Posts by Timothy P. NoonanPartner
The Third Department of the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division recently issued a somewhat surprising ruling that should expand taxpayers’ access to protest rights within the state’s Division of Tax Appeals (“DTA”).
In the case, Matter of Dumpling Cove, LLC, the Petitioner was audited and subsequently signed a Statement of Proposed Audit Change in January 2018, agreeing that it owed over $500,000 in sales tax, interest, and penalties. Shortly thereafter, the Petitioner made a partial $100,00 payment, and the Department responded with a letter confirming ...
In July, the Massachusetts Appellate Tax Board (ATB) issued a decision upholding the state’s 2020 emergency regulation that required nonresident employees who worked in Massachusetts prior to the pandemic, but worked remotely due to the pandemic, to continue to apportion their income to Massachusetts.
But just because we’re posting about it—don’t confuse the Massachusetts’ emergency regulation with New York’s convenience rule. There are several key differences.
First, unlike New York’s longstanding convenience rule, the Massachusetts regulation was ...
Earlier this year we reported on a Massachusetts case where a court, (wrongly, we think), determined that a nonresident taxpayer could be taxed on the sale of stock in a business that he founded and ran in the state. Turns out this issue might be contagious……a few months ago, Ohio successfully made a similar argument. In a Final Determination issued on March 28, 2024, the Ohio Tax Commissioner denied Claimants Dr. Garry Rayant and Dr. Kathy Fields’s $719,492 refund application filed with their amended 2018 Ohio tax return. The Claimants sold 25% of their interest in Rodan & Fields ...
Over the past few years, we’ve seen a major expansion of enforcement efforts by the New York City Department of Finance, particularly with respect to the City’s unique Unincorporated Business Tax (the “UBT”). In these audits, DOF has been taking increasingly aggressive positions around the application of various statutory provisions.
Over the past decade, New York and other states have employed some version of a “False Claims Act” (FCA) to enforce violations of the tax law, and occasionally these cases wade into residency and personal income tax waters. One of the tax jurisdictions is the District of Columbia, and recently they scored a big win in a FCA case.
Over the past few years, we’ve seen a mass exodus of taxpayers leaving New York. Why? Well, first there was the COVID-19 pandemic; that didn’t help. But in the middle of the pandemic, the State raised the personal income tax rates to some of the highest in the nation. That didn’t help either! And then we had issues around a declining standard of living in New York City, empty office buildings, remote work, and safety issues, all leading more New Yorkers to seek out more friendlier climates.
A couple weeks ago, the Third Department of the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division issued its decision in Matter of Schreiber, reversing a prior decision of the Tax Appeals Tribunal, finding that its interpretation of Tax Law § 16(f)(2)(C) and Matter of Purcell, both related to the calculation of qualified empire zone enterprise (QEZE) tax reduction credits, was irrational. We’ve been following this issue for almost a decade, dating back to our review and analysis of the Purcell case, which you can read about here. The Schreiber case presents an interesting new twist in the story, and the Court’s analysis could impact cases beyond the realm of QEZE credits.
As states continue to seek increased revenues, especially those high-tax states dealing with a dwindling tax base, we’re starting to see some states take unusual and fairly aggressive positions in tax cases. One recent example we covered involved New York and the enforcement of its “convenience rule” in the Zelinsky case. In November 2023, the Massachusetts Appellate Tax Board issued another doozy, holding in Welch v. Commissioner of Revenue that a nonresident could be taxed on the gain from the sale of stock. (Docket No. C339531 (November 29, 2023)).
Last month, we wrote about a recent ALJ Order dealing with New York’s application of the convenience rule to a situation where a taxpayer’s New York office was closed during COVID. In that piece, we noted that we expected a decision in February 2024 in the Zelinsky case, in which the petitioner was making similar arguments about the application of the convenience rule during COVID.
As our regular readers know (all 7 of them), one of the bigger SALT issues to come out of COVID, especially in New York, relates to New York’s “Convenience of the Employer” rule. Under that rule, wages that a nonresident employee earns while working outside of New York State are treated as New York-sourced income if the employee is working from home for their New York employer for their own convenience. As we reported back in October 2020, several months into the pandemic the New York Tax Department announced its position that COVID-related telecommuting would have no impact on its application of the convenience rule. And as we experienced in a number of personal income tax audits after that, the Tax Department extended this position even to situations where an employer had closed its office in New York.
We’re seeing some progress in New York! It’s been nine long years since the Legislature adopted sweeping corporate tax reform, and today the New York Department officially released its proposed rulemaking (as opposed to the draft version of the rules that were kicking around for the last few years). Under New York rulemaking procedures, a mandatory 60-day comment period has commenced. During this time the public may submit comments to the Department on the proposal. After the comment period, the Department is permitted to adopt the proposed rules.
