Nonresident Withholding 'Nightmare'

In a prior life, I worked in a tax department where we managed the filing of multistate income tax returns and the flood of notices received for over 500 pass-through entities. The group of entities included multi-tiered partnerships, limited liability companies with single-member limited liability companies and S corporations with Q-subs. Consequently, nonresident withholding was a major issue for us and the state tax departments with which returns were filed.

If you or your client operates within a pass-through entity such as a S corporation, partnership or limited liability company, then you know what nonresident withholding is.

In basic terms, nonresident withholding is when a state requires a pass-through entity to withhold state income tax (or make a state tax payment) on a nonresident shareholder's pro rata share of the pass-through entity's income sourced to the specific state. In other words, it is a mechanism for states to better ensure that state tax will be paid by nonresident shareholders.

Now, if you or your client operates within a multi-tiered structure of pass-through entities, then nonresident withholding can become a compliance nightmare for both you and state taxing authorities. Most states have difficulty tracking nonresident withholding when it passes through multiple layers before it gets to the ultimate taxpayer. Therefore, state tax notices upon state tax notices can become an unwelcome, but familiar friend.

With that said, here are a few tips or questions to ask when dealing with nonresident withholding in multi-tiered structures:

1. Does the state require quarterly nonresident withholding on actual payments/distributions or on allocated income? To put it simply, some states only require quarterly nonresident withholding if a cash payment is actually made to a shareholder. If states don't require quarterly nonresident withholding, most, if not all states require annual nonresident withholding on "allocated income" whether a distribution is actually paid or not.
2. Is nonresident withholding required to be done for all nonresident shareholders regardless of the type of shareholder? Meaning, is withholding required for C corp, S corp, partnership, LLCs, individual and/or trust shareholders?
3. Does the state allow or have a mechanism for nonresident shareholders to obtain a waiver or exemption from nonresident withholding? Meaning, can a nonresident shareholder provide the pass-through entity or the state with a document to keep the pass-through entity from withholding on its share of the state's source income?
4. Is the nonresident withholding required to be done on a quarterly basis? Or can it be paid one time a year?
5. In a multi-tiered pass-through entity structure, at what level is nonresident withholding required to be done? Meaning, is the lowest entity required to do the withholding or does the state only require the entity before the ultimate taxpayer to do the withholding? This is a key question, because if it is done at the wrong level, it can cause great confusion and an explosion of notices between the state and the taxpayer.

Some of the top problem states when dealing with nonresident withholding are: California, Colorado, Indiana, and Iowa. Kansas used to be a pain, but withholding is no longer required after July 1, 2014.  These are just a few. As I stated earlier, in a multi-tiered structure, nonresident withholding is a tracking 'nightmare' for both the taxpayer and the state. Obviously, it requires meticulous record keeping to get it right.

The 'Most Significant State Tax Policy Issues'

David Brunori will be in Las Vegas this week speaking at the Council On State Taxation annual meeting (Friday morning) with Doug Lindholm, Helen Hecht, and Richard Pomp. They are leading a debate/discussion on the most significant issues in state tax policy. I can't be there, but thought I would give my two cents. 

I think some of the most significant state tax policy issues are:

• the imposition of sales tax collection obligations on remote retailers;
• expanding the sales tax base to services;
• whether states should ramp-up transfer pricing training/positions or join the MTC ALAS program;
• whether states should adopt tax haven legislation which allows them to cherry-pick the taxation of foreign income or simply adopt mandatory worldwide combined reporting;
• whether states should continue to enact unconstitutional legislation forcing taxpayers to go to court;
• whether states should continue to enact retroactive legislation;
• whether states should continue to enact legislation that benefits in-state taxpayers vs. out-of-state taxpayers (i.e., market-based sourcing, single-sales factor apportionment, credits and incentives).

What do you think are the most significant issues in state tax policy?

TEI Says Retroactive Legislation Disrupts Taxpayer Expectations

On September 20, 2016, Tax Executives Institute, Inc. (TEI) issued a new policy statement on retroactive tax legislation. The policy statement takes the position that sound tax policy and administration require governments to provide taxpayers with certainty and fairness, and these principles are not satisfied when legislatures are permitted to enact retroactive tax legislation without meaningful limits.

