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.

Sales Tax and Disregarded Entities: Who is the Taxpayer?

Does your company's corporate or legal entity structure cause confusion when it comes to the sales tax area? Meaning, does your structure involve various "pass-through" or "disregarded" entities?

"Pass-through" or "disregarded entities" are generally considered divisions or a part of their owner for federal tax purposes. Hence, they are not taxed separately from their owner. However, for state and local sales tax purposes, most states treat each "pass-through" or "disregarded entity" as a separate taxable entity. Therefore, it is very important when making a purchase for a specific project or filing for a business license, that the correct entity’s name and other identification is used. This issue arises especially in states where your company has multiple entities conducting business.

"Resale Certificates" and "Direct Pay Permits" Confusion

Another situation in which the issue arises is when "resale certificates" or "direct pay permits" are utilized by multiple entities. Resale certificates and direct pay permits are generally issued to a specific legal entity and cannot be transferred or utilized by other entities. Hence, it is very important that vendors have the correct information in their records, and your invoices, contracts, etc. reflect the actual entity that is involved in the transaction.