06 July 2016 State and Local Tax Weekly for June 24 Ernst & Young's State and Local Tax Weekly newsletter for June 24 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. On June 22, 2016, the Minnesota Supreme Court (Court) issued its opinion in Kimberly-Clark Corporation & Subsidiaries, upholding the tax court's ruling that the Legislature's repeal of the Multistate Tax Compact's (Compact) apportionment election provision and apportionment formula (Articles III and IV of the Compact, respectively) is constitutional. As such, Kimberly-Clark is not entitled to a refund of corporate income tax based on the use of the Compact's equally weighted three-factor apportionment formula, rather than the state's standard formula, which resulted in a more heavily weighted sales factor formula in this case. Kimberly-Clark Corporation & Subsidiaries vs. Commissioner of Revenue, A15-1322 (Minn. S. Ct. June 22, 2016). Kimberly-Clark Corporation, a multistate corporation, filed amended returns for its 2007, 2008 and 2009 tax years claiming that the Minnesota Legislature's 1987 repeal of Articles III and IV of the Compact, which it had enacted in 1983, was ineffective because the state had contractually obligated itself to furnish the apportionment election until it fully withdrew from the Compact in 2013. The Minnesota Commissioner of Revenue disagreed, arguing that the Compact is only advisory because it does not meet the criteria for a binding contract as set forth in Northeast Bancorp. In ruling in favor of the state, the Court rejected Kimberly-Clark's argument, finding it lacked legal support. Specifically, the Court noted that "[t]he state is not bound by the passage of a law unless named therein, or unless the words of the act are so plain, clear, and unmistakable as to leave no doubt as to the intention of the legislature." Even if the Court were to assume that the state undertook a contractual obligation, it nevertheless found the obligation invalid, stating that, regardless of the Compact's language, the State is constitutionally barred from surrendering, suspending or contracting away its power to amend or repeal a tax. The Court further held that, under the unmistakability doctrine, which "is a rule of contract construction that provides the sovereign powers of a state cannot be contracted away except in 'unmistakable' terms," the State made "no unmistakable or express promise surrendering [its] legislative authority in section 290.171 as enacted in 1983." The Court determined that, while the statute allowed a member state to withdraw from the Compact by enacting a statute repealing the Compact, nothing in the statute required the state to be bound by the Compact's term until it withdraws. The Court found the statute, at best, is silent on this issue, noting, however, that "neither silence nor ambiguous terms in a contract will be construed as effecting a waiver of sovereign authority." Lastly, the Court said that it could not conclude that the directive in Article XI to implement the Article III election represented an unmistakable, clear promise to allow taxpayers to use the Compact's evenly weighted apportionment formula until the State withdrew from the Compact. For more on this development, see Tax Alert 2016-1150. Following the lead of Alabama, the Tennessee Department of Revenue (Department) on June 16, 2016, filed a proposed rule (new Rule 1320-05-01.129) that would adopt an economic nexus regulation for sales and use tax purposes. As currently drafted, an out-of-state dealer would be deemed to have substantial nexus with Tennessee if the dealer engages in the regular or systematic solicitation of Tennessee consumers through any means, and makes sales that exceed $500,000 to Tennessee consumers during any calendar year. Out-of-state dealers meeting this threshold would have to register with the Department for sales and use tax purposes, and begin collecting and remitting tax to the Department by July 1, 2017. The Department will hold a hearing on the proposed rule on Aug. 8, 2016. Given that the jurisdictional standards set forth in the new law exceed current Commerce Clause standards for sales and use tax collection purposes as established by the U.S. Supreme Court, it is likely that the law will face legal challenges. More significantly, however, is the possibility that the Court might once again take up the issue and this rule might be the vehicle for it to reconsider the physical presence test in light of Justice Anthony Kennedy's concurring opinion in DMA, indicating that it is "unwise to delay any longer a reconsideration of the Court's holding in Quill." Obviously, if the Court were to hear such a challenge, it may ultimately affect how nexus is determined for remote sales. Similar state action throughout the early 1980's (the so-called "anti-Bellas Hess laws") eventually led to the 1992 Quill decision. However, the economic landscape is far different today, particularly due to the dramatic rise in remote sellers using the global reach of the Internet that was very different than the environment remote sellers faced 20 years ago. Thus, a similar result (i.e., affirmation of the physical presence standard) is no longer a foregone conclusion. Finally, it is worth noting that, should this trend continue, whereby more states adopt similar requirements, Congress may be forced to act through one of the remote seller nexus bills currently pending in both houses in order to provide some uniformity among the states. Given that states are enacting a complex variety of sales and use tax nexus requirements, having Congress enact a national, uniform nexus standard for sales and use tax collection may prove to be a better compliance alternative for remote sellers throughout the US. With Alabama's independent enactment of remote seller nexus rules by regulation, South Dakota's and Vermont's legislative enactments and promulgation of the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) model law, more legislative and judicial activity in Congress and among the states can be expected in the near future. All States: Recently issued newsletter provides a summary of the legislative, administrative and judicial updates that occurred during the period beginning April 1, 2016 through June 15, 2016. Highlights include: (1) a summary of legislative developments in Alabama, Arizona, Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Kentucky, Mississippi, New York, North Carolina, South Carolina and Vermont; (2) a summary of judicial developments in Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York and Texas; (3) a summary of administrative developments in Alabama, Arkansas, Hawaii, Louisiana, New York City, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia; and (4) a discussion of state and local tax items to watch in California, Colorado, District of Columbia and Texas as well as in Congress and federal agencies. A supplement covering the period from June 16, 2016 through June 30, 2016 will be released in early July 2016. Click here for a copy of the newsletter. Michigan: The Michigan Supreme Court (MSC) has denied the application a group of taxpayers for leave to appeal the Michigan Court of Appeals (COA) decision upholding the 2014 retroactive repeal of the Multistate Tax Compact (MTC) under 2014 PA 282. Justices Markman and Viviano, who were in the majority of the key case involving IBM, joined in a dissent of the denial of the leave to appeal, noting that, in their judgment, issues raised are "of considerable constitutional significance as to matters affecting the tax policy and procedures, the fiscal and business environments, and the jurisprudence of [Michigan]." Specifically, the dissent noted the following questions warranted further consideration by the MSC: (1) Is 2014 PA 282 consistent with federal due-process protections given that the period of retroactivity was six years and nine months? (2) Is 2014 PA 282 consistent with the Michigan Due Process Clause? (3) Does 2014 PA 292 violate either the federal or state prohibitions against the impairment of contracts? (4) Does 2014 PA 282 violate the Separation of Powers Clause? Further, IBM still has pending litigation in connection with its 2008 tax year which was ruled on favorably by the MSC (July 2014) and subsequently ruled unfavorably upon remand to the Court of Claims as a result of 2014 PA 282 (April 2015). IBM's oral arguments are scheduled for July 12, 2016 before the COA. Gillette Comm Operations N Am & Subsidiaries v. Department of Treasury, No. 152588 (Mich. S. Ct. June 24, 2016) (consolidated with 49 other appeals). Minnesota: A unitary business group properly included the net income and apportionment factors of a wholly owned foreign subsidiary that elected to be treated as a disregarded entity for federal income tax purposes in its Minnesota combined return because by making the election, the foreign subsidiary is deemed to have distributed all of its assets and liabilities to its sole shareholder, a domestic corporation, and to have liquidated (and ceased to be an entity) prior to the tax years at issue. Therefore, the income and apportionment factors of the foreign subsidiary are deemed to be part of the income and apportionment factors of the domestic corporation, and inclusion of such income in the Minnesota combined return does not violate Minn. Stat. §290.17, subd. 4(f), which for the tax years at issue (2009-2011), excluded the net income and apportionment factors of foreign corporations and other foreign entities in the net income and apportionment factors of a Minnesota unitary business (note: a law change provides that starting in 2013 such income is included in the net income and apportionment factors of a Minnesota unitary business, except if the entity is treated as a C corporation). In reaching this conclusion, the Minnesota Tax Court reasoned that by recognizing the effect of the foreign subsidiary's election to be treated as a disregarded entity for federal income tax purposes (under Treas. Reg. §301.7710-3), "our result harmonizes the legislature's directive that Minnesota recognize the taxpayer's election for federal income tax reporting purposes (Minn. Stat. §290.01, subd. 19) with the prohibition against including the net income and apportionment factors of 'foreign corporations and other foreign entities' in the net income and apportionment factors of the unitary business Minn. Stat. §290.17, subd. 4(f)." The court added that the revenue commissioner's position — to exclude such income — would put the applicable statutory provisions in conflict with each other and it would require the court to favor one provision over the other. The court