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.