United States: SALT Outlook, Trends And Predictions For 2015

This 2015 SALT Outlook, Trends and Predictions alert focuses on how Grant Thornton thought 2014 would unfold from a SALT perspective, how these predictions lined up with what actually happened, and ten new predictions on critical SALT issues that may come to the fore this year.

In considering the current state of the states, the results of the November 2014 state elections are a good place to start. Republicans made significant strides in gaining control in more state legislative and executive branches, now controlling 30 state legislatures, and 31 governorships.1 Many people were surprised that voters in Illinois, Maryland and Massachusetts, three "blue" states with predominantly Democratic legislatures, all elected Republican governors. Perhaps voters in these states thought that electing a governor from the opposite party would counterbalance state control, or that a strong anti-incumbent tide (both from a national and local perspective) helped the perceived "underdog" candidates. Likewise, the promises by many Republican candidates that taxes could be cut at the state level may have had something to do with their relative success. Whatever the root cause, the topic of lowering state income tax rates will be broached in many states, and very well could be the overarching state tax issue that captures the imagination of the popular press this year.

So far in 2015, the experience of what happens when lower state income taxes stress the budget to dramatic proportions is being felt in a few locales, but most prominently in one "red" state and one "blue" state. Kansas and Illinois are two instructive examples of states in current fiscal distress, in part caused by state tax rate cuts, and will require their governors to make tough choices in 2015.

In Kansas, a "red" state, Governor Sam Brownback supported legislation furthering the long-term goal of the state to fundamentally alter the tax structure by drastically reducing income tax rates. This legislation resulted in substantial reductions in the state's individual income tax from 6.45 percent to 3.9 percent (when the full phase-in of the reductions are complete in 2018), as well as targeted tax relief to businesses.2 The tax rate reductions were promoted as a method by which the state's economy would grow more quickly.

Unfortunately, early indications appear that the tax rate reductions have not inspired the expected economic growth, resulting in a several hundred million dollar shortfall. In fact, the Governor was only narrowly re-elected in November in a state that is among the "reddest" in the nation. Based on the Governor's comments during his recent State of the State address, however, the push for a zero income tax rate will continue.3 It remains to be seen whether the legislature will follow that path, or take a more fiscally conservative approach.

In Illinois, a "blue" state, the numbers in play are much larger than in Kansas, and many of the ingredients needed for a financial disaster are now in place. The current situation is neatly described in a newly released report by the Fiscal Futures Project based at the University of Illinois.4 The report notes that the "the root of Illinois' problems is state government's long-established practice of pay-later budgeting," and covering the current difference between revenues and expenses in accounting maneuvers such as fund-shifting techniques, special fund borrowing and supplemental spending taken on after the budget process. In addition, many bills for services provided to the state remain unpaid, and unfunded pension liabilities continue to grow. In the report, the difficult fiscal conditions faced by the state are highlighted, and include a sharp decline in tax revenue that will result from a 1.75 percent decrease in the corporation and personal income tax rates in 2015,5 increasing pension liabilities, and the threat of lower bond ratings and higher borrowing costs. The report finds that increasing the income tax rates by 1.75 percent by itself would only reduce the deficit faced by the state in half. Other revenue options that could be considered to fully eliminate the deficit include increases in the sales tax rate and/or sales tax base, adoption of a more progressive income tax system, elimination of deductions or preferences in the corporate and personal income tax regimes, or adoption of a gross receipts tax or statewide property taxes on business. Alternatively, or perhaps in concert with revenue enhancements, spending would need to be cut at a substantial level to preserve fiscal stability. None of these options are especially palatable to incoming Governor Bruce Rauner, who has not yet clarified how the huge projected budget gap will be bridged.

2014 Predictions – A Review

  • Continued contrast between the "red" and "blue" states on income tax rates.We predicted that while most states would keep income tax rates constant in 2014: (a) at least three "red" states would make broad reductions to corporate or personal income tax rates; and (b) at least three "blue" states would make targeted increases to corporate or personal income tax rates applicable to high-income residents as part of an overall effort to provide tax relief to middle-class residents. For the most part, this prediction did not come to pass. While several "red" states enacted relatively minor tax rate reductions in 2014, the story of the year relative to the division between "red" state and "blue" state policies was something different than we envisioned. Instead of a comparison of "red" state tax reductions and "blue" state tax increases, the tax reform efforts in a few of the "blue" states, including New York, Rhode Island and the District of Columbia carried more significance.
  • The Compact three-factor election: six decisions, and no consensus. On the legislative side, we thought that four more states would modify or sever their relationship with the Compact; and on the judicial side, the California, Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon and Texas courts would come to vastly different conclusions on the applicability of the Compact, creating an inconsistent multistate jurisprudence. Our prediction on the legislative side did not verify, as the only state that broke away from the Compact in 2014 was Michigan.6 As for the judicial side, our prediction technically verified to the extent that the IBM7 court in Michigan differed from Texas' continued rejection of the election, evidencing a continued lack of consensus on the issue.8 However, the failure of California and Oregon to render decisions in 2014 in the Gillette9 and Health Net10 decisions, respectively, made this prediction somewhat inconclusive.
  • Recommendations from Hearing Officer noted, but largely not followed.We predicted that where the Hearing Officer's report and the Multistate Tax Commission's model of the Multistate Tax Compact diverged, the Commission's model would largely stay unchanged, particularly in the areas of: (a) market-based sourcing of services; and (b) alternative apportionment. This prediction generally verified, at least with respect to market-based sourcing, as the Commission finalized its own version of market-based sourcing in the summer of 2014.11 A second round of amendments by the Commission to the Compact have addressed some (but not all) of the Hearing Officer's concerns in the area of alternative apportionment.12
  • Continued reliance on incentives to create and maintain jobs.Given the popularity and omnipresence of incentive deals, we had envisioned that two states would call special sessions to provide targeted tax incentive relief for one or a very small number of businesses in those states. The Nevada legislature called a special session to approve Tesla Motors' investment into the state, as well as approval for incentives to other companies.13 Other states provided targeted incentives to particular companies during regular legislative sessions, but the handful of states that called for special legislative sessions did not utilize them for this purpose.
  • From recommendations to enactment: the DC Tax Revision Commission recommendations.We predicted that the District of Columbia City Council would follow several of the material recommendations of the Commission, and act to: (a) implement a single sales factor for purposes of apportionment; (b) impose the $25 per person "head" tax on District employees, with significant exemptions; and (c) increase the sales tax rate from 5.75 percent to 6 percent, with a modest expansion of the sales tax base. Ultimately, the City Council passed tax reform legislation which implemented single sales factor apportionment, and a modest expansion of the sales tax base to cover certain industry-specific services.14 The tax reform legislation did not impose the "head" tax or increase the sales tax rate.
  • Significant change finally comes to New York as well. We predicted as part of the 2014 budget deal that: (a) real property tax increases would be stabilized; and (b) the banking (Article 32) and business (Article 9-A) corporation franchise taxes would be merged at long last. This prediction verified, as the New York tax reform occurred, and included a property tax freeze that is intended to stabilize real property tax assessment levels.15 In addition, the Article 32 tax was merged into Article 9-A for tax years beginning on and after January 1, 2015.16
  • Independent tax tribunals progress.We thought that Alabama and one other state would adopt independent tax tribunals. While we correctly identified Alabama as a state that adopted an independent tax tribunal in 2014,17 no other state joined this growing movement last year.
  • Individual taxes: residency audits.We predicted that at least two high-profile New York or California residency audits in which the resident moved (or purported to move) outside the state would be published by regulatory agencies or the courts. This prediction verified, with several high-profile personal income tax decisions in New York alone, including the Gaied18 and Noto19 cases relating to residency matters.
  • Efforts to broaden the sales tax base to additional services are not going away.We thought that at least five states would attempt, and at least two states would enact statutes expanding the sales tax base to at least one additional service industry. While the District of Columbia (not a state, to be sure, but a material jurisdiction to many) expanded the sales tax base,20 and North Carolina adopted a sales tax on certain service contracts,21 efforts to create sales taxes on new service industries never gained traction in 2014.
  • Nevada initiative to pass a "margin" tax will fail.Finally, in predicting the result of a state initiative on the ballot in 2014, we had thought that Nevadans would reject the creation of the margin tax in a close vote. While our assessment that the Nevada tax would not be adopted was correct, we did not expect the margin tax to fail by such a wide margin.22

To read this Alert in full, please click here.

Footnotes

1. 2014 State and Legislative Partisan Composition (Post-Election), National Conference of State Legislatures, Dec. 2, 2014.

2. KAN. STAT. ANN. §§ 79-32,110(a); 79-32,117(c)(xx).

3. State of the State Address, Kansas Governor Sam Brownback, Jan. 15, 2015.

4. Richard Dye, Nancy Hudspeth and Andrew Crosby, "Apocalypse Now? The Consequences of Pay-Later Budgeting in Illinois: Updated Projections from IGPA's Fiscal Futures Model," Institute of Government and Public Affairs at the University of Illinois, Fiscal Futures Project, Jan. 19, 2015 (http://igpa.uillinois.edu/fiscalfutures).

5. Id.

6. Act 282 (S.B. 156), Laws 2014. For a discussion of this legislation, see GT SALT Alert: Michigan Enacts Legislation Designed to Eliminate Multistate Tax Compact Apportionment Election Refunds Allowed by IBM Case.

7. International Business Machines Corp. v. Department of Treasury, 852 N.W.2d 865 (Mich. 2014), motion for rehearing denied, 852 N.W.2d 865 (Mich. 2014). For a discussion of this case, see GT SALT Alert: Michigan Supreme Court Allows Multistate Tax Compact Three-Factor Apportionment Election for 2008 MBT Return.

8. Graphic Packaging Co. v. Combs, Travis County, Texas District Court, Cause No. D-1-GN-12-003038. On January 15, 2014, the district court denied the taxpayer's three-factor apportionment election claim by granting the Comptroller's motion for partial summary judgment. This case is being considered by the Texas Third Court of Appeals, Case No. 03-14-00197-CV.

9. Gillette Co. v. Franchise Tax Board, California Supreme Court, No. S206587.

10. Health Net Inc. v. Department of Revenue, Oregon Tax Court, Case. No. 120649D.

11. Multistate Tax Commission's Annual Conference, July 28-31, 2014. For additional information, see the Commission's Web site at http://www.mtc.gov. A discussion of these changes is provided in GT SALT Alert: Multistate Tax Commissioner Finalizes Compact Provision Amendments.

12. Proposed Multistate Tax Compact Art. IV.18(c), (d), (e). 5 Id.

13. Ch. 1 (A.B. 3), Ch. 2 (A.B. 2), and Ch. 3 (A.B. 1) (28th Special Session, Laws 2014).

14. Act 20-424 (D.C.B. 20-750), Laws 2014.

15. Ch. 59 (A.B. 8559 / S.B. 6359), Laws 2014. For a detailed discussion of this legislation, see GT SALT Alert: New York Enacts FY14-15 Budget Legislation Providing Extensive Tax Reform.

16. Ch. 59 (A.B. 8559 / S.B. 6359), Part A, § 1.

17. Act 146 (H.B. 105), Laws 2014. For a discussion of this legislation, see GT SALT Alert: Alabama Enacts Legislation to Create Independent Tax Tribunal.

18. Gaied v. New York State Tax Appeals Tribunal, 6 N.E.3d 1113 (N.Y. 2014).

19. Noto v. New York State Department of Taxation and Finance, New York Supreme Court, Suffolk County, No. 03392/2010, March 3, 2014.

20. D.C. CODE ANN. § 47-1810.04(n)(1)(V)-(AA).

21. N. C. GEN. STAT. § 105-164.4I.

22. State Question No. 3, Nevada General Election, Nov. 4, 2014. This proposal was rejected by more than 78 percent of the voters.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions