On June 5, 2019, the Illinois legislature enacted Public Act 101-0009 which includes comprehensive amnesty programs covering taxes administered by both the Illinois Department of Revenue (the “Department”) and the Office of the Secretary of State of Illinois (the “Secretary of State”). Taxes covered by these programs include the corporate and individual income taxes, the Retailers’ Occupation Tax, the Use Tax, and the Illinois franchise tax. The amnesty programs run for the period October 1, 2019 through November 15, 2019, and, under both programs, 100% of penalties and interest will be waived in exchange for payment of any outstanding tax liability due. Unlike previous amnesty programs, taxpayers will not be punished for not participating — that is, Illinois will not impose double penalties and double interest on tax assessments issued after the amnesty period closes.
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.
In Capital One Auto Finance, Inc. v. Department of Revenue, Dkt. No. TC 5197 (Oregon Tax Ct. Dec. 23, 2016), the Oregon Tax Court held that physical presence was unnecessary to establish nexus for corporate excise and corporate income tax purposes. As we reported last month, the Ohio Supreme Court similarly upheld the constitutionality of Ohio’s factor presence (or, economic nexus) standard for purposes of the Ohio Commercial Activity Tax. Crutchfield Corp. v. Testa, Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-7760 (Ohio 2016). (See our previous post, Ohio Supreme Court Physical Presence Not Required for Commercial Activity Tax.)