Author

Mark Yopp

Browsing

On July 21, the Washington Department of Revenue (“DOR”) issued its analysis of the Court of Appeals’ decision from March 30, 2020, in LendingTree, LLC v. Dep’t of Revenue, no. 80637-8-I (Wash. App. Ct. Mar. 30, 2020).  As set forth in the analysis, from the DOR’s perspective, the LendingTree court followed the existing Washington Business and Occupation tax (“B&O”) attribution rules and guidance and did not create a new interpretive legal framework.[1]  Although the DOR lost the case, and the court held that LendingTree’s receipts could not be sourced based where its customers’ customers were located, the DOR’s response suggests that they are factually distinguishing the case and will continue to attribute receipts to the customer’s customer location if that is where it determines the benefit of the services occurs.

On Monday, July 27, the Senate Finance Committee released draft legislative provisions (“COVID-19 Bill”) regarding the next iteration of Coronavirus relief.  Somewhat surprisingly, the provisions include the Remote and Mobile Worker Relief Act of 2020, which was introduced earlier this year as S. 3995 by Sens. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) and Jon Thune (R-SD). S. 3995 appears to be based on S. 604, the Mobile Workforce State Income Tax Simplification Act (“Mobile Workforce Act”), which was…

On the heels of its loss in Matter of TransCanada Facility USA, Inc. DTA NO. 827332, on May 14, the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance proposed draft regulations addressing the Article 9-A Franchise Tax treatment of Qualified New York Manufacturers (“QNYMs”).[1] These draft regulations, which are not currently in effect but which do shed light on the Department’s current thinking, amplify a position that the Department has taken in prior informal guidance and on audit regarding contract manufacturing arrangements and the scope of activities that constitute “manufacturing” that is not in the statute. The position that a taxpayer that engages in contract manufacturing cannot qualify as a QNYM is contrary to prior New York authorities addressing “manufacturing” in the investment tax credit context and contrary to judicial authorities defining “manufacturing” under relevant federal tax law. In addition, the draft regulations set out a new position—again, one not found in the statute—that “digital manufacturing” is not manufacturing, and that only manufacturing that results in the production of “tangible” goods will qualify for QNYM treatment.

The Baker McKenzie State and Local Tax (SALT) Subpractice Group is presenting a series of short webinars to keep members of the SALT community abreast of recent developments in these less than certain times.  We hope you will attend so we can stay connected as we address these issues together.