A few weeks ago, the Tax Appeals Tribunal issued a decision in a residency case, Matter of Glynn, holding that the Administrative Law Judge’s grant of summary determination was properly granted to the Division of Taxation. This is somewhat unusual for a residency case, as more extensive fact finding is usually necessary to resolve these disputes. And our fellow blogger at Taxes in New York (“TiNY”) had a lot to say about this opinion. A few other thoughts from this corner………
Last month, New York State passed its 2023-24 Budget, better late than never. We highlighted a lot of the new provisions in a recent Tax Alert, but there are a couple of changes involving the Metropolitan Commuter Transportation Mobility Tax (the “MCTMT”) worthy of special note. The MCTMT functions somewhat like a payroll tax on employers in the Metropolitan Commuter Transportation District (which includes the counties of New York, Bronx, Kings, Queens, Richmond, Rockland, Nassau, Suffolk, Orange, Putnam, Dutchess, and Westchester). And it also applies to self-employed individuals, including partners in partnerships.
Edward Zelinsky, a Connecticut resident and professor at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in New York City, recently added another chapter to his New York tax chronicles, once again challenging New York’s convenience of the employer rule. Professor Zelinsky lost his previous battle with New York, Zelinsky v. Tax Appeals Tribunal, 1 N.Y.3d 85 (2003), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 1009 (2004), but this one has a bit of a different twist, as outlined in his 2019 and 2020 petitions for a hearing with the Division.
In an unfortunate blow to Taxpayers, the Washington State Supreme Court ruled 7-2 on Friday, March 24, 2023, to uphold the constitutionality of the state’s capital gains tax. The ruling comes as a sharp reversal of a lower court decision striking down the tax as unconstitutional, which we reported on here.
Last month, New York’s highest court denied leave to appeal in Matter of Obus v. New York State Tax Appeals Trib., 206 A.D.3d 1511 (3d Dep’t. 2022), closing the book on litigation that will have lasting implications on New York’s ability to tax vacation-home owners, and perhaps others with tenuous connections to a New York dwelling, as tax “residents” of New York. The New York Court of Appeals’ refusal to hear the appeal leaves the lower court’s decision in Obus intact.
Another win for telecommuters! Yes, you read that right! We recently covered a case involving a Pennsylvania-based employee who won a Covid-related telecommuting case in Ohio. Now remote employees have another win to add to their pile of Covid-related telecommuting cases. In Missouri, a judge just ruled that St. Louis improperly applied its 1% earnings tax on nonresident employees who worked outside the city during the Covid-19 pandemic.
As residents and SALT practitioners in New York, we see firsthand how high income tax rates drive the personal decision making of taxpayers as well as enforcement efforts by tax departments. On the taxpayer side, we’ve seen tangible (albeit anecdotal) evidence that taxpayers will make decisions on where to work or live based on their taxes. We saw this in 2018 with the explosion of moves following the implementation of the SALT cap, and again in New York in 2021 when, combined with Covid, taxpayers exited New York at a record-breaking pace, coincidentally around the time that the New York legislature raised the highest combined tax rate for New York State and City resident taxpayers to 14.7%. Of course, over the years New York has become somewhat of a leader in personal income tax enforcement, particularly in the residency area, to address the movement of taxpayers both in and out of the state. For example, over the course of 2018 through 2022, the tax department reports performing over four thousand residency audits per year. More recently, the tax department has put in place a massive “desk audit” program specifically to have a process that immediately questions taxpayers who left the state in 2020 or 2021.
An interesting residency case came out last summer on a statutory residency issue, and it may have got lost in all the hubbub around the Obus case (which we covered here). In Matter of Joseph Pilaro, the Tax Appeals Tribunal held that the taxpayer didn’t maintain a permanent place of abode (PPA) for substantially all of 2014, even though he had a place in New York for most of the year. The decision provides several helpful nuggets for future residency battles.
The New York City Pass-Through Entity Tax (“NYC PTET”) online application is now available, allowing individuals eligible to opt in to the NYC PTET on behalf of an eligible city partnership or eligible city resident S corporation.
Yes, you read that right! The first employee win we have seen on the COVID-related telecommuting cases recently came out of Ohio. During the pandemic, many states came out with guidance on how to treat the income employees earned while working remotely, some of which was contrary to their existing rules. Ohio was one of those states that acted quickly, with HB 197 taking effect March 27, 2020. Backdating to March 9, 2020, and lasting until 30 days after the state of emergency ended, Section 29 of HB 197 stated, for municipal income tax purposes, employees were deemed to be performing services at the employee’s principal place of work, rather than where the employee was physically working. This notably applied to both resident and nonresident employees. The alleged intention of the bill was to lessen the burden on employers by not requiring them to change the municipal withholding of their employees. This rule looks a lot like the “convenience of the employer" rule that a few states, including New York, applied before Covid, and that many states migrated to during the pandemic.
Over the years, we have written on a variety of topics that involve professional athletes -- from how states handle signing bonuses to an overview of multistate tax issues. This past week, there was an interesting new development to add to the list. On September 21, 2022, the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County ruled Pittsburgh’s “jock tax” is unconstitutional in Francoeur v. City of Pittsburgh.
As we reported here several months ago, this year's New York State budget included a provision for a New York City Pass-Through Entity Tax, effective in 2023, that would allow New York City resident owners of pass-through entities to benefit from a local Pass-Through Entity Tax regime. Shortly after it was passed, many wondered why there was only a prospective effective date. Given that a change like this should be net neutral to the State and City government, why not make it retroactive to January 1, much like the State Pass-Through Entity Tax was made retroactive when it was put in place in 2021?
Big news on the residency front!
For years we’ve been battling the New York tax department on the scope of its statutory-residency test, and yesterday brought a huge victory in that fight. In Matter of Nelson Obus et al., v New York State Tax Appeals Tribunal, the court ruled that a seldom-used vacation home in New York cannot be considered a “permanent place of abode” for statutory residency purposes. Click here for the decision.
Last week we reported on the fast-paced legislative efforts to extend New York’s 2022 pass-through entity tax (PTET) election deadline. To read that article, click here. In record time, the bill we reported on was signed into law by Governor Hochul on May 6, 2022.
Last month we reported on recent legislative amendments to New York’s pass-through entity tax (“PTET”). To read that article, click here. It turns out the New York legislature is not done making amendments to the PTET.
In 2021, many New York residents did not receive the full benefit of New York’s SALT cap workaround, because New York took a unique approach to the computation of its new pass-through entity tax (“PTET”). We are happy to report that on April 8, 2022, the New York Assembly and Senate passed Fiscal Year 2023 budget legislation (the Budget Bill), and part of the new legislation addresses (and fixes) this issue.
Without even a hint of fanfare, the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance recently released a new version of its audit guidelines for nonresidents. Given that the last update was in 2014, we easily excited tax lawyers cracked them open to find out what had changed. But when we dug into the new guidelines, we were disappointed to see only minor stylistic edits.
The drip of Pass-Through Entity Tax (PTET) questions we’ve received has grown into a steady stream… there must be some due dates approaching! Here’s a quick reminder about two important due dates for New York’s PTET. Spoiler: They’re both March 15.
On Tuesday, March 1, 2022, Washington State Superior Court Judge Brian Huber released a ruling striking down the state’s new capital gains tax. The law—signed by Governor Jay Inslee last May—imposes a 7% tax on the sale of stocks, bonds, and other assets above $250,000. When signed, Washington became the first state in the country with no income tax to impose a tax on capital gains.
As promised, we have an update on one of the unanswered questions relating to New York’s Pass-Through Entity Tax (PTET) that went into effect last year. While we are still waiting for an official pronouncement, we have heard from other practitioners that the Department is taking a favorable position on the treatment of guaranteed payments in the context of the PTET.
Recently, the New York State Department of Taxation & Finance released new nonresident audit guidelines, without any announcement or fanfare. Being the first official update to the guidelines since 2014, we were excited to crack them open! But, alas, our hopes were soon dashed; the changes to the guidelines turned out to be mostly minor.
Recently, we’ve witnessed a mass exodus from New York State as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. Some movers yearn for warmer weather, others for more reasonable Covid policies, and others simply seek a home-state that won’t tax their personal income. When we advise these moving individuals on their domicile change, a question we’re receiving with increasing frequency is “after I move, can I continue to make donations to my favorite local charities, or will New York State use that information against me in a determination of my domicile?” We understand why people are concerned at the possibility that their charitable contributions might be weaponized against them. After all, in a domicile audit, New York auditors are instructed to analyze the taxpayer’s lifestyle, using five primary factors: home, time, business activity, near & dear, and family.
Just when you thought you could relax because you met the October 15 deadline for the New York Pass-Through Entity tax (PTET) election, new questions about some of the practical aspects of making tax payments and return filing deadlines have come to light.
Back in August, the Department confirmed in TSB-M-21(1)C, (1) that, beginning this year, resident partners, members, or shareholders will be allowed a resident tax credit against their New York State personal income tax for any pass-through entity tax imposed by another state, local government, or the District of Columbia, that is substantially similar to the PTET. The question remaining was: “what does substantially similar mean?” Well, we have our answer. On Monday, the Department published a list, which specifically enumerated the states (and corresponding qualifying state taxes) that impose a pass-through entity tax that is substantially similar to New York’s PTET.
Much to the frustration of the practitioner community, the New York Tax Department’s extension of certain filing deadlines last month due to Hurricane Ida (sorry, we’re not calling it a “Post-Tropical Depression!”) did not cover October 15-related deadlines, unlike the extensions offered by the IRS and New Jersey. But late on October 12, with only a couple days left in the filing season, the Tax Department finally capitulated, issuing Notice N-21-5, extending many (but not all) of the due dates coming up for taxpayers and practitioners impacted by Ida.
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.
On October 5, 2021, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals declared that the federal $10,000 SALT deduction cap is constitutional. The long-awaited ruling affirms a decision by U.S. District Court Judge J. Paul Oetken, which we covered here. The SALT deduction was first capped at $10,000 as part of former President Trump’s Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (TCJA).
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).
For the last year, we've been tracking the guidance that states have issued related to how state personal income taxes will be handled during the COVID-19 pandemic, with a specific focus on telecommuting employees. At this point, most states have issued some guidance on this. Connecticut, on the other hand, has stayed silent, until now.
At the end of last year, we discussed the latest pied-à-terre tax proposal introduced in the New York Legislature, Senate Bill S44B, and how it compared with prior versions reported in this blog over the past six years. (As you may recall, New York State Senator Brad Hoylman sponsored the original proposal to impose a real property tax on nonprimary residences in 2014). This past weekend, the New York Assembly released its Tax and Revenue budget proposals for 2021-22, Assembly Bill 3009-B (the “Assembly Proposal”), which includes a new type of pied-à-terre tax, a surcharge on the owner! (The Senate declined to include such tax in its budget proposal.)
We’re back to our regularly scheduled programming. For the last two weeks, we took a break from tracking legislative developments to provide a summary of the proposed tax changes in Governor Cuomo’s Executive Budget for fiscal year 2022. In addition to our overall summary of the Executive Budget, we also took an in-depth look at some of the more noteworthy changes. (See here, here, and here.)
Welcome to our second post dedicated to providing a summary of the proposed tax changes in Governor Cuomo’s Executive Budget for fiscal year 2022. The Executive Budget proposes to enact new taxes, credits, and other initiatives, aimed largely at mitigating the revenue shortfalls caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, and are broken down into the following categories:
We’re back! This week, we have dedicated the post to providing a summary of the proposed tax changes in Governor Cuomo’s Executive Budget for fiscal year 2022. We’ve already covered some of the proposed tax changes in the Executive Budget that came out late last month (see here, here, and here). The Budget Proposal sets forth new taxes, credits, and other initiatives, aimed largely at mitigating the revenue shortfalls caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, and are broken down into the following categories:
We’re back with another update on recently-introduced tax legislation. As discussed last week, we continue to see bills reintroduced that expired at the end of the last session. Two of the more interesting proposals include repealing New York’s estate tax and another so-called “millionaire’s tax.” We’ve also been following the proposed tax changes in the Governor’s Budget proposal that came out earlier this week (see here, here, and here), and next week we’ll dedicate our update to an overall summary of the Budget proposals.
On January 19, 2021, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo published his Fiscal Year 2022 Executive Budget and related legislation (the “Budget Proposal”). While the Budget Proposal contains a variety of important provisions, this post will cover one of the most notable: the proposed pass-through entity (“PTE”) workaround to the $10,000 limitation on Federal state and local tax deductions (the “SALT cap”).
The day many expected has finally come: Governor Cuomo has officially proposed his 2021 Budget and, as expected, it includes higher personal income tax rates for high-income taxpayers.
In the blog I posted below, more than a year ago, we tried to answer what has been a pressing question about how far New York’s resident credit rules go, and specifically whether NY resident who pays the Connecticut pass-through entity tax (or really any other state’s PTE tax) could claim a resident tax credit in New York for such taxes. Sixteen months later, there still is no direct answer to this question, though I continue to believe there’s some authority under existing law to claim such a credit. But earlier this week, as part of the Governor’s 2021 Budget Proposal and buried in provisions around a new PTS tax for New York (which we will cover in a separate blog post, don’t worry), there’s this amendment to Tax Law § 620:
We’re back with another update on recently-introduced tax legislation. As discussed last week, we continue to see bills reintroduced that expired at the end of the last session. Two of the more interesting proposals include a bill addressing the taxability of carried interest for investment management services and another proposing a new personal income surcharge on high-income residents of New York City.
With the start of New York’s new Legislative Session for the 2021-22 term, we are eagerly anticipating the introduction of new tax legislation and we plan to cover those developments here. We’ll be tracking all noteworthy legislative developments on a weekly or bi-weekly basis, and this is our first installment of 2021.
As expected, we are already seeing bills reintroduced that expired at the end of the last session. Given the uptick in working remotely due to COVID-19, one of the more interesting proposals addresses the tax treatment of telecommuting employees. While some of these efforts may fail, New York is experiencing multibillion-dollar revenue shortfalls and will be increasingly looking to businesses and high earners to ease the revenue shortfalls being faced due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
This blog post will cover several noteworthy, recently-introduced pieces of New York tax legislation. While these bills are set to expire today at the end of the current legislative session, these bills may be reintroduced when the new legislative session begins in January 2021. If ultimately passed, these new pieces of legislation could have a significant impact on New York taxpayers, so we plan to keep these bills on our radar and track their progression through the legislative process when the new session begins.
On November 9, 2020, the IRS issued Notice 2020-75 (the “Notice”) informing taxpayers that forthcoming proposed regulations would clarify that state and local income taxes imposed on and paid by a partnership or S corporation (a “pass-through entity” or “PTE”) on its income are allowed as a deduction by the PTE in computing its non-separately stated taxable income or loss for the year of the payment, meaning that such payments are not taken into account in applying the State and local tax (“SALT”) cap limitation to any individual who is a partner of shareholder in the PTE.
Over the past few weeks, several of our clients have received letters from the New York Tax Department’s desk audit unit inquiring about their 2018 tax return. These have all been form letters, all asking the same questions, and looking something like this letter. From what we can tell, all of these letters have been issued to taxpayers who fall generally in the same circumstances: they either changed their residency during 2018 and thus filed a part-year resident return, or they filed as New York residents in 2017 and then as full-year nonresidents in 2018.
As we have chronicled in blog posts over the past several months, many states have issued guidance related to how state personal income taxes will be handled during the COVID-19 pandemic, with a specific focus on telecommuting employees. Last month we also published an article in Tax Notes State on the issue. The primary question has been whether an employee telecommuting from outside a state due to the pandemic owes personal income tax in their home state or in their employer’s state (or both!).
UPDATED OCTOBER 25, 2021
Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, millions of people have been telecommuting for over a year, either from their home state or elsewhere. Even as some states open their economies back up, it does not change the fact that companies have been allowing employees to telecommute for a significant amount of time. And many companies are allowing employees to telecommute on a more indefinite basis. Allowing employees to telecommute from states in which they do not normally work can create a host of issues for employers, but the two big tax issues relate to nexus and income tax.
Last year we published a full-length article in State Tax Notes that discussed the importance of cell phone records in residency audits and did a deeper dive on some of the issues we’ve seen come up in reviewing various cell phone records in these audits. Here is a link to that article: /assets/htmldocuments/2019stn16-4.pdf
Last week we published an alert regarding the upcoming June 15 New York estimated tax deadline, noting that taxpayers still needed to pay their New York State and City second quarter estimated payments for 2020 because the New York State Tax Department had made no pronouncements extending the due date to July 15, as the IRS had done. The Department’s silence on the issue left many tax practitioners and taxpayers confused about what to pay and when to pay it.
The current pandemic has changed the working landscape for commuters everywhere and their employers. This is especially true in New York City, which became the epicenter for the crisis and poster child for the telecommuting work force. Now more than ever, individuals who used to travel into the City for work are logging in remotely from home, delivering their services miles away from their Manhattan offices. This has created interesting personal income tax questions, and as we will discuss below, potential saving opportunities for professional service companies subject to the NYC Unincorporated Business Tax (UBT).
About a month ago we talked about Executor Order 202.15 from New York’s Governor Andrew Cuomo, which authorized the NYS Tax Department to begin accepting digital signatures on various tax documents related to determining and collecting tax liabilities, but deferred to the Department to issue guidance implementing the particulars. Soon after, the NYS Tax Department issued Notice N-20-3, which addressed various aspects of the new digital signature authorization including the expiration date on May 9, 2020 which appeared in both the Notice and in Executor Order 202.15. Last week, however, a newly-issued Executive Order 202.31 extended the Tax Department’s authority to accept digital signatures “for the duration of the disaster emergency.”
The COVID-19 crisis continues to throw off a variety of tax questions and issues that 60 days ago likely would have been unimaginable. In an article we published this month in Tax Notes State, we talked about different types of New York residency and income allocation issues that could arise as a result of shutdown or travel-related restrictions put in place by state governments. A couple of those issues involved some of the strict day counting requirements that arise under New York’s residency rules. For example, the statutory residency test limit certain taxpayers to spending 183 days in New York. Also, the 548-day rule, which is a special safe harbor available to protect certain taxpayers from New York residency taxation, requires that a taxpayer spend 450 days in a foreign country over the course of a 548-day period and also limits the taxpayer’s presence in New York to 90 days. In both cases, we know of taxpayers who will fail these tests in 2020 because of travel-related restrictions.
As taxpayers begin adjusting to these strange times, it seems the NYS Tax Department is trying to do the same. The Department just issued guidance in Notice N-20-3 which temporarily allows taxpayers and their appointed representatives to use digital signatures on various tax forms. This comes on the heels of last week’s Executor Order 202.15 from New York’s Governor Andrew Cuomo, which authorized the Department to “accept digital signatures in lieu of handwritten signatures on documents related to the determination or collection of tax liability” until May 9, 2020, but then punted to the Department to hammer out the logistics and issue appropriate guidance.
The NYS Division of Tax Appeals updated its website this morning regarding the agency’s operations.
The unprecedented COVID-19 pandemic has triggered a wide variety of relief efforts from the Federal, state, and local governments. This update will provide insight into several of these relief efforts, and discuss the effect they might have on employers coping with the impact of the Coronavirus on their business operations. Hodgson Russ recently published a State and Local Tax Alert reviewing these developments.
