Archive for the ‘New York’ Category

Onwards and Upwards Into the 21st Century!

Thursday, September 24th, 2020

Yes, the 21st Century began 20 years ago, but today we welcome New York into the new millennium. The New York legislature passed (and Governor Cuomo signed into law) Senate Bill S8832 allowing taxpayers to electronically sign New York signature documents on tax returns. This should go live in the very near future (probably within two weeks).

New York was one of just three states (the others are the District of Columbia and Minnesota) that did not allow e-signatures. Federal e-signatures (and state e-signatures) require a taxpayer to complete “knowledge” questions (so the taxpayers can prove they are who they say they are).

During the peak of the pandemic, New York temporarily allowed e-signatures. It’s about to be permanent, and that’s a good thing for all.

Bozo Tax Tip #1: Move Without Moving!

Monday, July 13th, 2020

Nearly nine years ago, we moved from Irvine, California to Las Vegas. The home in Irvine was sold, a home was purchased in Las Vegas, and the belongings went from the Golden State to the Silver State. Cars were re-registered, doctors changed, and no one would say that we didn’t become Las Vegas residents.

But some people like to have it both ways. Nevada’s income tax rate is a very round number (0%), while California’s maximum income tax rate is a ridiculous (in my opinion) 13.3%. That certainly could drive individuals to move in name only. California’s Franchise Tax Board (FTB) realizes that, and they (along with New York State) lead the country in residency audits.

If you really do relocate, a residency audit is a minor annoyance. But let’s say you reside in Silicon Valley, and you buy a home in Reno but keep your home in Los Altos. Did you move? Or did you just move in name?

The Bozo strategy is the latter: moving in name only. I’ll just have that little home in Reno, spend the ski season in Nevada but really continue to live in Los Altos.

In a residency audit, the FTB will look at where you’re actually spending time, where you’re spending money (if eight months of the year you’re patronizing businesses in Silicon Valley, it doesn’t look like you really moved), and a variety of other factors. ( The FTB has an excellent Residency and Sourcing Manual that explains California laws on the subject.)

Given the current pandemic, state revenues are being squeezed. The one government agency where increasing employees increases revenues is the tax agency (especially employees in audit). While I expect to see states cut employees, I’ll be surprised to see anything but minor cuts in tax agencies. We’re also likely to see an increase in audits looking at telecommuting issues. In any case, if you move in name only you’re painting a target on your back for a residency audit.

New York DFS & Gambling: It’s the Constitution

Wednesday, February 12th, 2020

There’s a quick way of doing many things that, in the long-run, doesn’t work so well; there’s a slower way of doing those same things that will always work. That’s true in tax, and it’s true for a legislature that’s trying to raise money.

Back in 2016, the New York state legislature amended a law so that DFS could be legalized. Almost immediately, a lawsuit was filed that said the new law violated the New York Constitution. The New York Supreme Court (which is the original trial court) ruled that the law was unconstitutional (as it relates to DFS). Both sides appealed the ruling, and last Friday a decision from the Appellate Division was released. That decision mostly upheld the original ruling.

The key points within that ruling are (1) that gambling only needs an element of chance and (2) it is not the job of the courts to look at the “…wisdom of the Legislature’s enactment of laws, but on whether the NY Constitution prohibited the Legislature from enacting such laws.”

This ruling is not good news for those who would like to see DFS or online gambling in New York state. It will take amending the New York constitution–and that’s a much harder road to go than simply passing a law. It also takes far more time. But if the constitution is amended, the law would be clearly constitutional (and legal).

I expect this decision to be appealed to the New York Court of Appeals (New York’s highest court), and it’s likely the case will be taken up (there was a dissent, and the case is about a constitutional question–the kind of case that appeals to higher courts). The problem, though, is that the plain language of the state constitution is quite specific about how to add more gambling. And it’s by amending the constitution. While a stay on enforcing this ruling may be granted (allowing DFS contests to continue in New York), unless the New York state constitution is changed the future of DFS (and online gambling) in New York looks quite bleak.

IRS To New York, New Jersey, and California: We Weren’t Kidding

Tuesday, June 11th, 2019

Today the IRS issued rules and guidance on charitable contributions as a workaround to the new limits on state and local taxes. Unsurprisingly, the IRS said exactly what I thought they would: both substance over form and quid pro quo apply.

