25 September 2018 State and Local Tax Weekly for September 14 Ernst & Young's State and Local Tax Weekly newsletter for September 14 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 21, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court (the Court) issued its decision in South Dakota v. Wayfair,1 in which the Court overturned both its prior rulings in Quill2 and National Bellas Hess,3 finding that the physical presence nexus standard articulated in the two earlier opinions "is [an] unsound and incorrect" interpretation of the Court's dormant Commerce Clause jurisprudence. (See Tax Alert 2018-1269). In the wake of the Court's decision, a number of states have issued guidance as to the impact of this historic ruling on their sales and use tax laws, including application of existing economic nexus standards. In addition to legislative and administrative activity around Wayfair in the states, some members of Congress have also proposed federal legislation directed at uniformity. Below is a summary of this recent state and federal activity. "HR 6842" (Online Sales Simplicity and Small Business Relief Act of 2018) introduced by Rep. Sensenbrenner (R-WI) in response to Wayfair would, if enacted, prohibit states from retroactively imposing sales tax collection requirements on remote sellers and would establish a small business exception. Under the bill, a state would not be able to require remote sellers to collect and remit sales tax for any sale that occurred before June 21, 2018, but would be allowed to impose such collection duty on a remote seller for sales occurring after Jan. 1, 2019. Small business remote sellers (e.g., a remote seller with not more than $10 million in gross annual receipts in the US in the preceding calendar year) would be exempt from collection duties until 30 days after the states develop, and Congress approves, an interstate compact governing tax collection duties on remote sellers. The compact would need to provide for a clearly defined minimum substantial nexus standard and would need to simplify registration, collection, remittance, auditing, and other compliance processes to avoid undue burdens on interstate commerce. HR 6842 was introduced on Sept. 13, 2018. Public Act 100-587 signed into law June 4, 2018, establishes an economic nexus standard for remote sellers without a physical presence in Illinois. The Illinois Department of Revenue (Department) issued Bulletin FY 2019-05 (Aug. 2018) and emergency regulation 86 Ill. Admin. Code 150.803 "Wayfair Nexus — Nexus Without Physical Presence"4 to assist taxpayers in complying with the new nexus standard. The Department will begin enforcing Illinois' Wayfair nexus standard beginning October 1, 2018; thus, prior to that date, a remote seller must have a physical presence in Illinois in order for it to be required to collect and remit the state's use tax. Beginning Oct. 1, 2018, remote sellers selling tangible personal property to Illinois purchasers will be required to register with the Department and collect and remit use tax if in the preceding 12-month period the remote retailer either: (1) had $100,000 or more in gross receipts from such sales; or (2) entered into 200 or more separate sales transactions. For more on this development, see Tax Alert 2018-1804. A lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Indiana's sales and use tax economic nexus provisions has been settled.5 Thus, remote sellers that meet the state's economic nexus threshold (i.e., gross revenue from sales into Indiana exceeding $100,000 or 200 or more separate transactions into Indiana) will need to start collecting and remitting tax beginning Oct. 1, 2018. As part of the settlement agreement, the Indiana Department of Revenue agreed not to retroactively assert liability against remote retailers. Click here for more information on Indiana's remote seller provisions. The Oklahoma Tax Commission issued a press release to remind remote sellers that under legislation enacted in 2018, they are required to collect and remit the state's sales and use tax if they sold at least $10,000 worth of taxable merchandise in Oklahoma during the previous 12 months. This provision took effect July 1, 2018. New law (SB 1) automatically dissolves and lifts the injunction prohibiting the state from imposing sales tax collection and remittance requirements on remote retailers beginning Nov. 1, 2018. Further, the bill prohibits the state from imposing such collection and remittance requirements before Nov. 1, 2018. A second bill (SB 2) requires marketplace providers to collect and remit sales tax on sales of tangible personal property, products transferred electronically, or services for delivery into South Dakota that the marketplace provider makes or facilitates on behalf of a marketplace seller. This requirement applies if the marketplace provider: (1) is a seller subject to, and facilitates the sale of at least one marketplace seller that is subject to, sales and use tax collection and remittance requirements under the state's economic nexus provisions; (2) facilitates the sales of