Noonan’s Notes Blog

New York State’s Brownfield Cleanup Program (“BCP”) has proven to be one of the state’s most successful programs for spurring private-sector remediation and development of contaminated properties. As a quick overview, the state provides refundable tax credits that partially offset the costs of remediating and then developing brownfields in the state. By any economic measure, the program has delivered an excellent rate of return on the state’s tax-credit investment. Since the program’s inception in 2003, the numbers are compelling:

/practices-sales-use-tax-attorneys.htmlWe’ve discussed New York’s economic nexus rules for sales tax purposes several times in this blog.  You can review these previous articles here, here and here. But, after a flurry of initial activity and confusion, now that these rules have seemingly settled, we thought it would be a good time to provide a more comprehensive recap of the state of economic nexus in New York.

On June 20, 2019, both the NYS Assembly and Senate passed bills that made significant changes to the state’s treatment of two hot tax issues: the taxation of global intangible low-taxed income (“GILTI”), and the state’s threshold for establishing economic nexus for sales tax purposes. According to the Senate and Assembly websites, the legislation was signed into law by Governor Cuomo on June 24th.

The New York State Division of Taxation and Finance (the “Department”) issued information entitled “FAQs related to registration requirement for businesses with no physical presence in NYS” (“FAQs”) on May 1, 2019 to address questions concerning sales tax collection by businesses without a physical presence in New York.

New York’s Brownfield Cleanup Program (“BCP”) is one of the more effective tax-based incentive programs offered by the state.  The BCP allows participants to remediate a contaminated piece of real property in exchange for tax credits that can total up to 50% of the qualified remediation costs incurred to clean the property, and 24% of the qualified construction costs incurred to develop the property after it has been remediated.  These tax credits can be the difference between a lucrative development and one that is economically unfeasible. 

Public relations firms often advise clients to release controversial or negative news late in the day on Friday. People are less likely to pay attention to such news over the weekend and by the time Monday rolls around, the news cycle has typically moved on. That might have been what the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance had in mind when, at 4:39 PM on Friday, March 9^th, it released its first sales tax advisory opinion of the year. In TSB-A-19(1)S, the Tax Department announced for the first time that an online marketplace can be held liable for the sales tax due on transactions that the marketplace facilitated. In other words, the Tax Department can hold both the individual vendor using the marketplace infrastructure and the marketplace itself liable for tax due on sales made through the marketplace. This is a dramatic, and we anticipate controversial, change in Tax Department policy.

New York is one of the most, if not the most, aggressive states when it comes to tax enforcement.  That’s why it was a bit confusing when the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance (the “Tax Department”) remained uncharacteristically silent following the landmark Supreme Court decision in South Dakota v. Wayfair.  But that’s finally changed!  On January 15, 2019, the Tax Department issued a Notice explaining its position on economic nexus for sales tax purposes.  In this article, we’ll (1) provide a brief review of how the Wayfair case changed tax administration, (2) discuss New York’s new guidance, and (3) address some of the potential issues that are likely to arise as a result of this new guidance. 

The renewal period for Highway Use Tax registrations is just around the corner. The Tax Department, ever mindful of the leverage this affords, just sent out a slew of computer-generated notices that inform taxpayers with outstanding tax liabilities that the Department cannot issue them a renewed Certificate of Registration and decals until the liabilities are resolved.

On March 7, 2018, the NY Tax Department issued its first income tax advisory opinion of the year. The content of the advisory opinion, a review of the rules governing the timing of the tax credits associated with the state’s Brownfield Cleanup Program, isn’t particularly noteworthy. What struck us here at Noonan’s Notes, and made the opinion blog-worthy, is the timing of the opinion. Though the Tax Department has many functions (e.g., return design and processing, enforcement/audit, tax collection, etc.), this opinion may illustrate that additional resources should be allocated to its interpretation and education functions.

The New York State Department of Taxation and Finance issued a press release on September 26, reminding website designers and software developers of a sales tax exemption and warning them not to “miss out.”  According to the press release, no state or local sales tax will be charged on the purchase of computer system hardware when it’s used more than 50% of the time to:

• Design and develop computer software for sale;
• Provide website design and development services for sale; or
• Provide a combination of the two uses described above.

Just a friendly reminder that the first deadline for New York’s annual abandoned property due diligence mailings is quickly approaching. Here’s a quick recap of the deadlines and the rules governing New York’s abandoned property law. 

If you’re a holder of abandoned property, you must file an annual report detailing the property and must remit the property to the state. A “holder” of abandoned property is any organization that possesses property legally owned by another. Most businesses hold some form of abandoned property whether they know it or not. 

The term “cloud computing” is broad enough to cover a vast array of transactions, all of which use the Internet in some fashion. Two of the most prevalent forms of cloud computing are “software as a service” (SaaS) and “infrastructure as a service” (IaaS). SaaS refers to transactions where software is accessed by a customer remotely over the Internet. The customer does not receive a copy of the software, and the software does not reside on the customer’s hardware. Rather, the customer gains access to the software typically by using its own Internet browser. IaaS refers to transactions where a customer remotely accesses hardware over the Internet. The customer never takes physical possession of the hardware. Rather, the customer accesses the service provider's hardware instead of purchasing and maintaining its own hardware.    

On May 18, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court declared Maryland's resident tax credit structure unconstitutional because it subjected income earned outside the state to potential double taxation. The Supreme Court concluded in a 5 to 4 decision in Comptroller of the Treasury of Maryland v. Wynne that this structure impermissibly favored income earned within Maryland over income earned outside the state. According to the court, this effectively created a tariff that violated the dormant Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. 

Here's a quick review of the facts of the case. Brian and Karen Wynne are Maryland residents. Like most states, Maryland taxes residents on their worldwide income regardless of its source. In other words, Maryland residents can pay tax on income earned outside Maryland. In 2006, Brian Wynne owned stock in a Subchapter S corporation that operated and earned income in other states. In fact, the S corporation filed income tax returns in 39 states. The Wynnes reported the income that flowed through to them from the S corporation on their Maryland income tax returns but also claimed an income tax credit for taxes paid to other states. Almost every state tax code contains a similar credit. These credits are designed to avoid double taxation and to allow for the proper allocation of the tax burden to the jurisdiction where the income was earned.

The problem in the case arose because Maryland imposed two taxes, a state tax and a county tax. Despite imposing two taxes, the Maryland credit for taxes paid to other states only applied to the state tax, not the county tax. Thus, the Wynnes ended up being double taxed on the S corporation income. They paid tax to the states where the income was earned, and they paid the Maryland county tax on the same income. According to the Supreme Court, this scheme violated the dormant Commerce Clause of U.S. Constitution. 

This case is notable for several reasons: