!).
Last week we had the opportunity to attend the first annual New York State Tax Summit, a daylong seminar put on by the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance at their offices in Brooklyn. It was a fantastic event, with senior Department officials presenting a wide variety of topics and issues for discussion. There were close to 200 attendees present. And the Agenda was impressive. Here are some of the highlights of the day:
In Matter of Grand Central JT VT (March 10, 2016), the Tax Appeals Tribunal decided a fairly routine tax case as to whether the taxpayer maintained adequate books and records in a sales tax audit and whether the Audit Division’s indirect methodology to estimate sales was reasonable.
A noteworthy determination was issued earlier this month by one of the Division of Tax Appeals’ administrative law judges. Judge Bennett found in Matter of Chery that the Division of Taxation improperly denied the petitioning taxpayer’s status as a real estate professional, as reported on his federal income tax return. Consequently, the taxpayer was entitled to claim Schedule E rental losses from two rental properties – not only on his federal return, but on his New York State return as well.
This case highlights some of the hazards of a trend we’re seeing with increasing frequency: the New York State Tax Department conducting audits focused on taxpayers’ federal income tax returns. This case and others beg the question: to what extent, if any, should New York State auditors be auditing federal tax returns?
For those of us who regularly handle state audits, the focus is usually on the legal or factual arguments as to why no additional taxes are due. And it’s great when our clients can walk away with no additional taxes to pay. But in many cases, a “win” means negotiating a reasonable settlement of a difficult issue. In those cases, the final bill can come as a shock to taxpayers, once interest is included. Particularly with interest rates at historical lows, we expect those low rates to carry over to our tax bills. For the IRS and states that base their interest rate on the federal short-term rate or a similar metric, that’s true. The current IRS interest rate on individual underpayments and overpayments is 3%—not so bad.
But states are by no means required to follow the IRS on interest rates, although quite a few do. Some states may start with the IRS underpayment rate but then tack on a few percentage points (e.g. Virginia adds 2%). Other states, such as North Carolina (5%), Kansas (4%), Michigan (4.25%), and Oregon (4%), also keep their rates in line with overall interest rates.
Questioning the constitutionality of state personal income tax provisions seems to be all the rage these days. On the heels of the Supreme Court’s decision in Comptroller v. Wynne discussed in our recent blog post, New York’s highest court heard oral arguments on Thursday, June 4, for two related cases to determine whether the taxation of nonresident shareholders of S corporations is constitutional.