two or more marketplace sellers that, when the sales are combined, meet the state's economic nexus threshold, even if the marketplace sellers themselves do not meet the thresholds. This requirement applies to sales made on or after March 1, 2019. S.D. Laws 2018 (1st Special Sess.), SB 1 and SB 2, enacted Sept. 12, 2018. The Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts released proposed amendments to Rule §3.286 that would revise the definition of "engaged in business" to include an economic nexus threshold for remote sellers. The expanded definition of "engaged in business" would include a remote seller that: (1) engages in regular or systematic solicitation of sale of taxable items in Texas by the distribution of catalogs, periodicals, advertising flyers, or other advertising, by means of print, radio, or TV, or by mail, telegraphy, telephone, computer data base, cable, optic, microwave, or other communication system for purposes of effecting sales in the state; or (2) soliciting orders for taxable items by mail or through other media including the internet (or system developed in the future). Collection and remittance requirements would not apply to remote sellers that have less than $500,000 in total revenue in the preceding 12 months. Remote retailers would not be required to collect and remit tax until Oct. 1, 2019. The Wisconsin Department of Revenue adopted an emergency rule (EmR1819, Tax 11.97) (and proposed a permanent rule) establishing an economic nexus threshold. The threshold is consistent with South Dakota's standard: (1) the seller's gross revenue from delivery of such goods into Wisconsin exceeded $100,000; or (2) the seller sold such goods for delivery into Wisconsin in 200 or more separate transactions. This provision applies starting Oct. 1, 2018. Click here for more on Wisconsin's sales and use tax nexus rules. See Tax Alert 2018-1468 and Tax Alert 2018-1623 for summaries of previously reported state responses. Maine: New law (LD 1655) updates Maine's date of conformity to the Internal Revenue Code (IRC), responds to various provisions of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (P.L. 115-97) (TCJA), and broadens the corporate income tax rate brackets. Maine's date of conformity to the IRC is updated to March 23, 2018 (from Dec. 31, 2016), applicable to tax years beginning on or after Jan. 1, 2017 and to any prior tax years as specifically provided by the IRC and its amendments as of March 23, 2018. Effective for tax years beginning on or after Jan. 1, 2017, corporate taxpayers must addback amounts deducted under IRC § 965(c) and subtract from federal taxable income (FTI) 80% of the apportionable deferred foreign income that the taxpayer included in federal gross income during the taxable year under IRC § 965(a) as adjusted by IRC § 965(b). In addition, corporate taxpayers may subtract 50% of the apportionable dividend income, net of related expenses and other related deductions in computing FTI which the taxpayer received during the taxable year from an affiliated corporation that is not included in the taxpayer's Maine combined report. Dividend income does not include subpart F income (as defined in IRC §952) or IRC §§951A (global intangible low-taxed income, or GILTI) or 965 (repatriation income) included in FTI. LD 1655 also provides a federal taxable income subtraction equal to 50% of the apportionable subpart F income under IRC §952, net of related expenses and other related deductions deducted in computing FTI that the corporation included in federal gross income during the taxpayer's taxable year. Amounts subtracted from FTI under these provisions are excluded from the sales factor of the Maine apportionment formula. For tax years beginning on or after Jan. 1, 2018, taxpayers are required to addback the deduction claimed for GILTI under IRC §250(a)(1)(B), and subtract from FTI 50% of the apportionable GILTI included in federal gross income under IRC § 951A, net of related expenses and other related deductions in computing FTI. Amounts included in the sales factor of the Maine apportionment formula equals 50% of the amount included in federal gross income. Effective for tax years beginning on or after Jan. 1, 2018, the bill makes the following changes: (1) requires estates and trusts to addback to the fiduciary adjustment the amount of the qualified business income deduction under IRC §199A; (2) requires taxpayers to subtract from federal adjusted gross income (AGI) an amount equal to the net operating loss (NOL) carryforward deduction disallowed under the NOL limit set in IRC § 172(a)(2) (which caps NOLs at 80% of taxable income), to the extent that Maine taxable income is not reduced below zero and the amount has not been previously used as a federal AGI modification; (3) requires taxpayers to addback an amount equal to the NOL carryforward claimed as a deduction under IRC §172 in determining federal taxable income for the taxable year that it was previously allowed as a deduction; and (4) eliminates the state's corporate alternative minimum tax and the addback requirement for the