also rejected that tax commissioner's argument that Manpower, Inc. v. Commissioner of Revenue, in which the Minnesota Supreme Court held that foreign entity that elected to be treated as a partnership for federal income tax purposes remained a foreign entity that could not be included the related domestic corporation's net income and apportionment factors, controls, finding that the facts in this case "mandate a different result" because the foreign entity in Manpower elected to be treated as a partnership while the foreign entity in this case elected to be treated as a disregarded entity. The court rejected various other arguments made by the commissioner, including that the foreign entity's election to be disregarded did not nullify its existence as a separate foreign entity and that the court should defer to the commissioner's long standing position that the state did not recognize check-the-box elections made by a foreign eligible entity with a single C corporation owner that elected to be disregarded for federal tax purposes. Ashland Inc. and Affiliates v. Commissioner of Revenue, No. 08819-R (Minn. Tax Ct. June 6, 2016). New Jersey: The New Jersey Supreme Court will not review the appellate court's affirmation of the tax court's ruling in Lorillard Licensing Co., regarding the appropriate standard the Division of Taxation (Division) must use when applying the since repealed throw-out rule in determining a multistate company's receipts for corporate business tax apportionment purposes. Under Whirlpool, the state's throw-out rule is facially constitutional when applied to receipts from states lacking jurisdiction to impose tax either due to insufficient nexus or because of the protections afforded under PL 86-272, but not when applied to receipts from states that opt to not impose an income (or similar) tax. Thus, the Division may "throw out" of the denominator of the receipts fraction only that income which is realized by the taxpayer from other states which lack the jurisdiction to tax it. The tax court also rejected the Division's application of different standards for determining whether a taxpayer "is subject to tax" for purposes of nexus and for purposes of throw-out. Under the nexus principles articulated in Lanco, the taxpayer in this case is subject to tax in every state by virtue of an affiliate's sale of products using the taxpayer's trademarks and trade names in those jurisdictions. Therefore, since for New Jersey tax purposes the taxpayer was subject to tax in every other state, the taxpayer did not have any receipts that could be thrown out under the throw-out rule. The court noted that "[w]hether or not the other States actually collected a tax from [Lorillard] does not control the inquiry. It is the ability to tax, not actual taxation, which determines if the throw-out rule applies under Whirlpool." Lorillard Licensing Company LLC v. Director, Division of Taxation, No. A-2033-13T1 (N.J. Superior Ct., App. Div., Dec. 4, 2015) (unpublished), cert. denied, N.J. S. Ct. (June 17, 2016). Iowa: A consumer who paid tax on shipping and handling charges on internet purchases made from a national retailer, which the retailer then remitted to the Iowa Department of Revenue (Department), must seek remedy from the Department rather than the retailer because Iowa's version of the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement (SSUTA) does not create a private cause of action. In reaching this conclusion, the Iowa Supreme Court (Court) held that nowhere in Iowa's SSUTA statute "is there any suggestion that the legislation was designed to provide taxpayers with a new statutory remedy." Further, viewing the "no cause of action" language of the statute through the stated legislative purposes — simplifying, modernizing and easing the burdens and administration of collection of sales tax — the Court determined that the no cause of action language was not designed to create a private cause of action. The Court further held that Iowa's SSUTA language did not create an implied cause of action; implying a private right of action would complicate, rather than simplify, the tax collection process under the SSUTA. Lastly, the Court dismissed the consumer's tax representation claims, concluding that the exclusive remedy for consumers and retailers over retailers' representations to consumers about the tax consequences of transactions is with the Department when the retailer has already remitted the tax to the state. Bass v. J.C. Penney Co., Inc., No. 15-0334 (Iowa S. Ct. June 10, 2016). Missouri: New law (SB 823) temporarily prohibits the Missouri Department of Revenue (Department) from issuing sales and use tax assessments based on the recent Missouri Supreme Court (Court) ruling in IBM. In IBM, the Court found that the taxpayer was not entitled to a use tax exemption for hardware and software sold to a large credit card company because the credit card company's use of the materials for processing credit and debit card transactions did not qualify as "manufacturing of any product" under the statute. This ruling potentially overturns a quarter century of precedent supporting the position that organizing information constitutes manufacturing. An earlier version of SB 823 would have effectively reversed the Court's ruling in IBM by expanding the exemption to include the