We’ve had a lot of questions from clients about the impact of the Tax Cuts and Jobs act on normal, working Americans. IRS did a clumsy job with implementation, although in their defense the TCJA probably raised more questions than it answered. Also, one of the most surprising effects will be felt by taxpayers who live in high tax jurisdictions and who itemize their deductions.
We’re not ashamed to admit we’re a bit nerdy when it comes to tax matters. We always love talking/reading/studying (… eating/sleeping/living) tax and tax-related things. But even we think it’s been more exciting than usual in the world of state tax this summer!
The Supreme Court handed down its opinion in South Dakota v. Wayfair on June 21, 2018. Immediately after that, there was a flurry of activity as each state tried to address implementation of the “new” regime that would allow them to tax out of state vendors of tangible personal property into their states. Our initial look at Washington’s and California’s responses is here. Since then, lawmakers in dozens of states have proposed or introduced versions of the South Dakota law that attempt to tax remote sellers.
We wrote our initial analysis of South Dakota v. Wayfair on June 21, 2018. Since the Supreme Court issued its Wayfair, we have heard from clients with sales into sales tax-imposing jurisdictions who are concerned about what this means for their businesses.
Many states already had tax systems that would require a seller with no physical presence in their state to collect sales tax, which was the core issue in Wayfair. Other states (for example, Louisiana, North Dakota, and Vermont) adopted systems that would only go into effect if Wayfair was decided in a way that eliminated the physical presence requirement that the earlier Quill Corp. case had endorsed. Not all states had taken proactive measures to implement sales tax economic nexus. Some states are adopting additional, parallel nexus tests in the wake of Wayfair.
The Oregon Supreme Court, sitting en banc, issued its opinion today in AAA Oregon/Idaho Auto Source, LLC v. State of Oregon. This is the first opinion from that Court to address the new tax that the 2017 legislature implemented to pay for the Zero-Emission Incentive Program and the Connect Oregon Fund. At issue in this case was whether the funds collected under Oregon’s new vehicle tax is a tax subject to Article IX, Section 3a of the Oregon Constitution. It held that it was not subject to this provision. Therefore, the money collected under both the sales and use tax components of the new law does not have to be used for the State Highway Fund (or other uses that the Constitutional provision specifically lists).
Congress passed the “Stephen Beck Jr., Achieving a Better Life Experience” Act in 2014 to expand the types of assistance available to help disabled individuals maintain health, independence and quality of life without interfering with access to means-tested government benefits. The most beneficial change to result from these legislative efforts was the establishment of 529 […]
Large and small heavy equipment rental providers throughout the state of Oregon recently scored a huge victory when Governor Brown signed HB 4139 into law earlier last month. The new law replaces Oregon’s existing personal property tax system for heavy equipment with a 2 percent tax on every heavy equipment rental transaction starting in 2019. While many states have either eliminated personal property tax or have exempted certain manufacturing and construction businesses from ad valorem property tax, Oregon was one of the few remaining that offered no relief or reform of any kind for heavy equipment rental providers. Critics often cited the compliance costs associated with the business personal property tax as complex and burdensome in a way that discouraged many companies from accurately reporting. The old system was a location-based tax, meaning that a company would be taxed on heavy machinery it owned based on where it was sitting on January 1 of that year. Heavy equipment rental businesses often rent their equipment out all over the state and beyond, so tracking location of constantly moving equipment for tax purposes proved difficult and also created the potential of requiring companies to pay additional tax in multiple counties or states on the same equipment where assessment dates varied.
Delinquent tax debt can now potentially ground U.S. taxpayers from international travel
Starting this year, The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and U.S. State Department have teamed up in a manner that may affect the future travel plans of certain taxpayers that owe a large amount of money to the Treasury. In late 2015, President Obama signed the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act) to address long-term funding for surface transportation infrastructure planning and investment. Embedded deep in the law is Section 32101, which requires the IRS under § 7345 of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC), to notify the State Department of taxpayers certified to have “seriously delinquent tax debt”. Upon certification from the IRS, the State Department is then required to deny a passport application for such individuals and also potentially revoke or limit passports already issued to said taxpayers.
Congress officially passed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act on December 20th. Despite conflicting reports on when President Trump will sign the Act, he will sign it. Here are five last-minute actions you should consider for tax planning before the New Year to minimize your 2017 and 2018 tax liability. This article is the first in a series planned to address the numerous changes to tax law imposed by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. We strongly recommend you consult with your tax attorneys and tax advisors on the impact of the act on your 2017 taxes and to plan for future years.
On January 10, 2017, Rep. Kristi Noem (R-S.D.) introduced H.R. 631, the “Death Tax Repeal Act of 2017.” While this bill resembles a similar bill that failed to become law in 2015, with the 2016 elections, the political landscape in Washington has changed considerably.
Recently, a Florida judge dismissed a money laundering charge against a man who sold $2,000 worth of bitcoin to an undercover agent who claimed he was using the bitcoin to purchase stolen credit card numbers. The judge held that bitcoin is not money and therefore it does not fall within Florida’s money laundering statute. While leaving the door wide open for the Florida legislature to regulate bitcoin and other virtual currency, the judge says that trying to regulate bitcoin using a statutory scheme regulating money is “like fitting a square peg in a round hole.”