10 June 2016 State and Local Tax Weekly for June 3 Ernst & Young's State and Local Tax Weekly newsletter for June 3 is now available. Prepared by Ernst & Young's State and Local Taxation group, this weekly update summarizes important news, cases, and other developments in U.S. state and local taxation. Oregon ballot initiative that would impose a significant gross receipts tax on corporations certified for the November ballot On May 23, 2016, the Oregon Legislative Revenue Office (LRO released Research Report #3-16 (the Report) on the impact passage of Initiative Petition 28 (IP 28) would have on Oregon's revenue system which is a major milestone for the initiative to appear on this November's ballot. IP 28, if approved by voters, would significantly increase Oregon's minimum corporate excise tax on corporations with $25 million or more in Oregon sales. The Oregon Secretary of State recently certified IP 28 to appear on the Nov. 8, 2016 Oregon ballot, and corporate taxpayers that do business in Oregon should be familiar with its implications. The LRO is a nonpartisan research organization of state government. The Report contains a summary of key findings, includes examples on IP 28's effect on various businesses, analyzes how the new minimum tax would be spread across corporations by size and industry, provides an estimate on IP 28's effect on Oregon's overall tax burden, the implications of moving to a gross receipts tax base, and the results of a simulation of the economic and distribution impacts of IP 28 if enacted. Some of the key findings of the Report include: — IP 28 is based on Oregon sales and its effects would be heavily concentrated in the domestic consumer sectors. As such, it is expected to act like a consumption tax on the state economy. — Taxes on the retail and wholesale trades as well as the utility sector likely will result in higher prices for Oregon residents. — Shifting the state's tax base towards a gross receipts tax while reducing the proportional reliance on the personal income tax and nearly eliminating the state's reliance on the corporate net income tax will reduce the instability of state revenue over the course of the business cycle. — IP 28's significant revenue increase and its concentrated impact on a small group of large corporations would add considerable uncertainty to the estimates. IP 28 is expected to increase total state taxes by approximately 25% and combined state and local taxes by 15%. — If IP 28 becomes law, it would dampen income, employment and population growth in Oregon over the next five years. — Higher gross receipts taxes triggered by IP 28 are expected to lead to higher consumer prices and wages. The report includes an example of how IP 28's proposed minimum tax would impact hypothetical businesses. For example, there would be no change in the minimum tax for corporations with Oregon sales of $20 million or less, but significant increases for corporations with Oregon sales of $70 million or more. For more on this development, see Tax Alert 2016-930. Puerto Rico's legislative assembly has approved a bill that repeals the value added tax (VAT), overriding the Governor's veto of the bill. The VAT was scheduled to be implemented on June 1, 2016. The repeal of the VAT leaves the existing version of the sales and use tax (SUT) in effect for the foreseeable future. This means taxable items will continue to be subject to the 10.5% central government SUT and the 4% SUT on certain business to business (B2B) and designated professional services. The 1% municipal portion of the SUT, which only applies to taxable items subject to the 10.5% SUT, also will continue in effect without any changes or modifications. There are rumors that further amendments to the 4% SUT may be forthcoming. In the coming days and weeks, taxpayers should pay close attention to legislative action that may once again attempt to modify the existing SUT provisions. For more on this development, see Tax Alert 2016-932. All States: Sometimes a state's statutory apportionment formula does not fairly represent a taxpayer's business activities in the state, giving the taxpayer or the state the opportunity to advance arguments for what does. In the sixth and final installment of Ernst & Young LLP's (EY) State Income Tax Seminar: quirks in apportionment, EY panelists discussed industries that tend to have special apportionment formulas (particularly highlighting the varying treatment of financial institutions), business versus nonbusiness income, and special apportionment considerations related to partnerships. For more on the webcast and information on how to access the webcast archive, see Tax Alert 2016-923. California: The US Supreme Court has been asked to review the California Supreme Court's ruling in Gillette, in which it