<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title> &#187; State Tax Headlines</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.cchgroup.com/wordpress/index.php/category/tax-headlines/state-tax-headlines/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.cchgroup.com/wordpress</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 21 May 2013 20:45:25 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.4</generator>
<xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" />
		<item>
		<title>Virginia ~ Property Tax: Attorney General Resolves Issue Regarding Application of Payments of Delinquent Taxes</title>
		<link>http://www.cchgroup.com/wordpress/index.php/tax-headlines/state-tax-headlines/virginia-property-tax-attorney-general-resolves-issue-regarding-application-of-payments-of-delinquent-taxes/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=virginia-property-tax-attorney-general-resolves-issue-regarding-application-of-payments-of-delinquent-taxes</link>
		<comments>http://www.cchgroup.com/wordpress/index.php/tax-headlines/state-tax-headlines/virginia-property-tax-attorney-general-resolves-issue-regarding-application-of-payments-of-delinquent-taxes/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 May 2013 11:38:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Cch</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Corporate Solutions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[International]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State Tax Headlines]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.cchgroup.com/wordpress/?p=15667</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In regard to the application of payments of delinquent local real estate taxes when a locality has established special tax districts and/or community development authorities, and the taxes accrue at the same time as general real estate taxes, the Virginia &#8230; <a href="http://www.cchgroup.com/wordpress/index.php/tax-headlines/state-tax-headlines/virginia-property-tax-attorney-general-resolves-issue-regarding-application-of-payments-of-delinquent-taxes/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In regard to the application of payments of delinquent local real estate taxes when a locality has established special tax districts and/or community development authorities, and the taxes accrue at the same time as general real estate taxes, the Virginia attorney general has opined that, because the law does not distinguish between the source of taxing authority or provide for priority of liens based on delinquent payments of taxes, the treasurer should apply any payment first to the most delinquent assessed taxes and, secondly, ratably or pro-rata between the taxes when they have accrued at the same time.</p>
<p>Although the levies imposed by special districts and community development authorities were in addition to, and not in lieu of, the general real estate tax, which was for the general support of the government, they were taxes upon real estate that constituted first priority liens. The applicable statutory provision required that any payment of local levies received by the treasurer be credited first against the most delinquent local account. However, the provision did not provide further guidance for instances where there were numerous delinquent local accounts, all of which became delinquent at the same time. Therefore, the attorney general concluded that the treasurer should apply the payment ratably or pro-rata between the general real estate tax and the taxes for the special districts and/or the community development authorities.</p>
<p><em>Opinion No. 12-109, </em>Virginia Attorney General, May 17, 2013, <a id="link9">¶205-822</a></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.cchgroup.com/wordpress/index.php/tax-headlines/state-tax-headlines/virginia-property-tax-attorney-general-resolves-issue-regarding-application-of-payments-of-delinquent-taxes/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Michigan ~ Sales and Use Tax: Rules Amended to Conform to Current Law</title>
		<link>http://www.cchgroup.com/wordpress/index.php/tax-headlines/state-tax-headlines/michigan-sales-and-use-tax-rules-amended-to-conform-to-current-law/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=michigan-sales-and-use-tax-rules-amended-to-conform-to-current-law</link>
		<comments>http://www.cchgroup.com/wordpress/index.php/tax-headlines/state-tax-headlines/michigan-sales-and-use-tax-rules-amended-to-conform-to-current-law/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 May 2013 11:35:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Cch</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Corporate Solutions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[International]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State Tax Headlines]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.cchgroup.com/wordpress/?p=15661</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Michigan Department of Treasury has amended and repealed several sales and use tax rules in order to conform to current law. Sales tax licenses: R205.1 is amended to reflect that a sales tax license expires on September 30 of &#8230; <a href="http://www.cchgroup.com/wordpress/index.php/tax-headlines/state-tax-headlines/michigan-sales-and-use-tax-rules-amended-to-conform-to-current-law/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Michigan Department of Treasury has amended and repealed several sales and use tax rules in order to conform to current law.</p>
<p><em>Sales tax licenses:</em> R205.1 is amended to reflect that a sales tax license expires on September 30 of each year. Also, the amended rule advises that a person licensed to sell at retail is not automatically exempt from sales tax on its own purchases.</p>
<p><em>Consumer:</em> R205.8 is amended to clarify that a &#8221;consumer&#8221; includes a person acquiring, for consideration, tangible personal property through the mail or catalog or over the Internet. The term also includes (1) a person acquiring tangible personal property if engaged in the business of constructing, altering, repairing, or improving the real estate of others, and (2) a person who converts tangible personal property or services that were exempt to a use that is not exempt. A seller is deemed a consumer when one of the following occurs: (1) the seller removes goods from inventory for personal use or consumption or in the conduct of the seller’s business; or (2) the seller converts tangible personal property acquired for an exempt use to a nonexempt use.</p>
