Starting the new year off with legislation aimed directly at the pockets of corporate taxpayers, New York has issued a legislative proposal to nearly cut in half corporate taxpayersā available GILTI exemptions, and at the same time almost double the top corporate franchise tax rate. Senate Bill 953 (āSB953ā), pre-filed in the state senate on January 8, 2025, has the potential to significantly increase New York franchise tax exposure for corporations doing business in the…
State legislators have already proposed a number of digital and data tax bills in 2021, some of which are new proposals while others reintroduce proposals from previous legislative sessions.Ā The proposed bills fall into one of three categories: taxes on digital advertising services, taxes (or fees) targeting social media providers, and taxes on the sale or monetization of personal data. Ā Most of the proposals are in the early stages, but a Maryland bill originally introduced last year is moving closer to a legislative vote on whether to override the governorās veto.
Washington legislators may introduce a digital advertising tax bill in the stateās upcoming legislative session.Ā See H-0028.1 (advance copy; not yet introduced).Ā Washingtonās potential legislation is the latest in a recent trend of digital advertising tax proposals (including in the District of Columbia, Maryland, Nebraska, New York, and West Virginia, none of which have become law as of the date of this blog post).
On July 21, the Washington Department of Revenue (āDORā) issued its analysis of the Court of Appealsā decision from March 30, 2020, in LendingTree, LLC v. Depāt of Revenue, no. 80637-8-I (Wash. App. Ct. Mar. 30, 2020). Ā As set forth in the analysis, from the DORās perspective, the LendingTree court followed the existing Washington Business and Occupation tax (āB&Oā) attribution rules and guidance and did not create a new interpretive legal framework.[1]Ā Although the DOR lost the case, and the court held that LendingTreeās receipts could not be sourced based where its customersā customers were located, the DORās response suggests that they are factually distinguishing the case and will continue to attribute receipts to the customerās customer location if that is where it determines the benefit of the services occurs.