The “workaround train” keeps rolling! A New Jersey bill to give small businesses and partnerships a way to diminish the impact of the federal cap on state and local tax deductions (the SALT cap) was signed into law on January 13, 2020 by Governor Phil Murphy (D). The bill (S-3246/A-4807) gives S corporations, limited liability corporations and other business partnerships the option of paying state income tax directly at the entity level, as a business tax rather than at the partner level, as personal income tax. The bill is effective for tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2020 and creates a business alternative income tax (BAIT). As we’ve outlined in the past, the play here arises because while the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) capped federal deductions for state and local tax at $10,000 for individuals, it set no limit on deductions for state and local taxes paid by businesses.
Employees nationwide are working to finish year-end business before the holidays and House Democrats are no exception. The U.S. House of Representatives voted 218 to 206 on December 19 to pass H.R. 5377 (the “bill”) which temporarily repeals the SALT deduction cap for 2020 and 2021.
A week or so ago, New York Governor Andrew M. Cuomo and New York Attorney General Letitia James announced that New York, Connecticut, Maryland and New Jersey filed a notice of appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit to continue litigation against the federal government for its unlawful and unprecedented cap on the deduction for state and local taxes, known as SALT. The SALT deduction was capped at $10,000 as part of President Trump’s Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (TCJA). This appeal challenges a September 30, 2019 ruling by Judge J. Paul Oetken of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York stating that the $10,000 SALT deduction cap is not unconstitutionally coercive. Judge Oetken held that the states had not plausibly alleged that the cap meaningfully constrains their decision-making processes. We covered the ruling here. He denied the states' motion for summary judgment in their original suit, State of New York et al v. Mnuchin. The four states argued that the SALT cap is a politically motivated bid to effectively raise property taxes in predominately Democratic states.
Just an observation from the cheap seats about a recent notice issued by the Minnesota Department of Revenue (DOR) (Revenue Notice No. 19-05, referred to as Notice 19-05). This notice clarifies that neither the DOR nor the courts can consider the location of the individual's attorney, CPA, financial adviser, or the place of business of a financial institution where the individual opened or maintained an account for purposes of establishing whether an individual is domiciled in the state.
Late last week, New York’s Attorney General Letitia James filed a Superseding Complaint against a photo and video equipment retailer, B&H Foto & Electronics Corp., in New York County Supreme Court. The Superseding Complaint alleges various violations by the retailer under New York State’s Tax Law, False Claims Act, and the Executive Law, spanning the past two decades. A whistleblower actually filed the qui tam civil suit under seal in early 2016, after which New York State was given time to investigate the matter. But it wasn’t until just recently that the Attorney General’s office notified the court of its decision to supersede the whistleblower’s complaint and, in doing so, converted the whistleblower’s complaint into a civil enforcement action by the Attorney General.
They say that history repeats itself. After seven months of explaining that the proposed pied-à-terre tax did not pass April 1, 2019 as part of New York State Governor Andrew Cuomo’s final budget bill covered here, according to a recent Bloomberg article, the idea of charging a pied-à-terre tax is once again being discussed in political and real estate circles in New York City. Although not actually included in the Governor’s original budget proposal last year, there was much buzz around a potential real property pied-à-terre tax on non-primary residences located in New York City with a market value of $5 million or more. The Senate and Assembly budget proposals included such taxes with tax rates ranging from 0.5% to 4% on properties valued at $25 million or more.
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.
This article originally appeared in Law360 and is reprinted with permission.
It seems that President Donald J. Trump often finds himself at the center of New York state tax news, and therefore at the center of our monthly "NY Tax Minutes" column. This month is no different. First, the president continues two separate lawsuits seeking to prevent disclosures of his personal income tax returns, and second, Trump, whose name has graced New York buildings and tabloid headlines for decades, recently declared that he plans to abandon his New York tax residency for the warm weather (and low taxes) of Florida.
As the kids were out trick-or-treating last night, The New York Times dropped yet another bombshell concerning ongoing potential tax issues for President Trump. But this one did not concern requests for copies of his tax returns; this one was generated by the President himself.
More than three months after oral arguments were heard in the SALT cap lawsuit (State of New York, State of Connecticut, State of Maryland, and State of New Jersey v. United States Department of Treasury, The Internal Revenue Service and The United States of America, 18-cv-6427), Judge J. Paul Oetken of the U.S. District Court dismissed the suit on September 30, 2019. Judge Oetken ruled that the $10,000 SALT deduction cap under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act was not unconstitutionally coercive, finding that the states had not plausibly alleged that the cap meaningfully constrains the states’ decision-making processes. Further, Judge Oetken rejected the federal government’s argument that the court did not have jurisdiction to hear the case, holding that the states’ allegation that they would suffer diminished real estate transfer tax revenues was sufficient to give them standing to challenge the cap. He also held that the Anti-Injunction Act did not bar the suit because the states had no alternate mechanism to challenge the cap's legality.
