Larry's Tax Law

Prologue

Kyle N. Richard recently joined Foster Garvey.  Kyle’s practice is primarily focused on assisting our municipal clients in bond and tax matters.  With his tax experience, however, he assists our tax practice group clients on broader federal, state and local tax matters.  We are excited to have Kyle join our tax team, adding to our already robust bench strength.

The article below was authored by Kyle.  Expect to see more of Kyle’s contributions to Larry’s Tax Law in the future.

Larry

On September 30, 2021, the Washington State Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the additional 1.2 percent business and occupation (B&O) tax imposed by the 2019 Substitute House Bill 2167 (“SHB 2167”) on “specified financial institutions”—financial institutions with annual net income of more than $1 billion.  SHB 2167 increases the tax rate for these institutions from 1.5 percent (the rate generally applicable to financial institutions) to 2.7 percent.

The tax was codified in Section 82.04.29004 Revised Code of Washington (“RCW”).  Like other B&O taxes in Washington, the amount of tax due is measured by the amount of the specified financial institution’s gross revenues attributed to Washington State, which is generally based on an apportionment formula (contained in RCW 82.04.460-.462).  The effect of this apportionment regime is that a certain percentage of a financial institution’s total gross income for the year is treated as earned in Washington and taxed under Washington law.

The Washington Bankers Association and American Bankers Association (taxpayers) commenced a lawsuit, arguing that the tax violated the U.S. Constitution’s Dormant Commerce Clause (“DCC”).  At trial, the court concluded that the taxpayers had standing to challenge the tax under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act (“UDJA”) and held that the additional graduated tax rate discriminated against out-of-state businesses, in violation of the DCC.  The trial court denied reconsideration of its decision.  The Washington Department of Revenue then appealed directly to the Washington State Supreme Court.

Last week, we reported on Maryland’s new gross receipts tax on revenues derived from digital advertising services (the “Tax”), the first of its kind in the nation.  Affected taxpayers and tax practitioners alike can breathe a sigh of relief—the Tax will not apply to tax years beginning before 2022.  Additionally, the broadcast news industry secured a significant victory by obtaining an exclusion from the Tax.

Maryland recently enacted the nation’s first tax on digital advertising.  The new tax, the Digital Advertising Gross Revenues Tax (the “Tax”), became law on February 12, 2021. 

The Tax has been surrounded by controversy from the very moment it was introduced in the Maryland House of Delegates.  In fact, a lawsuit to prevent the Comptroller of the Treasury of Maryland from enforcing the Tax was recently filed by a group of affected taxpayers.

In the wake of the coronavirus pandemic, companies in wide-ranging industries across the country have unprecedented numbers of employees working from remote locations.  In a prior post, we discussed numerous issues that may arise from this new normal of teleworking, including tax, labor and employment, liability, and business registration implications. 

In this post, we drill down a bit further with respect to employers’ state tax reporting and payment obligations that may result from having employees working remotely in states other than where the employers maintain physical offices.  This is especially relevant in metropolitan areas that straddle multiple states, like here in Portland, Oregon.

A dog will immediately respond to you when you call out.  On the other hand, when you call out to a cat, the cat will take a message and promise to get back to you later.  This is not the case with the Corporate Activity Tax (“CAT”).  The Oregon Department of Revenue (“DOR”) is doing everything possible to provide taxpayers and tax practitioners with prompt and helpful guidance and support relative to the CAT, the new state tax regime that became effective on January 1, 2020.

As previously discussed, late last year, the DOR conducted several town hall meetings with taxpayers and tax practitioners across the state to discuss the CAT, answer questions and solicit feedback about administration of the tax regime.  In addition, as promised, the DOR started issuing draft temporary rules this past December to provide clarity and address many uncertainties in the new law.  It quickly removed the “draft” stamp from the rules.  The rules keep rolling in!  To date, the DOR has issued a total of 12 temporary rules.  We have already provided a discussion of eight of those temporary rules.  In this post, we discuss the remaining four temporary rules.