In TEI's statement it asserts that allowing retroactive legislation to overrule a judicial decision "disrupts taxpayer expectations." I agree. As I have stated before in several blog posts, retroactive legislation creates unnecessary uncertainty, and unintended consequences. States have an obligation to create a stable and reasonable compliance environment that doesn't keep taxpayers guessing.

Multistate Voluntary Disclosure Program?

Are you aware that a taxpayer with potential tax liability in multiple states could negotiate a settlement using a uniform procedure coordinated through the National Nexus Program of the Multistate Tax Commission (MTC)?

According to the MTC, this service is to encourage taxpayers to start filing and paying taxes in states where taxpayers have substantial nexus. The MTC believes this process is faster, more efficient, and less costly for taxpayers who have potential tax exposure in more than one state. There is no charge for participation in the program.

The program generally allows taxpayers to file a voluntary disclosure agreement for tax types such as sales/use tax, and income/franchise tax (including the Hawaii GET and Washington B&O tax). 

Prior contact between a state and the taxpayer for a specific tax type disqualifies the taxpayer from participation in the program for that tax type. "Contact" includes filing a tax return, paying tax, or receiving an inquiry from the state regarding the tax type. 

Once a taxpayer enters the program, the taxpayer is required to file returns, pay the tax due, and register with the state. In return, the state waives penalties for the duration of the look-back period. Interest is still due on unpaid tax obligations during the look-back period, unless waived by the state.

The look-back period includes the number of prior tax years, and the incomplete current tax year for which taxes and interest will be due and paid under the agreement. The look-back period is determined by the state and specified in the agreement. The look-back period is generally three or four years.

The MTC claims that it keeps the identity of the taxpayer confidential during the process. The MTC only discloses the taxpayer's identity to a state after the taxpayer has entered into an agreement with the state. 

The MTC also claims that it does not disclose the agreement or any of its terms to any other state.

An applicant is not required to disclose any information that would reveal its identity prior to the execution of an agreement.

For more details on the program, go here.

Were you aware of the MTC's Multistate Voluntary Disclosure Program?

Have you used the MTC's Multistate Voluntary Disclosure Program?

If yes, was it a good experience? Pros and cons?

Leave a comment or e-mail me at strahle@leveragesalt.com.

DO YOU NEED STATE TAX AMNESTY OR VALIDATION?

AMNESTY

The Council on State Taxation (COST) has updated its schedule of 2016 State Tax Amnesty programs. See here.

If you would like more information about amnesty programs versus voluntary disclosure programs, check out some of my previous posts.

VALIDATION

On a separate note, I am always trying to think of unique ways I can help companies and accounting/law firms avoid and resolve controversy. To that end, I have started a new service called RESALT.

RESALT is my second-opinion service where I review research and conclusions made by others (i.e., you, your staff or consultants). This gives you another 'set of eyes' and peace of mind when taking a position or deciding to move forward or not. 

I conduct this service at flat fee per project or per month. I review the facts, research and conclusions already reached. I then conduct additional research to validate or dispute conclusions. I provide you with a written validation, or dispute of the conclusions along with citations to my research for support.

Go here to learn more.

State Tax Notices: A Game?

State tax notices, got to love them.

I don't know about you, but I am seeing a lot more state tax notices being received by companies. Not only are they first time notices, but they are repeat notices, month after month. This is even after the taxpayer/company has responded to the first notice.

It often feels like the state taxing authority never looked at the response sent by the company.

Actually, I recently called a state taxing authority because a company received a repeat notice, and the state said they were probably six months behind on processing incoming responses/mail, etc. Therefore, the company would continue to receive a repeat notice every month until the company's initial response was processed.

Disregarding repeat notices for the moment, even the first notice a company receives gives the perception that the state taxing authority did not even look at the documents that were attached to the originally filed return. The attachments often explain or provide the information that the notice is now requesting. This causes companies and taxpayers to devote additional time and resources to explain something again and again.

Can't taxing authorities get better? Is it just a computer system gone awry? Lack of resources?

What can taxpayers do to eliminate notices and repeat notices?

I understand it isn't always the taxing authority's fault, some taxpayers don't provide adequate information. But for those that do, the notices keep coming.

Sometimes it just feels like a game. A game in which the taxing authorities just want a company or taxpayer to give up and pay the additional tax, interest and/or penalties being imposed.