Latest Posts
Search for:
Category

New Jersey

Category

New Jersey “Preserves” Ability to Tax Out-of-State Corporate Limited Partners

By and 7 Mins Read

Nexus expansion continues to be a hot topic in state and location taxation. States have become increasingly aggressive in subjecting entities without a physical presence to taxation, often by asserting that the out-of-state company has “economic nexus” with the state.  In a recent decision, the New Jersey Tax Court has reinvigorated a nexus ghost from tax years past, seemingly looking to the unitary business principle (or at least the hallmarks of a unitary business) to conclude that a corporate limited partner was subject to tax in New Jersey by virtue of its interest in a partnership that was doing business in the state. Preserve II, Inc. v. Director, Div. of Taxation, Docket No. 010920-2013 (N.J. Tax Ct. Oct. 4, 2017).

The Curious Case of the “No Regulation Without Representation Act of 2017” – Legislation Supporting Quill in the Kill-Quill Era

By 4 Mins Read

On June 12, 2017, Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI) reintroduced into Congress H.R. 2887, also known as the “No Regulation Without Representation Act of 2017” (the “Legislation”), which codifies the physical presence nexus requirement established by the U.S. Supreme Court in Quill v. North Dakota, 504 U.S. 298 (1992) (“Quill”).  The Legislation is interesting for several reasons: (1) it proposes to employ a result that is the exact opposite of the recent trend to overturn Quill; (2) it defines “tax” broadly to include net income and business activity taxes; and (3) it expands the law to require a physical presence for states to regulate a person’s activity in interstate commerce outside of the tax context.

New Jersey Tax Court Further Narrows Application of the Throw-Out Rule

By 3 Mins Read

On February 6, 2017, the Tax Court of New Jersey granted partial summary judgment to the taxpayer in Elan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Director, Division of Taxation. The court held that the New Jersey Division of Taxation (“Division”) improperly applied the state’s Throw-Out Rule by excluding receipts that were “subject to tax” in the originating state.  The decision clarifies the scope of the Throw-Out Rule’s “subject to tax” language by finding that receipts may be “subject to tax” even when the destination state is precluded from taxing the sale under Public Law 86-272.