﻿<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!--RSS generated by Windows SharePoint Services V3 RSS Generator on 9/8/2010 9:52:10 PM-->
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="/news/stateandlocalblog/_layouts/RssXslt.aspx?List=22198d67-9ce2-488a-bf8d-e5023f4aca11" version="1.0"?>
<rss version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>State &amp; Local Tax Blog: Posts</title>
    <link>http://www.tei.org/news/stateandlocalblog/Lists/Posts/AllPosts.aspx</link>
    <description>RSS feed for the Posts list.</description>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Sep 2010 01:52:10 GMT</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>Windows SharePoint Services V3 RSS Generator</generator>
    <ttl>60</ttl>
    
    <item>
      <title>New Jersey Tax Court Finds Taxpayer Eligible for Unreasonable Exception to Interest Add-back </title>
      <link>http://www.tei.org/news/stateandlocalblog/Lists/Posts/ViewPost.aspx?ID=103</link>
      <description><![CDATA[<div><b>Body:</b> <div class=ExternalClass3FC17A0187A4477BACCADCE05FEAD7C9><div>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt" class=MsoNormal><span style=""><font face=Arial><font size=2>On August 31, 2010, the New Jersey Tax Court issued its opinion in a case involving the state’s related party interest add-back statute.<span style="">  </span>That statute, enacted in 2002, requires taxpayers to add-back interest deductions on loans from related entities unless the transaction meets an exceptions to the rule.<span style="">  </span>In this case, the taxpayer borrowed funds from its parent because the parent was able to secure a lower interest rate on loans from third-party lenders.<span style="">  </span>The Department audited the taxpayer’s returns and claimed that interest deducted by the taxpayer on the loans from its parent should have been added-back in calculating its New Jersey taxable income.<span style="">  </span>The court held that these payments satisfied the statutory unreasonable exception to the add-back rule and allowed the taxpayer to deduct the interest.</font></font></span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt" class=MsoNormal><span style=""><font size=2 face=Arial> </font></span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt" class=MsoNormal><span style=""><font face=Arial><font size=2>This is the first case in New Jersey to address the application of the related party interest add-back provision.<span style="">  </span>The applicability of the unreasonable exception in other situations is unclear.<span style="">  </span>In this case, the parent paid state taxes in other states on the interest it received from the taxpayer (the structure does not appear to have been set up purely for tax avoidance purposes).<span style="">  </span>Also, the court made clear that this exception must be applied on a case by case basis rather than laying out clear cut standards.</font></font></span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt" class=MsoNormal><span style=""><font size=2 face=Arial> </font></span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt" class=MsoNormal><span style=""><font size=2 face=Arial>To read more, please click </font><a href="http://www.reedsmith.com/publications/search_publications.cfm?widCall1=customWidgets.content_view_1&amp;cit_id=28782" target="_blank"><font size=2 face=Arial>here</font></a><font size=2 face=Arial> to see an alert from the law firm Reed Smith.<span style="">  </span>The alert also provides some thoughts on the ability to file refund claims using this decision.<span style="">  </span>Pillsbury Winthrop has also posted an alert on their website with details about the case.<span style="">  </span>Please click </font><a href="http://www.pillsburylaw.com/index.cfm?pageid=34&amp;itemid=39824&amp;fontsize=2" target="_blank"><font size=2 face=Arial>here</font></a><font face=Arial><font size=2> to read their summary.</font></font></span></p></div></div></div>
<div><b>Category:</b> Income/Franchise Tax</div>
<div><b>Published:</b> 9/8/2010 4:57 PM</div>
]]></description>
      <author>Daniel De Jong</author>
      <category>Income/Franchise Tax</category>
      <pubDate>Wed, 08 Sep 2010 20:58:04 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.tei.org/news/stateandlocalblog/Lists/Posts/ViewPost.aspx?ID=103</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>TEI Files Letter with Washington Department of Revenue</title>
      <link>http://www.tei.org/news/stateandlocalblog/Lists/Posts/ViewPost.aspx?ID=102</link>
      <description><![CDATA[<div><b>Body:</b> <div class=ExternalClass6BB39535C6B340A1AC7B3375E4A685A7><div><font size=2 face=Arial>On September 2, 2010, Tax Executives Institute submitted comments on Emergency Regulations issued by the Washington Department of Revenue.  The regulations provide guidance on how the Department will interpret recently enacted legislation affecting nexus determinations (<em>i.e.</em>, economic nexus) and the use of a single sales factor for service businesses and businesses receiving royaly income.</font></div>
<div><font size=2 face=Arial></font> </div>
<div><font size=2 face=Arial>To read TEI's comment letter, please click <a href="/news/Pages/WASHINGTON–TEISubmitsCommentsonState’sEmergencyRegulations.aspx">here</a>.  </font></div>
<div><font size=2 face=Arial></font> </div>
<div><font size=2 face=Arial>Also please see an <a href="/news/stateandlocalblog/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=24">earlier blog post</a> for more details about the new Washington legislation.</font></div></div></div>
<div><b>Published:</b> 9/3/2010 2:15 PM</div>
]]></description>
      <author>Daniel De Jong</author>
      <pubDate>Fri, 03 Sep 2010 18:22:35 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.tei.org/news/stateandlocalblog/Lists/Posts/ViewPost.aspx?ID=102</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>New Jersey Appellate Court Approves Underpayment and Amnesty Penalties in Intangible Holding Company Case</title>
      <link>http://www.tei.org/news/stateandlocalblog/Lists/Posts/ViewPost.aspx?ID=101</link>