held that corporate taxpayers cannot elect to use the equally weighted three-factor apportionment formula under the Multistate Tax Compact (Compact) for reporting income to California in lieu of the statutorily mandated formula (e.g., double-weighted sales or single sales factor formulae). In reaching this conclusion, the California Supreme Court agreed with the Franchise Tax Board that the Legislature's enactment of a new apportionment formula controls, and that the state is not bound by the Compact election. The Gillette Co. v. Franchise Tax Board, No. S206587 (Cal. S. Ct. Dec. 31, 2015), petition for cert. filed, Dk. No. 15-1442 (US S. Ct. filed May 27, 2016). North Carolina: New law (SB 729) modifies the corporate income and franchise taxes. Most notably, SB 729 reduces the deductible interest expense limitation from 30% to 15% but provides an exception if the interest expense can be traced to an unrelated party. HB 97 (NC Laws 2015) previously allowed a deduction only for qualified interest expense paid or accrued to a related member for tax years beginning on or after Jan. 1, 2016. "Qualified interest expense" was defined as the amount of net interest expense paid or accrued to a related member in a taxable year not to exceed 30% of the taxpayer's adjusted taxable income. As a result of SB 729, the deduction is now limited to the greater of (1) 15% of the taxpayer's adjusted taxable income, or (2) the taxpayer's proportionate share of interest paid or accrued to a nonrelated person during the same taxable year. "Proportionate share of interest" is defined as the amount of a taxpayer's net interest expense paid or accrued directly to or through a related member to an ultimate payer divided by the total net interest expense of all related members that is paid or accrued directly to or through a related member to the same ultimate payer, multiplied by the interest paid or accrued to a person that is not a related member by the ultimate payer. The term "ultimate payer" is defined as a related member that receives or accrues interest from related members directly or through a related member and pays or accrues interest to a person that is not a related member. There were originally four exceptions to the limitation on the deduction of interest expense paid or accrued to a related member: (1) tax is imposed by North Carolina on the related member with respect to the interest; (2) the related member pays a net income tax or gross receipts tax to another state with respect to the interest income; (3) the related member is organized under the laws of a foreign country that has a comprehensive income tax treaty with the US, and that country taxes the interest income at a rate equal to or greater than the rate imposed by North Carolina; or (4) the related member is a bank. SB 729 revises the second exception by indicating that the limitation does not apply if another state imposes an income tax or gross receipts tax on the interest income of the related member. In addition, provisions of SB 729 make the following changes: (1) amend the royalty income reporting option by adding a provision indicating that exercising the royalty reporting income option does not prevent the taxpayer from having nexus in the State nor does it permit the recipient of the income to exclude royalty payments from the calculation of the sales factor; (2) provide that amounts eliminated by combined or consolidated return requirements do not qualify as interest that is subject to tax; (3) update the definition of sales to exclude: receipts from financial swaps and other similar financial derivatives that represent the notional principal amount that generates the cash flow traded in the swap agreement, and receipts in the nature of dividends excluded for federal tax purposes and North Carolina corporate income tax purposes; (4) require a qualified air freight forwarder to use the revenue ton mile fraction of its affiliated air carrier to determine income apportioned to North Carolina; and (5) provide that the effective date of changes to the corporate franchise tax base enacted through HB 97 is for taxable years beginning on or after Jan. 1, 2017, and will apply to the franchise tax calculation reported on the taxpayer's 2016 and later year income tax returns (previously, the changes were effective Jan. 1, 2017, for taxes due on or after Jan. 1, 2017). The corporate income tax changes generally are effective for tax years beginning on or after Jan. 1, 2016. NC Laws 2016, Session Laws 2016-5 (SB 729), signed by the governor on May 11, 2016. For additional information on this development, as well as other tax changes contained in SB 729, see Tax Alert 2016-931. Texas: A for-profit home health agency (agency) that offers medical and non-medical care is limited to deducting