activity at issue in the case. This language, however, was removed during conference committee and replaced with a provision prohibiting the Department from sending notice to any taxpayer regarding taxability of transactions under IBM before Aug. 28, 2017. Under legislation enacted in 2015, such notification is required before the Department can issue a new assessment based on the change in law. Mo. Laws 2016, SB 823, signed by the governor on June 28, 2016. For additional information on this development, see Tax Alert 2016-1027. New York: A web-based data hosting service's charges for its data storage service, including an add-on feature that gives a customer the right to store and retrieve multiple versions of the same document, are not subject to New York sales and use taxes because they are not receipts from the sale of software, the service is not an information service, and the service is not storing tangible personal property. Charges for data storage service are not receipts from the sale of software because the software is available to all users without charge, and the software is not required for the full functionality of the service since users can access the service through any web browser. The service is not an information service as it does not provide customers with the service of collecting, compiling or analyzing information of any kind, nor does it furnish reports of any of the information that its users store to "other persons." Finally, it is not a taxable service because the hosting service is not storing tangible personal property, and data storage is not one of the enumerated services subject to sales tax. N.Y. Dept. of Taxn. and Fin., TSB-A-16(19)S (May 20, 2016). New York: A company's charges for its service that provides advertisers with information about internet users is subject to New York sales and use tax as a taxable information service. The exclusion for information services that are "personal or individual in nature and that are not or may not be substantially incorporated in reports furnished to other persons" does not apply because the information about internet users is not uniquely personal or individual in nature as it comes from a common source or a data repository that itself is not confidential. Most of the information about internet users is collected through the service provider's relationship with data providers that are free to sell the same information to others, and about 5% of the information the service provider uses comes from other information service providers. Finally, mere customization of the information provided to meet the specific needs of a customer does not exclude the sale from the imposition of the tax, even when it is a virtual mathematical impossibility that all or part of a report to one client would be duplicated in a report to another client. N.Y. Dept. of Taxn. and Fin., TSB-A-16(18)S (May 5, 2016). South Carolina: New law (SB 427) provides a sales and use tax exemption for machines used in agricultural packaging, effective July 1, 2016. The term "machines" includes the parts of machines, attachments, and replacements used, or manufactured for use, on or in the operation of the machines and which (1) are necessary to the operation of the machines and are customarily so used, or (2) are necessary to comply with the order of an agency of the US or of South Carolina for the prevention or abatement of the pollution of air, water, or noise that is caused or threatened by any machine used as provided. S.C. Laws 2016, Act 256 (SB 427), signed by the governor on June 8, 2016. Federal: On June 17, 2016, the IRS released Notice 2016-40 and the Department of Labor released a new Training and Employment Guidance Letter (TEGL 25-15). Together, these documents provide employers with additional guidance on the Work Opportunity Tax Credit (WOTC) relating to changes made by the PATH Act of 2015. Highlights of these documents include: (1) an extension of the transition relief period for all WOTC categories to Aug. 31, 2016 (previously May 31, 2016)(the transition relief provides employers with relief from the 28-day timely filing requirement for IRS Form 8850, Pre-Screening Notice and Certification Request for the Work Opportunity Credit); (2) authorization to use revised ETA Form 9061, Individual Characteristics (revised May, 2016); and (3) publication of a new Self Attestation Form, ETA Form 9175, Long-Term Unemployment Recipient Self-Attestation Form, to be submitted as supporting documentation for the new Qualified Long-term Unemployment Recipient target group. For additional information on this development, see Tax Alert 2016-1094. Federal: On July 12, 2016 from 1:00-2:00 p.m. EDT (10:00-11:00 a.m. PDT), Ernst & Young LLP will hold the last of 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 the webcast, tax professionals from EY's Credits and Incentives practice will discuss the Investment Tax Credit and Production Tax Credit extensions, other provisions promoting energy efficiency and what the extensions mean for corporate sustainability officers, tax directors, investors and developers of renewable energy facilities. Topics to be covered include: (1) Renewable energy landscape, particularly the positive changes to the market in light of the tax credit extensions provided by the PATH Act; (2) Options for