<p><em>Trade-in deduction:</em> R205.15 is amended to reflect that sellers of automotive parts must remit tax on the total sales price, including the value placed on the used part traded in and the part sold. No refund or reduction in tax is allowed based on any payment or credit given to a customer for a part traded in.</p>
<p><em>Returned goods:</em> R205.16 has been revised to state that if a seller provides a full refund or credit of the purchase price and tax on returned goods, the seller may claim a refund or credit of the tax paid to the department within four years of the date for the filing of the original return for the period in which the tax was due. In regards to a seller providing a partial refund or credit on returned goods, the seller’s claim for refund of the tax paid on that portion of the purchase price refunded must also be made within four years of the date for the filing of the original return for the period in which the tax was due. A refund or credit of tax will not be given on returned goods without proof that Michigan tax was paid on the original sale.</p>
<p><em>Use tax registration:</em> R205.26 is amended to reflect that the following activities are among those that require a use tax registration:</p>
<ul>
<li>a business within the state buying tangible personal property from nonregistered sellers;</li>
<li>a provider of interstate telecommunications services having nexus with the state; and</li>
<li>a provider of laundering or textile cleaning services under a sale, rental, or service agreement with a term of five days or more that has nexus with the state.</li>
</ul>
<p><em>Discounts:</em> R205.22 is amended to conform to the definition of &#8221;sales price&#8221; contained in the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax (SST) Agreement. A discount or rebate offered by the seller, with no reimbursement by a third party, reduces the sales price. However, a discount or rebate does not reduce the sales price when the following conditions are found:</p>
<ul>
<li>the seller receives consideration from a party other than the purchaser and the consideration is directly related to the price reduction;</li>
<li>the seller is obligated to pass the price reduction to the purchaser;</li>
<li>the amount of consideration attributable to the sale is fixed and determinable by the seller at the time of sale; and</li>
<li>the purchaser presents documentation to the seller claiming a price reduction granted by a third party with the understanding that the third party will reimburse the seller, or the purchaser identifies him/herself as a member of a group entitled to a reduction or discount, or the price reduction is identified as a third-party discount on the invoice received by the purchaser.</li>
</ul>
<p><em>Food for human consumption:</em> R205.136 is amended to include the definition of &#8221;prepared food&#8221; as found in the SST Agreement. Prepared food means (1) food sold in a heated state or that is heated by the seller; (2) two or more food ingredients mixed by the seller for sale as a single item; or (3) food sold with eating utensils provided by the seller.</p>
<p>The department has made technical changes to R205.20 (&#8220;General Application&#8221;) and R205.28 (&#8220;Use Tax included in gross proceeds&#8221;) and rescinded the following rules: R205.5 (&#8220;Tangible Personal Property&#8221;), R205.9 (&#8220;Sales for purposes of resale&#8221;), and R205.23 (&#8220;Records&#8221;).</p>
<p>R205.5, 205.9, 205.23, 205.1, 205.8, 205.15, 205.16, 205.20, 205.22, 205.26, 205.28, and 205.136, Michigan Department of Treasury, effective May 6, 2013</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.cchgroup.com/wordpress/index.php/tax-headlines/state-tax-headlines/michigan-sales-and-use-tax-rules-amended-to-conform-to-current-law/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Maryland ~ Personal Income Tax: Income Taxes Paid Out of State Allowed to Offset County Taxes; Enforcement Stayed</title>
		<link>http://www.cchgroup.com/wordpress/index.php/tax-headlines/state-tax-headlines/maryland-personal-income-tax-income-taxes-paid-out-of-state-allowed-to-offset-county-taxes-enforcement-stayed/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=maryland-personal-income-tax-income-taxes-paid-out-of-state-allowed-to-offset-county-taxes-enforcement-stayed</link>
		<comments>http://www.cchgroup.com/wordpress/index.php/tax-headlines/state-tax-headlines/maryland-personal-income-tax-income-taxes-paid-out-of-state-allowed-to-offset-county-taxes-enforcement-stayed/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 May 2013 11:16:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Cch</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Corporate Solutions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[International]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State Tax Headlines]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.cchgroup.com/wordpress/?p=15656</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Maryland Court of Appeals denied the Comptroller’s motion for reconsideration in Wynne v. Maryland Comptroller where the court found that the failure of the Maryland income tax law to allow a credit against the county tax for out-of-state income taxes &#8230; <a href="http://www.cchgroup.com/wordpress/index.php/tax-headlines/state-tax-headlines/maryland-personal-income-tax-income-taxes-paid-out-of-state-allowed-to-offset-county-taxes-enforcement-stayed/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Maryland Court of Appeals denied the Comptroller’s motion for reconsideration in <em>Wynne v. Maryland Comptroller</em> where the court found that the failure of the Maryland income tax law to allow a credit against the county tax for out-of-state income taxes paid to other states on pass-through income earned in those states discriminates against interstate commerce and violates the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution (<a id="link6">TAXDAY, 2013/01/31, S.13</a>). However, the court issued a stay on the effective date of the mandate pending the disposition of a timely petition for certiorari filed by the comptroller with the U.S. Supreme Court.</p>