only 50% of the Medicare and Medicaid payments it received from its total revenue for franchise tax purposes because it is registered as a home community support service agency. In Texas, health care providers exclude from their total revenue the total amount of payments received under the Medicaid and Medicare programs, but health care providers that are health care institutions can only deduct 50% of such revenue from total revenue. Under Texas law, home and community support services agencies are specifically defined as health care institutions. Accordingly, the agency can only deduct 50% of Medicare and Medicaid payments it received. Tex. Comp. of Pub. Accts., No. 201602777H (Feb. 26, 2016). Vermont: New law (HB 873) updates the state's adoption of federal income tax statutes to the law in effect for taxable year 2015. This change is effective retroactively to Jan. 1, 2015. Vt. Laws 2016, Act 134 (HB 873), signed by the governor on May 25, 2016. Arizona: New law (SB 1350) creates the Online Lodging Marketplace Classification under the Transaction Privilege Tax, comprised of the business of operating an online lodging marketplace that is registered with the Arizona Department of Revenue (AZDOR) for a license to collect tax. The tax base for the new classification is the gross proceeds of sales or gross income derived from the business measured by the total amount charged for an online transient lodging transaction by the online lodging operator located in Arizona, and the tax is imposed at a rate of 5.5%. The online lodging marketplace classification does not include any online lodging marketplace that has not entered into an agreement with the AZDOR for a tax license. Further, SB 1350 provides an exclusion for online lodging operators from any taxes on online lodging transactions where the online lodging marketplace has provided written notice that it is registered and paying taxes on all online lodging transactions. Electronic consolidated returns may be filed to report tax on receipts from multiple real property locations. Finally, Arizona cities may levy a tax on an online lodging marketplace, but the city tax must be administered through the AZDOR, even if the city is Non-Program city that administers its own taxes. The new provisions take effect from and after Dec. 31, 2016. Ariz. Laws 2016, Ch. 208 (SB 1350), signed by the governor on May 12, 2016. Arkansas: In reversing the lower court, the Arkansas Supreme Court (Court) held that a construction company's purchase of various tangible property for use in the construction of a water treatment plant are subject to state and local sales and use tax because the manufacturing exemption does not apply as the water treatment plant cleans, but does not manufacture, water. In reaching this conclusion, the Court cited Ragland v. Ark. Valley Coal Servs., which stated that merely putting raw material into a marketable form is not manufacturing, and emphasized that manufacturing requires a transformation in which a new or different article must emerge with a distinctive name, character or use. In addition, the Court distinguished this case from Arkansas Beverage Co., in which a soft drink bottler was held to be a manufacturer. Unlike the case at hand, the manufacture of the soft drinkimplied a transformation of raw materials into a new product. Here, the water treatment plant did not manufacture or process a new product. Rather, through a three-phase process it turned river water into drinking water. Walther v. Carrothers Construction Co. of Arkansas, LLC, No. CV-15-799, 206 Ark. 209 (Ark. S. Ct. May 19, 2016). Mississippi: New laws (HB 1687 and HB 364) amend sales tax exemption provisions for durable medical equipment and home medical supplies. HB 1687 provides that the exemption applies to the same type of equipment listed under the Medicare and Medicaid programs, as well as prosthetics, orthotics, hearing aids, hearing devices, prescription eyeglasses, oxygen, and oxygen equipment. Under both HB 1687 and HB 364, payments for home medical equipment and home medical supplies purchased under the Medicaid and Medicare programs do not have to be made in whole or in part by any particular person in order for the sale to be exempt from sales tax. Purchases of home medical equipment and supplies by a home health services provider or a hospice services provider are eligible for the sales tax exemption if the purchases otherwise meet exemption requirements. Both bills take effect July 1, 2016. Miss. Laws 2016, HB 1687 and HB 364, each signed by the governor on May 12, 2016. North Carolina: New law (SB 729) makes various updates to the definitions provided under North Carolina's sales and use tax provisions, including: (1) streamlined agreement: the definition of "streamlined agreement" is revised to mean the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement as amended as of Sept. 17, 2015; (2) storage: SB 729 removes various exceptions to the term "storage"; and (3) "retailer" for purposes of an admission charge to an entertainment activity is broadened to include a person that receives gross receipts derived from an admission charge sold at retail. Provisions of SB 729 restate the term "conditional service contract" as "conditional contract." An explanation is provided to determine the presumed sales price of an item when a portion of the conditional contract is taxable and a portion is not taxable. The presumed sales price is equal to the percentage of the service in the contract that is not taxable at the combined general rate. Effective for sales made on or after Jan. 1, 2017: (1) the sales tax exemption is repealed for items sold by a nonprofit civic, charitable, educational, scientific, or literacy organization when net proceeds will be given or contributed to North Carolina or certain other entities; (2) a new exemption is created for food, prepared food, soft drinks, candy and other items of tangible personal property sold not-for-profit for or at an event that is sponsored by an elementary or secondary school when the net proceeds of the sales will be given or contributed to the school or to a nonprofit charitable organization, one of whose purposes is to serve as a conduit through which the net proceeds will flow to the school; and (3) the exemption for fuel and electricity sold to a manufacturer for use in connection with the operation of a manufacturing facility is expanded to include piped natural gas. Other sales and use tax changes contained in SB 729 include the following: (1) a record keeping requirement for retailers, wholesale merchants and consumers to establish their sales and use tax liability; (2) a person that relies on the information provided by a state database developed to provide information on the boundaries of taxing jurisdictions and applicable tax rates is not liable for underpayments of tax attributable to erroneous information provided by the Secretary until 10 business days after the date of notification by the Secretary (note: this provision also applies to matrices developed by the Secretary to provide information on the taxability of certain items or certain tax administration practices); and (3) local tax rate increases will be effective on the first day of a calendar quarter after a minimum of 60 days' notice to sellers by the Secretary. NC Laws 2016, Session Laws 2016-5 (SB 729), signed by the governor on May 11, 2016. For additional information on this development, as well as other tax changes contained in SB 729, see Tax Alert 2016-931. Vermont: New law (HB 873) adopts economic nexus provisions and noncollecting vendor notification requirements for sales and use tax purposes. Under the economic nexus provisions, an out-of-state person making sales of tangible personal property to a destination within Vermont that: (1) engages in regular, systematic or seasonal solicitation of sales of tangible personal property in Vermont by (a) displaying advertisements in the state, (b) distributing catalogs, periodicals, advertising flyers or other advertising by means of print, radio or television media, or (c) by mail, internet, telephone, computer database, cable, optic, cellular or other communications systems, for the purpose of effecting sales of tangible personal property; and (2) has either made sales from outside Vermont to destinations within the state of at least $100,000, or totaling at least 200 individual sales transactions during any 12-month period with respect to which that person's liability for sales tax. Under the notification requirements, noncollecting vendors that make sales into Vermont are required to notify Vermont purchasers that sales or use tax is due on the purchase and the purchaser is required to pay tax due on his or her return. Failure to provide such notice will result in a $5.00 penalty for each such failure. In addition, each noncollecting vendor shall send notification to all Vermont purchasers on or before January 31 of each year showing the total amount paid by the purchaser for Vermont purchases in the previous calendar year. This requirement only applies to purchasers who have made $500 or more in purchases from the noncollecting vendor. Failure to send this notification will result in a penalty of $10.00 for each such failure. The economic nexus provision takes effect on the later of July 1, 2017 or beginning on the first day of the first quarter after a controlling court decision or federal legislation abrogates Quill's physical presence requirement; the noncollecting vendor provisions take effect the earlier of July 1, 2017 or the beginning