      <description><![CDATA[<div><b>Body:</b> <div class=ExternalClass4B3B5BF8A52B4614AE2F516A8662C7A0><div>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt" class=MsoNormal><span style="font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'"><font size=2>On September 1, the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division, rubbed some salt into the wounds of Praxair Technology, Inc. when it ruled that the taxpayer was required to pay a late-filing penalty and an additional penalty for failing to participate in a previous amnesty program.<span style="">  </span>These penalties increased the total amount due to the State of New Jersey by a corporation with its only contact in the state being the licensing of patents and trade secrets to affiliates doing business there.<span style="">  </span></font></span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt" class=MsoNormal><span style="font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'"><font size=2> </font></span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt" class=MsoNormal><span style="font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'"><font size=2>Praxair had earlier challenged the application of economic nexus by New Jersey for periods prior to 1996 when the Division of Taxation issued a regulation stating its position on the issue.<span style="">  </span>The New Jersey Supreme Court, however, held that taxpayers were on notice (apparently, through some ability to read the future and the minds of Division personnel) that economic nexus was the standard even before 1996.</font></span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt" class=MsoNormal><span style="font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'"><font size=2> </font></span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt" class=MsoNormal><span style="font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'"><font size=2>This case is the most recent fallout from the New Jersey Supreme Court’s decision in <i style="">Lanco</i> which upheld the use of economic nexus for companies licensing intellectual property to affiliates in the state.<span style="">  </span>Since liabilities for taxpayers in similar situations can be quite high, adding significant penalties (25% for failure to file, and 5% for failing to participate in an amnesty) can cause exposures to skyrocket.<span style="">  </span>The law firm Reed Smith LLP has published a very good summary of the case, and some ideas for taxpayers with intangible holding company exposures in New Jersey.<span style="">  </span>Please click </font><a href="http://reedsmithupdate.com/ve/ZZ85618089Wu71F98PZ8" target="_blank"><font size=2>here</font></a><font size=2> to read that summary.</font></span></p></div></div></div>
<div><b>Category:</b> Income/Franchise Tax</div>
<div><b>Published:</b> 9/3/2010 9:39 AM</div>
]]></description>
      <author>Daniel De Jong</author>
      <category>Income/Franchise Tax</category>
      <pubDate>Fri, 03 Sep 2010 13:39:49 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.tei.org/news/stateandlocalblog/Lists/Posts/ViewPost.aspx?ID=101</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Legal Alert on Postponement of Significant New Jersey Unclaimed Property Provisions</title>
      <link>http://www.tei.org/news/stateandlocalblog/Lists/Posts/ViewPost.aspx?ID=100</link>
      <description><![CDATA[<div><b>Body:</b> <div class=ExternalClass60E204F70D7C4D4280B9964A85EEDAC5><p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt" class=MsoNormal><span style="font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'"><font size=2>The law firm Sutherland Asbill &amp; Brennan LLP has published a legal alert on the New Jersey Treasurer’s decision to postpone the application of new unclaimed property rules that would require retailers to obtain person information for each gift card issued or sold (<i style="">e.g.</i>, name, address and zip code). <span style=""> </span>In </font><a href="http://www.state.nj.us/treasury/news/2010/p100826a.pdf" target="_blank"><font size=2>Treasury Announcement FY 2011-02</font></a><font size=2>, the Department extended the initial compliance date to October 1, 2010.<span style="">  </span>Sutherland’s alert explains the hefty compliance burden that will be created by these new rules, and discusses potential legal challenges to the constitutional validity of the new rules.<span style="">  </span>Please click </font><a href="http://sutherland-news.com/ve/ZZ78916088X9161mPO9797/stype=dload/OID=510831144915336/VT=0" target="_blank"><font size=2>here to read this alert</font></a><font size=2>.</font></span></p>
<div><font size=2></font></div></div></div>
<div><b>Published:</b> 9/1/2010 1:57 PM</div>
]]></description>
      <author>Daniel De Jong</author>
      <pubDate>Wed, 01 Sep 2010 18:06:46 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.tei.org/news/stateandlocalblog/Lists/Posts/ViewPost.aspx?ID=100</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Illinois Department of Revenue Publishes Amnesty Guidelines</title>
      <link>http://www.tei.org/news/stateandlocalblog/Lists/Posts/ViewPost.aspx?ID=99</link>
      <description><![CDATA[<div><b>Body:</b> <div class=ExternalClass0DC1B55A02E14FA29B9629FCD0348DF4><div><font face=Arial><font size=2>The Department has published details of the state's recently enacted amnesty program on its website.  <span style="line-height:normal;text-transform:none;font-variant:normal;font-style:normal;text-indent:0px;border-collapse:separate;white-space:normal;letter-spacing:normal;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-weight:normal;word-spacing:0px" class=Apple-style-span><span style="text-align:left;line-height:18px" class=Apple-style-span>The program covers taxable periods ending after June 30, 2002, but prior to July 1, 2009, and participating taxpayers will have all penalties<span class=Apple-converted-space> </span><u>and</u><span class=Apple-converted-space> </span>interest abated.<span>  Please click <a href="http://www.revenue.state.il.us/Amnesty.htm" target="_blank">here to view the Department's amnesty information page</a>.</span></span></span></font></font></div></div></div>
<div><b>Published:</b> 9/1/2010 1:40 PM</div>
]]></description>
      <author>Daniel De Jong</author>
      <pubDate>Wed, 01 Sep 2010 17:44:46 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.tei.org/news/stateandlocalblog/Lists/Posts/ViewPost.aspx?ID=99</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>