procuring electricity through a Power Purchase Agreement from a renewable energy facility; and (3) Options for reducing federal tax liability by investing in renewable energy facilities for allocations of either the Investment Tax Credit or Production Tax Credit. Click here to register for the event. Georgia: A taxpayer that acquired an entity entitled to the quality jobs tax credit cannot claim the credit or use the entity's credit carry forward, because the credit cannot be transferred and used by the transferee when there is a sale, merger, acquisition or bankruptcy of the transferor taxpayer as the statute does not provide for such. Therefore, where there is a sale, merger, acquisition or bankruptcy of the taxpayer, the credit and credit carryforward are lost and cannot be used by any taxpayer. Ga. Dept. of Rev., LR IT-2015-03 (Dec. 14, 2015). South Carolina: New law (SB 427) makes various changes to the job tax credit. Applicable to tax years beginning after 2015, the definition of "qualifying service-related facility" for purposes of the job tax credit is expanded to include certain support activities for air transportation (as established under the North American Industry Classification System Manual (NAICS)). Effective June 8, 2016, a taxpayer operating an agricultural packaging operation can claim the jobs tax credit and, for purposes of calculating the credit, allows certain agricultural operations to claim seasonal workers as full-time employees. "Agricultural packaging" is defined as the technology of enclosing or protecting or preserving agricultural products for distribution, storage, sale, and use. Packaging also refers to the process of design, evaluation, and production of packages used for agricultural products, and can be described as a coordinated system of preparing agricultural goods for transport, warehousing, logistics, sale and end use. Finally, while the agricultural operations can claim seasonal workers as full-time employees, such employee only counts as a fraction of a full-time worker, with the numerator being the number of hours worked a week multiplied by the number of weeks worked, and the denominator being the number 1,820. S.C. Laws 2016, Act 256 (SB 427), signed by the governor on June 8, 2016. Vermont: New law (HB 868) re-establishes the Vermont Employment Growth Incentive (VEGI) program, offering enhanced incentives in the form of direct cash payments in annual installments for: (1) a business in a labor market area with higher than average unemployment or lower than average wages; (2) an environmental technology business; and (3) a business that participates in a state workforce training program. Only a business may apply for a VEGI in one or more years of an award period, and for each year the business applies for VEGIs, it must (a) specify a payroll performance requirement; (b) specify a jobs performance requirement or a capital investment performance requirement, or both; or (c) provide other information required to evaluate the application. The new law includes provisions regarding how to calculate the value of an incentive and benchmarks businesses must meet to earn the incentive. The value of one or more installment payments can be recaptured, with interest, when the business fails to meet its incentive criteria. The Vermont Economic Progress Council will not accept or approve applications for a VEGI on or after Jan. 1, 2021. These provisions took effect on passage. Vt. Laws 2016, Act 157 (HB 868), signed by the governor on June 2, 2016. New Hampshire: New law (HB 1198) establishes the valuation for property tax assessments of wooden poles and conduits employed in the transmission of telecommunication owned in whole or in part by telephone utilities, Voice over Internet Protocol service or IP-enabled service, or commercial radio services. Valuation is determined based on the following formula: the Replacement Cost New (RCN) of the telecommunications pole or conduit, less depreciation calculated on a straight-line basis for a period of 40 years with a residual value of 20%. By July 1 of the tax year, the New Hampshire Department of Revenue Administration (Department) must provide to every municipality a schedule of telecommunications pole and conduit RCN, using nationally published telecommunications standard cost data guides calculated annually using a five-year rolling average. In addition, each owner of telecommunications poles and conduits must file an inventory of telecommunications poles and conduits with the Department and with the municipality where the property is located by July 1 of the taxable year. Provisions of HB 1198 take effect Sept. 1, 2016. N.H. Laws 2016, Ch. 208 (HB 1198), signed by the governor on June 6, 2016. Alabama: The Alabama Department of Revenue (Department) is conducting a two month tax amnesty program from June 30, 2016 to Aug. 30, 2016. Amnesty applies to taxes due before Jan. 1, 2015 or taxes for taxable periods that began prior to Jan. 1, 2015. The amnesty program applies to all taxes administered by the Department, including sales/use, corporate and individual income, withholding, pass-through entity income, business privilege, financial institution excise, oil & gas severance, mobile telecommunications service, utility gross receipts, and various tobacco taxes. Amnesty does not apply to motor