of the first day of the first quarter after Colorado implements its tax reporting requirements. Vt. Laws 2016, Act 134 (HB 873), signed by the governor on May 25, 2016. Vermont: New law (HB 873) allows manufacturers and retailers that purchase materials and supplies for use by them in erecting structures or otherwise improving, altering or repairing real property to make an election that it will be treated as a retailer on the purchase of those materials and supplies and such purchase will not be considered a retail sale. A manufacturer or retailer making the election charges sales tax to its customers on its materials and supplies, or in the case of a manufacturer, the finished manufactured products, when it uses those materials, supplies or finished manufactured products in erecting structures or otherwise improving, altering or repairing real property. The sales prices for purposes of computing sales tax on these materials cannot be less than the manufacturer's or retailer's best customer price, and the tax must be separately stated on the invoice or receipt. This election, once made, is binding on a manufacturer or retailer for a minimum of five years and remains in effect until the manufacturer or retailer files a withdrawal of election. A manufacturer or retailer will not be entitled to a refund of sales tax based on the withdrawal of an election. Further, making this election does not excuse a person from the obligation of collecting tax on retail sales of tangible personal property not used in erecting structures or otherwise improving, altering or repairing real property or from the obligation to pay sales tax or remit the use tax on tools, services and other materials that are not used in erecting structures or otherwise improving, altering or repairing real property. This change takes effect July 1, 2016. Vt. Laws 2016, Act 134 (HB 873), signed by the governor on May 25, 2016. Washington: The value of video game equipment that is traded in for a stored-value card or for credit toward an immediate purchase is excludable from the taxable sales price because the traded-in property is separately stated, the video game equipment (hardware and software) is like-kind property, and the trade is a "single transaction" under Washington law. In reaching this conclusion, the Washington Board of Tax Appeals (Board) found that the retailer's sales receipts and transaction records separately identified the nontaxable, trade-in property and the purchased property. In addition, video game hardware and software are like-kind property because they are interdependent components of an integrated video gaming system, are often packaged together, and are bound together in their function or use. Finally, the Board found that a single transaction is completed when the retailer (1) applies trade-in credit to the customer's immediate purchase of like-kind property, or (2) applies trade-in credit stored on a stored-value card to the purchase of like-kind property. Here, in either case, the single-transaction requirement is met because the retailer and customer agree that the agreed-upon trade-in value of the customer's gaming components will provide an offset against the customer's purchase of gaming equipment, and the retailer does not make the offer of trade-in value contingent on an intermediate transaction (i.e., the retailer's successful sale of the traded-in property to another customer). Gamestop Inc. and Socom Inc. v. Wash. Dept. of Rev., No. 14-053 (Wash. Bd. Tax App. May 19, 2016). Arizona: New law (HB 2666) amends the qualified facility income tax credit, expanding the credit for a qualified facility in a rural location if employees are paid at least 100% of the median annual wage for production occupations in Arizona (in non-rural locations, the requirement is at least 125% of the medial annual wage). A rural location is defined as one within the boundaries of tribal lands or a city/town with a population of less than 50,000 people or within a county of less than 800,000 people. HB 2666 also requires such employers to pay at least 65% of the cost of employee health insurance (down from 80%); redefines "qualifying investment" to include, when the qualified facility is a build-to-suit facility leased to the taxpayer, a third-party developer's costs associated with such facility; and prohibits the preapproval of applicants as qualifying for the credit to taxable years beginning from and after Dec. 31, 2022 (from 2019). Lastly, provisions of HB 2666 create the Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO), the duties of which include monitoring the tax structure in comparison to other states and municipalities, assessing incentive programs and supporting the Arizona Commerce Authority in administering the incentives, among other duties related to economic development. The OEO will terminate on July 1, 2023. Ariz. Laws 2016, Ch. 372 (HB 2666), signed by the governor on May 19, 2016. Arizona: New law (HB 2584) amends requirements and qualifications for tax relief provided to an owner, operator, or qualified colocation tenant of a certified computer data center. Among the changes are: (1) tax relief requirements are modified to include improvements to property within the minimum new investment related to the computer data center, as well as computer data center equipment regardless of whether it is owned or leased or paid for pursuant to a right to use agreement; (2) the Arizona Department of Revenue (AZDOR) can recapture all or part of the tax relief provided directly to owners and operators, but a qualified colocation tenant is not subject to recapture of any part of tax relief received, except that a contributing qualified colocation tenant may be subject to recapture if it is located in a computer data center that is certified from and after Aug. 31, 2016; (3) the AZDOR has exclusive authority over tax relief administration, while the Arizona Commerce Authority (ACA) has exclusive authority over issues related to certification, including whether the data center has met the investment requirements; (4) requires the owner or operator of a data center to notify the ACA or AZDOR of any changes to the list of qualified colocation tenants within 30 days; (5) modifies and adds various definitions; and (6) the computer data center owner, operator, or qualified colocation tenant are no longer required to present the retailer a certificate of qualification. Certain changes take effect retroactively to Sept. 12, 2013, and others take effect Aug. 6, 2016. Ariz. Laws 2016, Ch. 369 (HB 2584), signed by the governor on May 19, 2016. Hawaii: Approved joint resolution (SCR 58) requests the Tax Review Commission (Commission) conduct or commission a study evaluating all or certain state income tax credits, exclusions, and deductions and determine their tax expenditures, benefits, merit and necessity. The Commission is directed to submit its findings and recommendations, along with its own evaluation, to the Hawaii legislature and governor. Haw. Laws 2016, SCR 58, approved by the legislature on April 26, 2016. Michigan: New law (HB 5439) prohibits a business located and conducting business activity within a Michigan Renaissance Zone, except as specifically designated, from making a payment in lieu of taxes to any taxing jurisdiction within the qualified governmental unit in which the renaissance zone is located. HB 5439 removes the provision that required specific designated exceptions to have been made before Dec. 1, 2010. The changes took effect upon becoming law. Mich. Laws 2016, Act 118 (HB 5439), signed by the governor on May 17, 2016. Mississippi: New law (SB 2922) amends a historic rehabilitation income tax credit to generally not apply to single-family dwellings unless certain criteria is met, and limits the amount of tax credits that may be issued in any one state fiscal year to $12 million, and increases the aggregate amount of credit that may be awarded to $120 million. If a taxpayer was issued a certificate evidencing eligibility to claim the credit prior to July 1, 2016, but is not awarded the credit due to the $12 million cap, the taxpayer will be given priority for credits awarded after July 1, 2016. In addition, SB 2922 amends the definition of "tourism project" for purposes of the Tourism Project Incentive Program and extends the date by which the state must approve an entity to participate in the program to July 1, 2020 (from July 1, 2016). Finally, the bill extends until July 1, 2017 (from July 1, 2016), the Mississippi Department of Revenue's authority to approve applications for a rebate under the Mississippi Motion Picture Incentive Act. Miss. Laws 2016, SB 2922, signed by the governor on May 12, 2016. Mississippi: New law (SB 2922) restricts an agreement for fee-in-lieu of ad valorem taxes to periods not exceeding 20 years, beginning on the date that the fee-in-lieu granted begins under the agreement. However, no parcel of land, real property improvement, or item of personal property is subject to a fee-in-lieu for more than 10 years. This change takes effect July 1, 2016. Miss. Laws 2016, SB 2922, signed by the governor on May 12, 2016. Alabama: New law (SB 335) amends the Alabama Taxpayers' Bill of Rights and Uniform Revenue Procedures Act regarding private auditing or collecting firms engaged by self-administered municipalities or counties, effective Jan. 1, 2017. Among the amendments are: (1) the "private auditing or collecting firm" definition now includes third-party auditing firm, third-party collecting firm, or third-party administrator; (2) contracts