It appears we’ve reached the end of the line on our “Wynne” cases. On October 7, 2019, the Supreme Court of the United States declined to hear our appeals in Edelman v. Department of Taxation and Finance and Chamberlain v. Department of Taxation and Finance. In both cases, we argued that New York’s statutory residency taxing scheme, which subjected taxpayers who qualified as dual residents of New York and Connecticut to double taxation, was unconstitutional and in violation of the Commerce Clause. As we reported earlier this year, the New York State Court of Appeals previously declined to hear the taxpayers’ appeals in April 2019.
The New York State Department of Taxation and Finance (the Department) issued three technical memoranda on September 3, 2019, summarizing the corporation tax, personal income tax and tax credit changes that were part of the 2019-2020 New York state budget we covered here. Two of the three are recapped below, with links to both memos. The third, TSB-M-19(4)C, (5)I, covered new tax credit provisions.
The SALT cap has been in the news since the Tax Cuts & Jobs Act (TCJA - P.L. 115-97) was passed in late 2017, with federal legislation capping the individual state and local tax deduction at $10,000 per year beginning January 1, 2018. SALT cap issues have abounded and we have written about SALT lawsuits here, proposed workarounds here, and new IRS regulations regarding SALT credits here. Of course, the biggest hurdle facing taxpayers still remains finding a viable workaround to the SALT cap.
This article originally appeared in Law360 and is reprinted with permission.
August is often a slow month in the state and local tax world, with attorneys, accountants and auditors looking to squeeze the last bit out of summer. But not everyone at the New York State Tax Department took a break this month. And our most seasonally appropriate update comes from the Tax Department’s August appearance at The Great New York State Fair in Syracuse, New York. [1]
There has been a lot of buzz in recent days about a recent New York Division of Tax Appeals case addressing the New York residency status of a taxpayer who maintained a vacation home in New York state. The case, titled Matter of Obus (click here to read it), dealt with a New Jersey resident who worked in New York City and also maintained a vacation home in Northville, New York, a vacation community in Upstate New York. The case was also covered in a Wall Street Journal article that has sparked a lot of confusion about New York’s residency tests.
All the talk around the SALT Cap over the past year or so has put New York’s high personal income tax rates into focus. Just last month, President Trump locked into a Twitter debate with Governor Andrew Cuomo, arguing that "it is very hard and expensive to live in New York" because of the state's "ridiculously high taxes.” Governor Cuomo countered that he had in fact lowered taxes. Whatever the case, with the SALT Cap hurting high-income New Yorkers, one obvious way to alleviate that burden would be to reduce state income tax rates. Even a little bit would help!
This article originally appeared in Law360 and is reprinted with permission.
Every year, magazines and newspapers across the country release summer’s best beach reads — lists of what books and articles to pick up and read your way through vacation. But, if you’re like us, don’t you wish there was a list tailored just for tax professionals? Those of us looking for something relaxing to read on our summer vacations but that’s also tailored just for you? Well for that, there’s only one recommendation you need: this month’s edition of NY Tax Minutes.
On June 24, Hodgson Russ LLP filed petitions for certiorari with the Supreme Court of the United States (“the Supreme Court”) in two cases involving the double taxation of taxpayers who lived in another state but were “statutory” residents of New York because they had a place to live in New York and were in New York 183 days or more. The cases are titled: Samuel Edelman and Louise Edelman, Petitioners v. New York State Department of Taxation and Finance, et al. (“Edelman”) and Richard Chamberlain and Martha Crum, Petitioners v. New York State Department of Taxation and Finance, et al. (“Chamberlain”).
As we reported here a month ago, the IRS never liked the SALT cap workarounds that allowed taxpayers to receive a tax credit for contributions to specified state charities. Last month, it issued final regulations that officially, in the IRS’ mind at least, shut down these programs as workable workarounds.
This article originally appeared in Law360 and is reprinted with permission.
The Fourth of July fireworks may be over but there’s still plenty to see on the New York tax front. In this month’s edition of NY Tax Minutes, we take a look at the Internal Revenue Service’s final state and local tax, or SALT, regulations addressing potential workarounds to the SALT deduction cap. We also highlight two noteworthy post- budget changes to New York’s tax law and look in on the past month’s important state tax decisions and opinions.
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.
On June 4, 2019, Gov. Ned Lamont announced that Connecticut’s Democrat-controlled Assembly passed the $43.35 billion FY 2020 Budget (the “Budget Plan”). The Final Bill (H.B. 7424) cleared the Senate on June 4 and the House on June 3. It aims to resolve a $3.7 billion multi-billion dollar deficit largely through tax and revenue hikes, increasing spending by 1.7% in fiscal year 2020 and by 3.4% in 2021. As of June 13, it has not been signed by the Governor. This is just a formality as he stands behind this Budget Plan.