<p><em>Maryland Comptroller v. Wynne, </em>Maryland Court of Appeals, No. 107, May 17, 2013, <a id="link10">¶201-977</a></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.cchgroup.com/wordpress/index.php/tax-headlines/state-tax-headlines/maryland-personal-income-tax-income-taxes-paid-out-of-state-allowed-to-offset-county-taxes-enforcement-stayed/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Texas ~ Sales and Use Tax: Refund Claim Regulation Provisions Invalid</title>
		<link>http://www.cchgroup.com/wordpress/index.php/tax-headlines/state-tax-headlines/texas-sales-and-use-tax-refund-claim-regulation-provisions-invalid/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=texas-sales-and-use-tax-refund-claim-regulation-provisions-invalid</link>
		<comments>http://www.cchgroup.com/wordpress/index.php/tax-headlines/state-tax-headlines/texas-sales-and-use-tax-refund-claim-regulation-provisions-invalid/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 May 2013 06:57:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Cch</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Corporate Solutions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[International]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State Tax Headlines]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.cchgroup.com/wordpress/?p=15635</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Certain provisions of the Texas regulation on sales tax refunds have been declared invalid and illegal by a Texas District Court because they impose additional burdens, conditions, and restrictions on tax refund claims in excess of specific provisions of the &#8230; <a href="http://www.cchgroup.com/wordpress/index.php/tax-headlines/state-tax-headlines/texas-sales-and-use-tax-refund-claim-regulation-provisions-invalid/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Certain provisions of the Texas regulation on sales tax refunds have been declared invalid and illegal by a Texas District Court because they impose additional burdens, conditions, and restrictions on tax refund claims in excess of specific provisions of the Texas sales tax refund statute (§111.104). In particular, the prior version of 34 Tex. Admin. Code §3.325(a)(4) (refund request requirements) in effect from July 19, 2011, through January 6, 2013, as well as the current version of subsection (a)(4) in effect since January 7, 2013, were declared invalid. Subsection (b)(10) (requirements to toll the statute of limitations) and subsection (e) (denial of refund claims) in effect beginning January 7, 2013, and currently in effect, were also declared invalid.</p>
<p><em>Ryan, LLC v. Combs, Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, </em>District Court, 200th District (Texas), No. D-1-GN-12-002388, May 10, 2013 , ¶403-903</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.cchgroup.com/wordpress/index.php/tax-headlines/state-tax-headlines/texas-sales-and-use-tax-refund-claim-regulation-provisions-invalid/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>New York ~ Multiple Taxes: Tax Collection Agreement Reached Between State and Oneida Nation</title>
		<link>http://www.cchgroup.com/wordpress/index.php/tax-headlines/state-tax-headlines/new-york-multiple-taxes-tax-collection-agreement-reached-between-state-and-oneida-nation/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=new-york-multiple-taxes-tax-collection-agreement-reached-between-state-and-oneida-nation</link>
		<comments>http://www.cchgroup.com/wordpress/index.php/tax-headlines/state-tax-headlines/new-york-multiple-taxes-tax-collection-agreement-reached-between-state-and-oneida-nation/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 May 2013 06:57:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Cch</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Corporate Solutions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[International]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State Tax Headlines]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.cchgroup.com/wordpress/?p=15632</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[New York Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo announced a comprehensive agreement between the state of New York and the Oneida Nation of Indians that would require the Nation to adhere to minimum pricing standards for cigarettes and impose a Nation sales &#8230; <a href="http://www.cchgroup.com/wordpress/index.php/tax-headlines/state-tax-headlines/new-york-multiple-taxes-tax-collection-agreement-reached-between-state-and-oneida-nation/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>New York Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo announced a comprehensive agreement between the state of New York and the Oneida Nation of Indians that would require the Nation to adhere to minimum pricing standards for cigarettes and impose a Nation sales tax that equals or exceeds the state’s and counties’ sales, use, and occupancy taxes on cigarette sales to non-Indian customers.</p>
<p>The agreement also would grant the Oneida Nation exclusive rights to casino gaming in Central New York in exchange for sharing a portion of gaming revenues with the state and local governments. In addition, the agreement would end legal disputes over land claims by setting a cap of approximately 25,000 acres on land that could be under the Nation&#8217;s sovereignty.</p>
<p>Portions of the settlement will require New York state legislative approval, approvals by Madison County and Oneida County, the Department of the Interior, the New York State Attorney General, as well as judicial approval. The agreement is not effective until these approvals are secured.</p>
<p>The press release may be found on the governor’s website (http://www.governor.ny.gov ).</p>
<p><em>Release, </em>Office of New York Gov. Cuomo, May 16, 2013</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.cchgroup.com/wordpress/index.php/tax-headlines/state-tax-headlines/new-york-multiple-taxes-tax-collection-agreement-reached-between-state-and-oneida-nation/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
