| DuCharme, McMillen & Associates, Inc.has announced another in its series of complimentary CPE accredited seminars. Multistate corporate tax professionals need to comply with state and local taxes nationwide. However, it can be challenging to stay up to date with changes in states far away. DMA's solution is to bring the top state and local talent from the Midwest to California.
Schedule:
- Santa Clara, CA - Tuesday, March 13 from 9am to 3:45pm
- Long Beach, CA - Thursday, March 15 from 9am to 3:45pm
Learning objectives include:
- Nationwide Issues and Trends in Sales/Use Taxes
- Sales/Use Tax Updates for:
Arkansas |
Illinois |
Indiana |
Iowa |
Kansas |
Kentucky |
Michigan |
Minnesota |
Missouri |
Nebraska |
Tennessee |
Wisconsin |
- Best Practices in Sales/Use Tax Compliance
For more information, please click here.
|
| New York, February 2, 2012 – More states, counties and cities reduced their sales tax rates in 2011 than in 2010, according to the latest ONESOURCE Indirect Tax rate report from Thomson Reuters. At the same time, fewer new sales taxes were created. Overall, the average U.S. sales tax rates for states, counties and cities that levy them declined slightly in 2011.
“This is good news for taxpayers, although with more than 700 sales and use tax rate changes in the U.S. and more than 2,000 value-added tax changes globally it continues to be a challenge for businesses to keep up and stay compliant,” said Carla Yrjanson, vice president of tax research and content at Thomson Reuters.
The annual ONESOURCE Indirect Tax rate report summarizes changes in sales, use and value added taxes — providing a high-level look at information incorporated in detail in the Thomson Reuters ONESOURCE Indirect Tax Solutions.
The 2011 report released today found:
107 state, county and city sales taxes were lowered, compared with 68 in 2010. 236 new sales taxes were levied, down from 305 in 2010. 419 sales taxes increased, compared with 375 in 2010. The average state sales tax was 5.48 percent in 2011, down from 5.55 percent in 2010. The average county sales tax was 1.15 percent in 2011, down from 1.23 percent in 2010. The average city sales tax was 1.67 percent in 2011, down from 1.72 percent in 2010.
“Businesses are legally obligated to comply with the myriad of tax code changes implemented each quarter, and they need both sophisticated software applications and timely, accurate information,” added Yrjanson.
|
| Berwyn, PA – January 30, 2012 – The number of sales tax rate changes across the U.S. showed modest decline in 2011, as did the combined average sales tax rate, this according to annual Sales Tax Rate Report from Vertex Inc., the leading provider of corporate enterprise tax solutions.
The number of rate changes at the state, county, city, and district level declined to 459 in 2011, compared to 555 in 2010, 707 in 2009 and a record 797 in 2008. Of the 459 changes, 232 were tax increases, 175 were new taxes and 52 were decreases.
The combined average sales tax rate, which includes U.S. state, county, local and special purpose tax districts, totaled 9.60 percent for the full-year 2011, compared to a record 9.64 percent in 2010.
“The leveling of both the number of rate changes and the average combined rate in 2011 can be attributed to a number of factors,” said John Minassian, Chief Sales & Use Tax Officer for Vertex. “Specifically, it may reflect a modest improvement in the overall economy, or that governments have exhausted the amount of revenue that can be generated through new and increased sales tax rates.”
“Looking ahead, we expect the number of rate changes and combined average rate to remain level in the coming year,” said Minassian. “While this may spell some relief for consumers, tracking and managing sales tax rates across the over 9,600 taxing jurisdictions in the U.S. will remain challenging at a corporate level.”
The average state-level sales tax rate declined slightly in 2011 to 5.49 percent compared to 5.52 percent in 2010. The states of Indiana, Mississippi, New Jersey, Rhode Island and Tennessee have the highest sales tax rate at 7.00 percent.
During 2011 three states changed their rates:
California decreased its rate to 6.25 percent from 7.25 percent North Carolina decreased its rate to 4.75 percent from 5.75 percent Connecticut is the only state that raised its rate for the year to 6.35 percent from 6.00 percent
The average county tax rate for the full year declined slightly to 1.53 percent, compared to 1.54 percent in 2010. The average city rate increased slightly in 2011 to 1.67 percent, compared to 1.66 percent in 2010.