There’s a fundamental rule in tax: The substance of a transaction determines how it’s taxed, not what it’s labeled. Suppose I pay you to perform services for me, but I send you a Form 1099-INT (for interest income). What I pay you is service income, not interest income, no matter how it’s labeled. Consider state taxes. Suppose a state (say, New York) offers you the ability to contribute to the “Support New York Fund” instead of state taxes. Well, the substance is that you’re paying state taxes by contributing to that fund.

Another issue is “quid pro quo;” that’s Latin for ‘something for something.’ And if you get something for a charitable contribution, that portion isn’t charity. Consider a donation to some foundation for $50 and you receive a blanket worth $10; your charitable contribution (that you can take) is $40. This rule has been around for some time. It applies to these workarounds, too.

Put bluntly, the IRS isn’t amused with the workarounds. The Tax Code is law; until Congress changes it, federal deductions for state and local taxes are limited.

Here We Go Again…

Tuesday, October 30th, 2018

A few years ago I penned a post titled “Taxes and Daily Fantasy Sports: The Duck Test.” To remind everyone,

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it just may be a duck.

The duck test came up yet again yesterday in Albany, New York. The New York legislature passed a law legalizing Daily Fantasy Sports (DFS), even though the New York state constitution specifically prohibits gambling. The New York legislature statutorily said, “DFS isn’t gambling.” Yesterday, Judge Gerald Connolly said the legislature was wrong.

Last year a lawsuit was filed seeking a ruling on whether DFS is New York was legal. (The case is titled White, et. al., v. Cuomo, et. al.) Yesterday, the ruling came out. (My thanks to Legal Sports Report who published the ruling. LSR is a vital resource for anyone interested in sports betting in the United States. But I digress….) The issue is the same one I raised back in 2014.

Unfortunately, many states look at just an element of chance to determine if something is gambling. And there’s no doubt that daily fantasy sports have such an element. [emphasis in original.]

In this case, Judge Connolly ruled that based on the New York constitution if there’s a contest with an element of chance, a prize, and consideration and the constitution doesn’t state that activity isn’t gambling, it is gambling. Gambling is prohibited by the New York constitution, so the constitution will need to be amended in order for DFS to be legalized.

I expect this decision to be appealed, and a stay put on any adverse impacts for DFS in New York…for now. The problem is that the ruling seems right to me. If the New York prohibition against gambling was statutory, DFS could be legalized by statute. Since the New York prohibition is in the state’s constitution, a constitutional amendment appears to be necessary. This does not bode well for the future of DFS in New York.

Additionally, this ruling points out something that should be obvious regarding sportsbetting. The Supreme Court decision in Murphy v. NCAA allows sportsbetting to be legalized state-by-state. In some states, that just means passing a new law. In many states, though, that will mean amending the state’s constitution. Changing a state’s constitution takes a lot more time and effort.

We’re Not Gonna Take It

Thursday, August 23rd, 2018

The IRS issued proposed regulations today on charitable contributions as it relates to state and local tax credits. Here’s a hint to politicians in Connecticut, New Jersey, and New York. The IRS is telling you:

Here’s an excerpt from the IRS press release:

The proposed regulations issued today are designed to clarify the relationship between state and local tax credits and the federal tax rules for charitable contribution deductions. The proposed regulations are available in the Federal Register.

Under the proposed regulations, a taxpayer who makes payments or transfers property to an entity eligible to receive tax deductible contributions must reduce their charitable deduction by the amount of any state or local tax credit the taxpayer receives or expects to receive.

For example, if a state grants a 70 percent state tax credit and the taxpayer pays $1,000 to an eligible entity, the taxpayer receives a $700 state tax credit. The taxpayer must reduce the $1,000 contribution by the $700 state tax credit, leaving an allowable contribution deduction of $300 on the taxpayer’s federal income tax return. The proposed regulations also apply to payments made by trusts or decedents’ estates in determining the amount of their contribution deduction.

There’s a de minimis exception for tax credits of no more than 15% of the payment amount.

This proposed regulation isn’t a surprise. Indeed, it’s hard to see under the Tax Code how tax credits as charitable contributions would succeed. As for the current lawsuit against the IRS regarding the new tax law, that has even less of a chance of success in my view. But it sounds good, so the lawsuit happened. The idea of a state like New York changing their tax laws to lower their tax rates apparently hasn’t occurred to New York politicians.