IRC §199 domestic production activities deduction, which was repealed by the TCJA. For tax years beginning on or after Jan. 1, 2018, Maine keeps the corporate rates the same but adjusts the corporate income tax brackets: (1) for income not over $350,000 (from $25,000), the tax is 3.5% of income; (2) for $350,000 but not over $1.05 million (from $25,000 but not over $75,000), the tax is $12,250 (from $875) plus 7.93% of the excess over $350,000 (from $25,000); (3) for $1.05 million but not over $3.5 million (from $75,000 but not over $250,000), the tax is $67,760 (from $4,840) plus 8.33% of the excess over $1.05 million (from $75,000); and (4) for $3.5 million or more (from $250,000), the tax is $271,845 (from $19,418) plus 8.93% of the excess over $3.5 million (from $250,000). Lastly, LD 1655 makes various changes to the Maine individual income tax, including standard and itemized deductions, personal exemptions, sales and property tax fairness credits, all of which will be adjusted for inflation. Me. Laws 2018, Ch. 474 (LD 1655), became law without the governor's signature on Sept. 12, 2018. Maine: An individual Maine resident that is a member of a New Hampshire limited liability company (LLC) is not entitled to a Maine income tax credit for any part of New Hampshire business taxes imposed on the LLC, because Maine's credit does not extend to taxes on other states' business entities' income. Rather, Maine's credit is "only for income taxes paid by individuals on income derived from other states." The Maine Supreme Judicial Court (Court) also found that Maine's tax credit statute did not discriminate against interstate commerce or run afoul of Wynne6 since it permits a credit for the payment of individual income taxes to other states. The Court noted that "neither the [U.S.] Supreme Court nor we have held that an individual must receive credit for taxes imposed on a business entity formed in another state by the taxing authority of that state." Additionally, the Court held that the statute satisfies the internal consistency test when there would be no disproportionate taxation of out-of-state income if all states had Maine's tax statutes (including its statutes regarding pass-through entity taxation). Goggin v. Me. State Tax Assessor, 2018 ME 111 (Me. Sup. Jud .Ct. Aug. 2, 2018). Texas: A petrochemical company could not claim its former parent company's (Company A) business loss carryforward (BLC) for report years after which Company A was acquired by a different existing combined group. Under Texas law the BLC cannot be conveyed, assigned, or transferred, nor does it follow a member of a combined group when it is acquired and joins another existing combined group. The Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts further determined that the company's gross proceeds from the sale of securities were properly excluded from its apportionment factor because the company failed to prove that the gains and losses at issue were from securities treated as inventory for federal income tax purposes. Tex. Comp. of Pub. Accts., No. 201806022H (June 11, 2018). California: A telephone company is not entitled to a refund of sales and use taxes it paid in connection with its purchase and resale of telephone cables, conduit and poles because these items were not excluded from the definition of tangible personal property under Cal. Rev. and Taxn. Code § 6016.5. In reaching this conclusion, the California Court of Appeal relied on the statute's plain language, the tax department's longstanding interpretation of the statute and Chula Vista,7 finding that the exclusion from tangible personal property at issue applied to "telephone and telegraph lines, electrical transmission and distribution lines" that are presently part of a completed telecommunications structure, rather than purchases of such component parts used in the construction or repair of lines (such as the items at issue in this case). Verizon Services Corp. v. Cal. Dept. of Tax and Fee Admin., No. B282170 (Cal. App. Ct., 2d App. Dist. Div. 8, July 19, 2018) (Unpublished) Nebraska: The Nebraska Department of Revenue issued sales and use tax guidance for contractors who elect to operate under the state's Option 3 contractor sales tax classification rules (Option 3) and, as such, are the consumer of building materials and fixtures purchased and annexed to real estate. General requirements for Option 3 contractors include registering and electing Option 3 in the state's Contractor Registration Database, obtaining a sales tax permit and withholding tax certificate, collecting and remitting the state and local sales tax on over-the-counter sales and charges for taxable services, and withholding 5% of all payments made to other contractors and subcontractors not registered in the state database. Option 3 contractor labor charges are not taxable. Additionally, Option 3 contractors do not have to pay sales tax when they purchase building materials and fixtures, but they must remit use tax on the materials when removing them to be annexed to real property, and they must collect sales tax on retail sales of building materials and other property that is not annexed. They must pay sales tax on all items purchased, rented or leased for use in their construction projects. Topics addressed by the guidance include: electing a contractor option; labor charges; building materials and fixtures; tools, equipment, supplies and taxable services; barricades and other items rented or leased to contractors; billing other contractors or project owners; contracts with exempt entities; manufacturing machinery and equipment; landscaping; telecommunications services; service provider's and customer's sides of the demarcation point; other retail sales; and other general tax information. Neb. Dept. of Rev., Info. Guide: Nebraska Taxn. of Contractors Option 3 (Aug. 2018). Texas: A marketing consultant's suite of services involving call tracking and monitoring for car dealerships, home service businesses and healthcare providers are nontaxable consulting services, since any parts of the consultant's services that fall within the definition of taxable data processing services were performed to facilitate the consulting services. Tex. Comp. of Pub. Accts., No. 201806033L (June 28, 2018). Virginia: An outpatient surgery center's bulk purchases of stents are not exempt from sales and use tax as prosthetic devices purchased on an individual's behalf or as hemodialysis equipment and supplies when the purchases did not meet exemption requirements. The center's bulk purchases of stents for the entirety of its medical practice did not qualify for the durable medical equipment exemption, since the exemption provision requires that these devices be purchased for a specific individual. Additionally, although the center's purchase of stents for hemodialysis treatment would generally qualify for the hemodialysis exemption, the entity's bulk purchases of the stents for procedures both related and not related to hemodialysis, without an accounting method to distinguish between the stents' uses, disqualified the stents from the hemodialysis equipment exemption. Va. Dept. of Taxn., PD 18-124 (June 26, 2018). Wisconsin: A service company's charges for providing contract cleaning services, including washing soiled clothing and linen items, to healthcare facilities are subject to the state's sales tax because the primary purpose of the company's contracts is to provide laundry services to clients, rather than provide a laundry department's managerial or administrative functions. In reaching this conclusion, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals (Court) distinguished this case from Manpower,8 finding that the company's laundry services were not analogous to "temporary help services" provided in Manpower when the company contracted to provide laundry-related personnel and supplies to clean clients' laundry for contractually defined periods such that the clients could avoid performing laundry services themselves. Further, Manpower's five factors that weigh against imposing tax on "temporary help services" did not apply in this case, because the company: (1) provides its own employees to clean clients' dirty laundry under the supervision of company-employed managers; (2) employees perform only laundry services (rather than various tasks the company was unaware of); (3) did not argue that unreasonable recordkeeping requirements may be imposed; (4) through its account managers has day-to-day authority over its employees at client facilities; and (5) guarantees that its clients' laundry will be cleaned. Healthcare Services Group, Inc. v. Wis. Dept. of Rev., No. 2017AP567 (Wis. App. Ct. July 17, 2018). California: New law (AB 1900) extends until Jan. 1, 2024 (from Jan. 1, 2019) the authorization for counties and/or cities to establish a capital investment incentive program (CIIP), and provides that such a program established before Jan. 1, 2024 can remain in effect for its full term, regardless of the repeal of the enacting chapter. Under the CIIP, upon the request of a proponent of a manufacturing facility (manufacturing proponent), a city and/or county can pay to the manufacturing proponent a capital investment incentive amount (rebate) that does not exceed the amount of property tax from that portion of the assessed value of a qualified manufacturing facility that exceeds $150 million, for up to 15 years. Cal. Laws 2018, Ch. 382 (AB 1900), signed by the governor on Sept. 14, 2018. Wyoming: An assessor was not required to use 2015 purchase transaction information provided by two coal bed methane corporations (corporations, C1 and C2) in valuing wellhead and other gas production equipment (C1's property) without sufficient price documentation or support for the valuation method, but was required to use the transactions in valuing gathering system equipment (C2's property) when C2 provided its equipment prices paid in an arm's length, open market sale. In reaching these conclusions, the Wyoming State Board of Equalization (State Board) partially affirmed the Johnson County Board of Equalization (County Board) that in regards to C1's property, the