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.
This article originally appeared in Law360 and is reprinted with permission.
We’re back after a brief one month hiatus. One of your authors celebrated the birth of his first child in April, which led to some last- minute calls to duty on the home front. Your other author was at the ready to fill in, but he has 12 kids already (no joke), so we decided to dedicate April to our dependents (new and old), and to our clients. We’ll leave it to readers to guess which author has one mouth to feed and which has 12.
A significant benefit of using trusts is the ability to minimize state level income taxes. The availability of this strategy depends on the residence of the trust creator (the “settlor”); the residence of the trustee; the residence of the trust beneficiaries; the type of assets owned by the trust; and the type of income earned by the trust. When all of the factors align correctly, the trust settlor can minimize, or even eliminate, state level income tax on the trust assets.
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.
Governor Cuomo announced that New York lawmakers passed the $175.5 billion FY 2020 Budget (the “Final Bill”) on April 1, 2019. There’s a lengthy list of spending packages in the budget as described but I’m circling back to two real property tax issues. Although Gov. Cuomo floated the idea of a pied-a terre tax on large mansions and an increased real estate transfer tax on conveyances where the consideration “for the entire conveyance” is $5 million or more, neither of these items made the final cut. Instead, the budget features: a permanent property tax increase cap of 2% and a “mansion tax,” a variation of the proposed pied-a terre tax. The State Assembly and State Senate on March 31 approved the budget’s revenue bill (S. 1509-C/A. 2009-C) soon after legislative leaders and Gov. Andrew Cuomo reached an eleventh-hour agreement on the state budget, one day before the start of the fiscal year.
On April 1, Governor Cuomo announced that New York lawmakers passed the $175.5 billion FY 2020 Budget (the “Final Bill”). The Final Bill (S. 1509-C / A. 2009-C) is available here. As of this writing, it has not been signed by the Governor. We have been following the evolution of the budget since Governor Cuomo released his proposal on January 15th. The tax and revenue highlights of the Final Bill, along with the omissions or differences from the Governor’s original proposals, are summarized below. Other aspects of the Final Bill, including criminal justice reform, MTA reforms, and changes to the Public Authority Law, are not discussed.
Last week, New York’s highest court issued a disappointing blow to our New York “Wynne challenges,” the two cases brought to challenge the double taxation scheme that applies to taxpayers who are dual residents in New York and another state. In both cases, Chamberlain and Edelman, we argued that the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2015 decision in Comptroller v. Wynne upended New York’s prior precedent on this issue (Tamagni v. Tax Appeals Tribunal). But the Court declined to hear the taxpayers’ appeals from the lower court decisions, and did so by way of two two-sentence orders with no analysis or explanation.
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.
This article originally appeared in Law360 and is reprinted with permission.
As we finalize this month’s column, it appears that budget season here in New York state has finally come to a close, with the Governor and Legislature agreeing, on March 31, 2019, to a new $175 billion budget. The agreement came one day before the deadline for an on-time budget in order to meet the state’s next fiscal year, which begins April 1 In a March 31, 2019 press release,[1] Gov. Andrew Cuomo, Senate Majority Leader Andrea Stewart-Cousins and Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie announced a plan that includes:
Now in the heart of tax season, we are reminded about many of New York’s tax credits and deductions still available to taxpayers despite federal deductions being eliminated with the passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) in December 2017. Over the past year, there has been a flurry of activity as New York legislative bodies and federal regulations drafters have offered up various SALT “workarounds,” to deal with the $10,000 SALT cap. But recent reporting out of the New York budget office (from New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli’s February 27 report on the proposed executive fiscal budget for 2020 (the “Report”) (see page 25-26)) suggests that these workarounds aren’t really working.
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.
As reported here last month, a recent purchase of a $238 million apartment in New York City has re-sparked a debate among New York officials about taxing second homes owned by nonresidents. As New York’s lawmakers look to finalize a budget by April 1st, and to find new ways to fund New York City’s subway system, the pied-a-terre tax is viewed as a new quill in the arsenal. (The Assembly Budget Proposal is A. 2009-B).
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 9th, 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.
This article originally appeared in Law360 and is reprinted with permission.
The past month was a busy one for New York tax updates, but don't worry, we have the highlights, and, as always, we're delivering the month's news in a way that's made for New Yorkers. Fast.
Is New York’s taxation of statutory residents unconstitutional? Those who follow state and local tax developments (and readers of this blog) may know that Hodgson Russ has been litigating that question in two parallel cases, Chamberlain and Edelman (past coverage here and here). Both cases hone in on whether the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2015 decision in Comptroller v. Wynne upends New York’s prior precedent on this issue in Tamagni v. Tax Appeals Tribunal, requiring a new constitutional analysis. We think so, and that under an analysis consistent with Wynne, the double taxation faced by people domiciled outside of New York but taxed as statutory residents unconstitutionally burdens and discriminates against interstate commerce.