Additional highlights from Vertex’s 2011 Sales Tax Rate Report:
The highest city sales tax rate in 2011 was Wrangell, Alaska, at 7.00 percent The highest combined sales tax rate of 13.725 percent is found in Tuba City (including the surrounding areas that are in the To’Nanees ‘Dizi Local Government), Coconino County, Arizona Since 2003 there have been 2,109 new sales and use taxes, an average of 234 per year, and 3,757 sales and use tax changes, an average of 417 changes per year
For a copy of the 2011 Vertex Sales Tax Rate Report visit: http://bit.ly/xH8emp
|
| From Alston+Bird:
On January 5, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued its opinion in N.J. Retail Merchants Association v. Sidamon-Eristoff, a case involving the constitutionality of 2010 N.J. Laws Chapter 25 (the New Jersey Act), New Jersey’s recently enacted unclaimed property legislation affecting the treatment of stored value cards (SVCs). The court’s decision answers several important legal questions concerning New Jersey’s treatment of SVCs but leaves many others unanswered. This advisory describes the New Jersey law and related litigation; analyzes the issues presented to and decided by the Third Circuit; and identifies open questions for SVC users and other parties that handle SVCs.
To read the full article, please click here. |
| From McDermott Will & Emory:
The increasing use of the internet by business and individual consumers to make purchases of various goods and services has heightened the focus on the sales tax implications of such purchases. Since sellers must collect sales taxes only for those states where they have a physical presence, remote sales often go untaxed (although the purchaser is liable to pay the complementary use tax directly to the state, few purchasers actually do that). State governments and many brick and mortar retailers believe that this situation should be addressed by federal legislation that would alter the "physical presence" rule.
Please click here to read the full article by Art Rosen and Jeffrey Reed at McDermott. |
| On January 19, the Oregon Tax Court issued its decision in Oracle Corporation v. Dept. of Revenue holding that the sale of stock in two subsidiary corporations created apportionable business income and finding that the gain from those sales of stock must be included in the sales factor denominator. The court's decision provides a good discussion of the issues and the state of the law in Oregon on sales of subsidiary stock.
Please click here to read a summary of the decision from KPMG, and here to read a summary from PwC. |
| On January 25, the Congressional Budget Office published its cost estimate for the Mobile Workforce State Income Tax Simplification Act of 2011. Here are the key findings from that report:
- The bill would have no impact on the federal budget.
- Some states would lose tax revenues and other would gain them as a result of the legislation.
- States bordering large population centers would see the largest effects. "States that have large employment centers close to a state border would lose the most revenue; states from which employees tend to communte would gain revenue."
- The report identifies New York as the state that would lose the most tax revenues (between $50 million and $100 million.
- Uncertainties about how much tax revenue states collect from nonresidents make it impossible for the CBO to come up with a net cost of the bill to the states ("net" meaning the difference between the increases and decreases states would realize).
To read the CBO report, please click here. It's two-pages long. |
| On January 26, the Michigan Department of Treasury published a notice detailing the effect of recently-passed legislation on MBT filings for disregarded entities. This notice replaces four earlier notices from the Department on this issue, and applies retroactively beginning with the 2008 tax year.
Under the new law, entities disregarded for federal income tax purposes will be treated as disregarded entities under the MBT with two exceptions: (1) disregarded entities that filed as separate from their owners on 2008, 2009, or 2010 returns originally filed before January 1, 2012, or on amended returns for those years filed before December 1, 2011; and (2) disregarded entities meeting those filing deadlines may also file as separate from their owners for their 2011 tax years. The notice goes on to describe some of the procedural necessities for making these filings. Click here to read the full notice. |
| Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick released his 2013 budget last week, which included a number of significant tax proposals. Among those provisions, the budget would move the state from costs of performance based sourcing to a market-based approach for purposes of the sales factor. Additionally, sales sourced to states in which the taxpayer does not have nexus will be thrown-out of the sales factor denominator. Taxpayers would also be forced to wait another year to begin utilizing the FAS 109 deduction under the governor's budget - until 2014.
For a good summary of the budget from PwC, please click here. |
| Thomson Reuters yesterday announced the release of ONESOURCE Property Tax version 9.5, a Web-based solution and a part of the ONESOURCE platform. The latest version of ONESOURCE Property Tax now supports Microsoft SQL Server to rapidly develop and release future functionality for faster, more efficient filings. Processing 30 million assets and generating 400,000 personal property tax returns annually, ONESOURCE Property Tax Software 9.5 is already the trusted solution used by leading companies such as General Electric, Nestle and Wal-Mart for property tax compliance.
“Knowing how dynamic the property tax landscape is, we wanted to make our solution even more nimble to keep up with the growing needs of our clients,” said Chip Ferris, senior director, Technology Solutions for ONESOURCE Property Tax. “Moving to the Microsoft SQL server environment allows us to provide a more robust platform for rapid development of the features and functionality that our customers demand. In addition, this latest version enables our users to access our entire suite of ONESOURCE tax and accounting solutions to meet their entire tax compliance needs.”