fuel taxes. In exchange for participating in, and fully complying with the terms of, the amnesty program, the Department will apply a three-year look-back period (i.e., the last three full years of delinquent returns) and waive penalties and one-half of interest. Taxpayers eligible to participate in the program include those who have not been contacted by the Department regarding the tax types included in the amnesty application within the last five years. Taxpayers that have been contacted by the Department within the last five years or who have been party to any criminal investigation or criminal litigation in any US or Alabama court cannot participate in the amnesty program. Taxpayers that participate in but fail to fully comply with the terms of the amnesty program may be subject to a negligence penalty. Click here for additional information on Alabama's amnesty program. Colorado: New law (SB 36) amends the surety requirements when a taxpayer appeals an adverse decision of the district court. Generally, if a taxpayer seeks review of an adverse district court ruling no later than 15 days after the ruling, the taxpayer must: (1) file with the district court a surety bond in twice the amount of the taxes, interest, and other charges stated as due in the district court ruling, which are contested on appeal; (2) deposit in a savings account or deposit account held in, or purchase a certificate of deposit issued by, a state or national bank or by a state or federal savings and loan association (bank deposit), an amount equal to twice the amount of the taxes, interest, and other charges stated in the district court ruling; or (3) deposit the amount stated as due in the district court ruling with the Colorado Department of Revenue executive director (executive director deposit). Collection of the judgment is stayed during the pendency of the action. In addition, no further interest accrues on the amount deposited during the pendency of the action if the taxpayer deposits the amount stated as due in the district court ruling with the executive director. At the conclusion of the legal action and after the case has either been appealed or the time for such an appeal has expired, the amount deposited will automatically go to the state or be returned to the taxpayer. In cases of taxpayers appealing a final determination of the executive director, the new law repeals the surety bond, bank deposit, and executive director deposit requirements for all appeals except those arising from frivolous submissions. The new law takes effect Aug. 10, 2016. Col. Laws 2016, SB 36, signed by the governor on June 10, 2016. Louisiana: New law (HB 756) requires electronic filing of all schedules and invoices when a sales tax overpayment refund claim is $25,000 or more, or if the claim for a refund of an overpayment is made by a tax preparer on behalf of the taxpayer, regardless of the refund claim amount. However, the Revenue Secretary may exempt any taxpayer required to electronically file a schedule or invoice if the taxpayer can prove that the electronic filing would create an undue hardship. These provisions do not apply to the Louisiana Tax Free Shopping Program, or to cases of a bad debt. Provisions of the bill apply to taxable years beginning on and after Jan. 1, 2016. La. Laws 2016, Act 446 (HB 756), signed by the governor on June 9, 2016. All States: Ernst & Young LLP's (EY) "Domestic tax quarterly webcast: a focus on state tax matters" highlighted and provided insight on some of the most important developments in state and local tax law, including the state tax implications of the proposed IRC §385 debt-equity regulations issued by the US Department of Treasury, significant Congressional changes to the federal partnership audit rules, an overview of Puerto Rico's sales and use tax system following the repeal of the value added tax (VAT), state tax ballot initiatives to watch, challenges to state tax nexus provisions, and legislative, judicial and administrative developments from across the country. Replays of the webcast will be available on EY's Thought Center website within the next few weeks. The full summary is available in Tax Alert 2016-1074. Vermont: New law (HB 868) directs the Joint Fiscal Office, with assistance from the Office of Legislative Council, to conduct a comprehensive tax study. The study is due Jan. 15, 2017, and will: (1) analyze historical tax trends since 2005 in Vermont taxes as compared to other states, and compare the percentage of Vermont revenue from each state-level source to the percentage of revenue from each state-level source in other states; (2) analyze state tax levels per capita, per income level, or by incidence on typical Vermont families of a variety of incomes, and on typical Vermont business enterprises of a variety of sizes and types, and analyze trends in the taxpayer revenue base; and (3) analyze cross-border tax policies and competitiveness with neighboring states, including the impacts on the pattern of retailing, the location of retail activity and retail market share, impacts of retails sales tax rates and other related excise taxes, and the impact by business size, to the extent the data is available. Vt. Laws 2016, Act 157 (HB 868), signed by the governor on June 2, 2016. * 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: 2016-1172 |