assessor lacked sufficient documentation and information to see how C1 derived equipment costs, and C1's 7% allocation method applied to its personal property was contrary to accepted appraisal practice. However, in reversing the County Board's C2 property valuation, the State Board found that Thunder Basin9 and the 2016 Personal Property Valuation Manual required the assessor to use the 2015 purchase transactions to the extent possible as a data point in applying the cost valuation method. In re Appeal of Carbon Creek Energy, LLC, and Powder River Midstream, LLC, No. 2017-50 (Wyo. State Bd. of Equal. Aug. 8, 2018). North Carolina: The North Carolina Department of Revenue issued guidance on the state's conformity to the IRC §965 repatriation provisions and how taxpayers should report such amounts on their 2017 North Carolina tax returns. Filing guidance is provided for individuals, partnerships, C corporations, S corporations, limited liability companies, and fiduciaries (e.g., estates and trusts). For example, for purposes of filing a C corporation return, IRC §965 net income is not included in federal taxable income (FTI) as reported on Form CD-405, Schedule B, Line 10, a C corporation is not required to report IRC §965(a) income or any IRC §965(c) deduction separately as North Carolina adjustments to FTI on Form CD-405, Schedule H. For North Carolina purposes, taxpayers cannot elect to defer additional tax due. For partnerships, IRC §965(a) income is included in a partner's distributive share of income as reported on Form D-403, Part 1, Line 1 and as such a partnership is not required to separately report on Form D-403 IRC §965(a) income. Rather, IRC §965(a) income flows-through to individual partners on Form D-403 NC K-1. Taxpayers who have already filed their 2017 returns and whose FTI or federal adjusted gross income is impacted by the amendments to IRC §965 must file an amended North Carolina return. N.C. Dept. of Rev., Important Notice: IRC §965 Repatriation Guidance(Aug. 21, 2018). Alabama: Reminder, the Alabama tax amnesty program will end Sept. 30, 2018. Through the program, certain taxpayers for eligible tax types may voluntarily file and pay delinquent taxes to the Alabama Department of Revenue in exchange for a waiver of all interest and penalties and a three-year (36-month) look-back period of tax liability. Amnesty applies to eligible taxes due before, or tax periods that began before, Jan. 1, 2017. For additional information on this development, see Tax Alert 2018-1334. Wisconsin: The Wisconsin Department of Revenue (Department) updated a publication providing procedures for appealing audit adjustments of income, franchise, sales and use, withholding, and excise tax returns and certain credit claims. After receiving an audit notice, taxpayers have 60 days to appeal. They can appeal changes to their tax return or credit claim, the estimated tax amount due, late filing fees, negligence penalties, and underpayment interest, but cannot appeal regular or delinquent interest, refunds applied to other debts, and collection fees. The publication provides information on how to write an appeal, where to send it, what happens during an appeal, how to specify a power of attorney, how to file a refund claim, how to pay when tax is due (either by paying the part of the amount due that the taxpayer agrees is correct or by submitting an appeal deposit to mitigate or eliminate interest accrual while the appeal is reviewed), and how to request a payment plan if necessary. Taxpayers will be provided additional appellate information if their appeal is denied by the Department. Wis. Dept. of Rev., Tax Pub. 506: Taxpayers' Appeal Rights of Audit Adjustments (Aug. 2018) (information in now discontinued Pub. 505 "Taxpayers' Appeal Rights of Office Audit Adjustments" has been incorporated into Pub. 506). New Jersey: Recently, the New Jersey Department of Labor & Workforce Development (DOLWD) announced that it has entered into a memorandum of understanding with the US Department of Labor (US DOL) to share information and coordinate enforcement efforts as they pertain to an employer incorrectly treating employees as independent contractors. New Jersey is now one of 44 states that have agreed to share worker misclassification information with US DOL. For more on this development, see Tax Alert 2018-1794. Texas: The San Antonio, Texas city council recently passed an ordinance (2018-08-16-0620) modifying City Code, Chapter 15 (Health) such that, effective August 1, 2019, employers of more than five employees operating in the city will be required to provide paid sick leave to their employees. Employers with five or fewer employees will have a delayed effective date of Aug. 1, 2021. San Antonio Mayor Ron Nirenberg is expected to approve the ordinance. As we previously reported, earlier this year the Austin, Texas city council also passed a paid sick leave ordinance that, effective Oct. 1, 2018, would require employers operating in the city to provide paid sick leave to their employees. However, business organizations, joined by the Texas