Key new features of ONESOURCE Property Tax 9.5 include:
Intuitive Home Tab for quick and easy access to all the components needed to complete property tax filings. Tighter integration of the Asset and Tax Center so users can easily toggle between key functionality for streamlined, uninterrupted return preparation and filing. Support of Microsoft SQL so tax professionals can leverage data from other systems for complete and seamless access to all property tax related information.
Version 9.5 builds upon ONESOURCE Property Tax’s proven solution that uses innovative data streaming technology to provide the performance of an on-premise enterprise solution, with all the benefits of an online solution, such as 24-hour access anywhere with just a browser, SSAE 16 compliance, and real-time updates with no downloads to install. In addition, the solution provides instant access to the latest research that is automatically updated as available by each jurisdiction including forms, tax rules, due dates, and assessor addresses.
ONESOURCE Property Tax 9.5 is available now. Pricing is customized to meet the needs of every company regardless of size or industry. Additional information can be obtained by visiting http://onesource.thomsonreuters.com/solutions/property-tax/property-tax-us/. |
View in Web Browser /news/stateandlocalblog/_layouts/VisioWebAccess/VisioWebAccess.aspx?listguid={ListId}&itemid={ItemId}&DefaultItemOpen=1 0x0 0x1 FileType vdw 255 Alert Role Members /_layouts/images/MenuAlert.gif /news/stateandlocalblog/_layouts/SusQtechNet3SharePoint/SusQtechAlertRoles.aspx?ID={ItemId}&List={ListId} 0x0 0x2000000 ContentType 0x01 1000 Manage Alerts /_layouts/images/MenuAlert.gif /news/stateandlocalblog/_layouts/SusQtechNet3SharePoint/SusQtechRoleSubs.aspx?ID={ItemId}&List={ListId} 0x0 0x2000000 ContentType 0x01 1100 Compliance Details javascript:commonShowModalDialog('{SiteUrl}/_layouts/itemexpiration.aspx?ID={ItemId}&List={ListId}', 'center:1;dialogHeight:500px;dialogWidth:500px;resizable:yes;status:no;location:no;menubar:no;help:no', function GotoPageAfterClose(pageid){if(pageid == 'hold') {STSNavigate(unescape(decodeURI('{SiteUrl}'))+'/_layouts/hold.aspx?ID={ItemId}&List={ListId}'); return false;} if(pageid == 'audit') {STSNavigate(unescape(decodeURI('{SiteUrl}'))+'/_layouts/Reporting.aspx?Category=Auditing&backtype=item&ID={ItemId}&List={ListId}'); return false;} if(pageid == 'config') {STSNavigate(unescape(decodeURI('{SiteUrl}'))+'/_layouts/expirationconfig.aspx?ID={ItemId}&List={ListId}'); return false;}}, null); return false; 0x0 0x1 ContentType 0x01 898 Edit in Browser /_layouts/images/icxddoc.gif /news/stateandlocalblog/_layouts/formserver.aspx?XsnLocation={ItemUrl}&OpenIn=Browser&Source={Source} 0x0 0x1 FileType xsn 255 Edit in Browser /_layouts/images/icxddoc.gif /news/stateandlocalblog/_layouts/formserver.aspx?XmlLocation={ItemUrl}&OpenIn=Browser&Source={Source} 0x0 0x1 ProgId InfoPath.Document 255 Edit in Browser /_layouts/images/icxddoc.gif /news/stateandlocalblog/_layouts/formserver.aspx?XmlLocation={ItemUrl}&OpenIn=Browser&Source={Source} 0x0 0x1 ProgId InfoPath.Document.2 255 Edit in Browser /_layouts/images/icxddoc.gif /news/stateandlocalblog/_layouts/formserver.aspx?XmlLocation={ItemUrl}&OpenIn=Browser&Source={Source} 0x0 0x1 ProgId InfoPath.Document.3 255 Edit in Browser /_layouts/images/icxddoc.gif /news/stateandlocalblog/_layouts/formserver.aspx?XmlLocation={ItemUrl}&OpenIn=Browser&Source={Source} 0x0 0x1 ProgId InfoPath.Document.4 255 View in Browser /news/stateandlocalblog/_layouts/xlviewer.aspx?id={ItemUrl}&DefaultItemOpen=1 0x0 0x1 FileType xlsx 255 View in Browser /news/stateandlocalblog/_layouts/xlviewer.aspx?id={ItemUrl}&DefaultItemOpen=1 0x0 0x1 FileType xlsm 255 View in Browser /news/stateandlocalblog/_layouts/xlviewer.aspx?id={ItemUrl}&DefaultItemOpen=1 0x0 0x1 FileType xlsb 255 View in Browser /news/stateandlocalblog/_layouts/xlviewer.aspx?id={ItemUrl}&DefaultItemOpen=1 0x0 0x1 FileType ods 255 |
|
|
|
|