Breaking up is hard to do. Or so the old Neil Sedaka song goes. And a new report from the New York City Comptroller’s Office suggests that when it comes to the love affair between New York City and the country’s highest-income earners, the song rings true.
The New York State Department of Taxation and Finance issued a press release on September 26, reminding website designers and software developers of a sales tax exemption and warning them not to “miss out.” According to the press release, no state or local sales tax will be charged on the purchase of computer system hardware when it’s used more than 50% of the time to:
- Design and develop computer software for sale;
- Provide website design and development services for sale; or
- Provide a combination of the two uses described above.
Chicago lawyer Stephen Diamond has made quite a name for himself in recent years for his perceived abuse of the Illinois False Claims Act (“FCA”). Many believe Diamond is misusing the FCA or is using it for self-serving reasons not consistent with the FCA’s intent.
Chicago lawyer Stephen Diamond has made quite a name for himself in recent years for his perceived abuse of the Illinois False Claims Act (“FCA”). Many believe Diamond is misusing the FCA or is using it for self-serving reasons not consistent with the FCA’s intent.
Chicago lawyer Stephen Diamond has made quite a name for himself in recent years for his perceived abuse of the Illinois False Claims Act (“FCA”). Many believe Diamond is misusing the FCA or is using it for self-serving reasons not consistent with the FCA’s intent.
Chicago lawyer Stephen Diamond has made quite a name for himself in recent years for his perceived abuse of the Illinois False Claims Act (“FCA”). Many believe Diamond is misusing the FCA or is using it for self-serving reasons not consistent with the FCA’s intent.
If you are a regular reader of Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) Determinations and Orders issued at New York’s Division of Tax Appeals (“DTA”), you have probably observed the frequency with which ALJ’s dismiss petitions filed by taxpayers based on timeliness issues. For the uninitiated, the DTA’s rules of practice and procedure, which are part New York State’s regulations governing taxation and finance, generally require that taxpayers file a petition appealing an audit determination or conciliation order within 90 days of its issuance. Frequently, taxpayers fail to properly file their petition within this 90-day window. And, absent very unusual circumstances, ALJs who review this issue dismiss those petitions based on these procedural failures. Indeed, dozens of taxpayers have their petitions dismissed by ALJs each year for this very reason.
As practitioners who deal with New York income tax audits on a day-to-day basis, we often have a front row seat to new audit techniques and new areas of focus. And in recent years, we have noticed a lot more audit activity in the partnership or flow-through entity area. Most of this has centered around nonresident owners of flow-through entities, and more specifically the methodology in which these entities allocate income in and out of New York. As I have outlined before in some other articles (click here and here), often we can gain insight on trends like this by studying the audit guidelines that the Tax Department issues to its auditors. The Tax Department’s Nonresident Audit Guidelines are more widely-known, and available on the Tax Department's website., Over the years, however, the Tax Department has also issued different iterations of its Nonresident Allocation Guidelines, with the most recent version being issued in June 2013. But after about 17 focused minutes of Google searching (which is the maximum amount of time one should spend Googling something), I have not been able to find those guidelines anywhere on the Tax Department’s website, or on the Internet generally. That is, of course, until now.
/practices-1667.html/practices-State_Local_Tax.html
On April 13, 2016, Governor Andrew M. Cuomo signed the 2016-17 New York State Budget into law. We summarize the highlights of the revenue provisions below.
During the spring of 2014, Hodgson Russ LLP (“Hodgson”) received a letter from the Minnesota Department of Revenue (“Minnesota Revenue”) that attempted to establish a new low in the states’ “race to the bottom” to establish the most minimal constitutional standard required to satisfy substantial nexus with an out-of-state taxpayer. Minnesota Revenue asserted that under suspect provisions of the Minnesota tax code, Hodgson had nexus with the state of Minnesota based upon a single, un-audited fact: between the 2004 and 2012 tax years, Hodgson received federal Forms 1099 from payors using a Minnesota mailing address. On account of this single fact – with no revenue floor or other safeguards – Minnesota Revenue asserted that Hodgson had nexus with Minnesota, and was therefore required to file Minnesota franchise tax returns and apportion its business income to the state.