attorney general, have filed a lawsuit against the ordinance; and on Aug. 17, 2018, the Texas Third Court of Appeals temporarily stayed the ordinance's effective date until the court makes a decision on the lawsuit. For more on this development, see Tax Alert 2018-1805. Washington: Washington employers are reminded that employee/employer premiums to fund a new disability insurance program that will provide employees with paid family and medical leave begin Jan. 1, 2019. As we reported previously, 2017 SB 5975 creates a disability insurance program administered by the Washington Employment Security Department that will provide for paid family and medical leave, funded by employee payroll tax deductions and employer contributions. Washington joins California, District of Columbia, New Jersey, New York and Rhode Island as states that have enacted paid family and medical leave programs. For more on this development, see Tax Alert 2018-1806. Massachusetts: The Massachusetts Department of Revenue issued guidance on the application of Dental Service of Massachusetts, Inc.,10 stating that preferred provider arrangements (PPAs) can exclude from the premiums excise those premiums paid by Massachusetts-based employers to cover individuals who live outside Massachusetts. In Dental Service, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court concluded that "covered person" refers only to the natural person receiving health care coverage under a policy, including that individual's spouse and additional dependents, rather than the employer organization with whom the PPA contracts. All PPAs that receive premiums to cover Massachusetts residents must file a Massachusetts Premiums Excise Return and include the premiums when calculating the excise, regardless of where the PPA is located or the location of the employer that contracted with the PPA. Mass. Dept. of Rev., TIR 18-7: Dental Service of Mass., Inc. v. Comr. — Premiums Subject to the Preferred Provider Excise (Sept. 10, 2018). Federal: A replay of the Ernst & Young LLP webcast on state information reporting and withholding is now available. With regulators focusing more intently on closing revenue gaps and developing increasingly complex requirements for state information reporting and withholding, businesses must make certain they understand and adequately address their reporting and withholding obligations. For many organizations, internal resources and technology are unable to keep pace with the intricacies of these requirements, placing their organizations at risk for audits that could result in costly penalties and exposure. Topics discussed during the webcast, include: (1) the complexity and variety of state reporting and withholding requirements; (2) how technology and data security factor into the development of an adequate information reporting strategy; (3) audit risks and considerations; and (4) leading practices. Click here to access the replay of this event. Multistate: A replay of the Ernst & Young LLP state tax quarterly webcast is now available. On this webcast, EY panelists discussed the following topics: (1) State tax policy issues, including an overview of the upcoming November 2018 federal, state and local elections, including the many ballot initiatives around the country; (2) States' legislative and administrative responses to the TCJA; (3) State and federal responses to the U.S. Supreme Court's historic Wayfair decision; and (4) An update covering major legislative, judicial and administrative developments at the state level. Click here to access the replay. Multistate: On Thursday, Oct. 4, 2018, from 1:00-2:15 p.m. EDT (10:00-11:15 a.m. PDT) Ernst & Young LLP (EY) will host a webcast discussing current developments in state and local tax controversy, featuring a guest panelist from the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts. As states audit taxpayers for issues related to nexus, taxability, sourcing, and other matters, it is essential to know the latest trends and developments in how states are executing policy initiatives, which may not be published. Leaders from EY state and local tax practice will provide a look at audit issues from around the country in this webcast series aimed at state and local tax controversy. On this webcast, Ray Langenberg, Special Counsel for Tax Litigation, Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts will sit down with EY's Karen Currie and Jamie Bowden to provide his first-hand perspective on current issues in Texas. In addition, EY panelists will discuss the income and sales tax impact of Wayfair, and the most recent judicial, legislative and administrative developments in northeastern states with a focus on transfer pricing trends. To register for this event, go to Current developments in state and local tax controversy. 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. 4 The emergency regulation took effect September 11, 2018 and is effective for 150 days. The emergency regulation also will be issued as a proposed regulation and go through the formal rule making process. Document ID: 2018-1887 |