between a self-administered municipality or county and a private auditing or collecting firm that are entered into for the purpose of examining or collecting municipal or county taxes and are executed on or after Oct. 1, 2016, are subject to termination upon either party giving 90 days' written notice to the other party; (3) requires any person examining a taxpayer's books and records on behalf of a self-administered municipality or county provide upon first contact with a taxpayer a copy of the contract between the person and municipality/county, and a statement as to whether the municipality/ county has elected out of the tax tribunal; (4) a final assessment or forced collection action based on an audit conducted by a private auditing or collecting firm will not be issued and applicable to a taxpayer until signed by a public official or employee designated by the self-administered county or municipality; (5) a self-administered county or municipality that has chosen to opt out of participating in the Alabama Tax Tribunal must retain the services of an independent hearing or appeals officer who is not affiliated with the private auditing or collecting firm to conduct any hearings; and (6) private auditing or collecting firms are subject to confidentiality requirements under the Alabama Taxpayers' Bill of Rights. The bill takes effect Jan. 1, 2017. Ala. Laws 2016, Act 406 (SB 335), signed by the governor on May 13, 2016. Arizona: New law (HB 2449) amends penalty provisions to provide that the underpayment penalty will not be assessed on additional amounts of tax paid by a taxpayer at the time the taxpayer voluntarily files an amended return if the total additional tax paid and due represents a substantial understatement of tax liability (amount exceeds the greater of 10% of the actual tax liability for the tax period, or $2,000). This change takes effect and is applicable to taxable years beginning from and after Dec. 31, 2016. Ariz. Laws 2016, Ch. 197 (HB 2449), signed by the governor on May 11, 2016. Illinois: Last year, the City of Chicago offered a modified voluntary disclosure program (VDP) outside of the City's normal VDP, to allow taxpayers to become compliant with the City's law on the imposition of the Personal Property Lease Transaction Tax (Transaction Tax) on leases of personal property including nonpossessory computer leases. Initially, taxpayers needed to apply for the modified VDP before Jan. 1, 2016. Despite this due date, the City continued to accept applications for the VDP. The Chicago Department of Finance recently announced that it will continue to accept applications through June 30, 2016. For more on this development, see Tax Alert 2016-934. Federal: On Tuesday, June 14, 2016, from 12:00-1:00 p.m. EDT New York; 9:00-10:00 a.m. PDT Los Angeles, EY will host the third seminar in our four-part webcast series on federal credits and incentives extended under the Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes Act of 2015 (the PATH Act). During this webcast, a panel of tax professionals from EY's Credits and Incentives practice will examine the extension of the New Markets Tax Credit (NMTC), and discuss the details of a NMTC transaction. The panel will also include a guest speaker from the University of Chicago Medicine, who will discuss the hospital's recent NMTC experience. Other topics to be covered in this webcast include: ideal project considerations, due diligence and documentation of the closing process, accounting considerations, and seven-year compliance. Click here to register for this event. All States: On Wednesday, June 15, 2016, from 1:00-2:30 p.m. EDT (10:00-11:30 a.m. PDT), EY will host its domestic tax quarterly webcast. The following topics will be discussed during the webcast: (1) a focused discussion on state implications of the new proposed IRC Section 385 debt equity regulations and the recently enacted changes to federal partnership audit rules; (2) tax policy matters, including an overview of notable 2016 statewide ballot initiatives targeting state business taxes, 2016 state tax legislative trends and developments; and (3) major judicial and administrative developments affecting state and local taxation. To register for this event, go to State tax matters. * Tax alerts are available in the EY Client Portal. If you are not a subscriber to EY Client Portal and would like to subscribe to EY Client Portal and receive our Tax Alerts via email, please contact your local state tax professional. Because the matters covered herein are complicated, State and Local Tax Weekly should not be regarded as offering a complete explanation and should not be used for making decisions. Any decision concerning matters covered herein should be reviewed with a qualified tax advisor. Document ID: 2016-1014 |
