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.
Since the enactment of New York State’s corporate tax reform legislation as part of the state’s 2014-2015 budget, the Tax Department has published several versions of proposed regulations, which provide additional draft guidance on the new law changes, including in the areas of nexus, net operating losses, income and capital definitions, and apportionment. On Friday, April 29, the Tax Department announced that it finally intends to begin the official State Administrative Procedure Act (SAPA) process to formally adopt a version of the amended regulations.
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.