We’re Not Gonna Take It…

Saturday, July 21st, 2018

You may have heard that earlier this week four states sued to stop parts of the new tax law from going into effect. The states–New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, and Maryland–don’t like the new $10,000 cap on deducting state and local taxes on federal tax returns. I believe this lawsuit is doomed; there’s no right in the Constitution to allow deducting of such taxes. This isn’t just my opinion; Ilya Somin at the Volokh Conspiracy notes what I think:

They argue not only that the 2017 cap is unconstitutional, but that the federal government has a general obligation to exempt “all or a significant portion of state and local taxes” from the federal income tax. The problem with this argument is simple: nothing in the text or original meaning of the Constitution supports it. To the contrary, the Sixteenth Amendment gives Congress a general power to power “to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived.” There is no mandated exemption for income used to pay state or local taxes. There is also no support for the states’ position in Supreme Court precedent, or in the American constitutional tradition more generally.

The humorous thing (to me) is that blue states normally lead in ‘progressiveness’ of their tax systems (that is, higher rates for individuals earning higher incomes). The cap on deductions will primarily hurt high income individuals. Of course, blue states don’t want out-migration of such high income individuals. Perhaps they might look to lower tax rates. Mr. Somin notes they could remove zoning restrictions. As for this lawsuit, it sounds nice to their constituents but it is almost certainly doomed.

Back to the Old Drawing Board

Wednesday, May 23rd, 2018

I’ve written before about certain states’ efforts to get around the new $10,000 cap on state and local taxes that can be deducted on federal tax returns. The IRS announced today they will be proposing regulations later this year on this issue. Here’s an excerpt:

In response to this new limitation, some state legislatures are considering or have adopted legislative proposals that would allow taxpayers to make transfers to funds controlled by state or local governments, or other transferees specified by the state, in exchange for credits against the state or local taxes that the taxpayer is required to pay. The aim of these proposals is to allow taxpayers to characterize such transfers as fully deductible charitable contributions for federal income tax purposes, while using the same transfers to satisfy state or local tax liabilities.

Despite these state efforts to circumvent the new statutory limitation on state and local tax deductions, taxpayers should be mindful that federal law controls the proper characterization of payments for federal income tax purposes.

This is anything but promising for the efforts of California and New York. Words like “circumvent,” “despite,” and “mindful” pretty much tell us how this is going to turn out. If the IRS were going to allow this, the notice would not have such negative words. Instead, it’s all but a certainty that the doctrine of “Substance Over Form” will dictate that these so-called charitable donations are anything but charitable donations and, instead, will be treated as state tax payments on federal tax returns.

The California and New York legislatures would be far better off looking for things to cut in their states’ budgets. I know of a certain railroad in California that could save the state at least $77 billion….

Update on the Future of Daily Fantasy Sports

Thursday, November 19th, 2015

So far, I’ve been accurate on my predictions. Back in February 2014 I wrote,

Unfortunately, many states look at just an element of chance to determine if something is gambling. And there’s no doubt that daily fantasy sports have such an element. The problem is that these sites are starting to bring in large dollars. That attracts attention, and some state attorney general is going to wonder the same thing that I am. He or she will conclude that the Duck Test applies and that these are gambling sites in violation of his or her state’s laws. [emphasis in original]

Last month I wrote,

I expect DFS to follow two different paths in the majority of states. Some states will simply declare it as gambling, making it effectively illegal in those states. Other states will tacitly declare it as gambling but allow regulation of the activity. There will be a minority of states that allow DFS to continue as an unregulated activity. Where one month ago you could play DFS in 45 of the 50 states, that number is down to 42 to 44 states (depending on the DFS site). I expect that number to continue to fall.

Events have moved faster than I thought they would. The New York Attorney General declared DFS to be gambling, and has asked a court for an injunction. One of the two major sites, FanDuel, has stopped offering contests for New Yorkers. The hearing will be next Wednesday. The Massachusetts Attorney General has proposed regulations.

As for New York, I think FanDuel is operating far wiser than DraftKings. DraftKings is still allowing New York residents to play on the site. Given that there is a non-zero chance that the company will find it outself ordered to stop, and that operating in violation of state law would be a predicate offense for possible federal charges, I think DraftKings is making the wrong decision. (I will point out again that I am not an attorney, and nothing I’m writing should be construed as legal advice.) If you ask me the most likely result of the New York Attorney General’s action, it’s that the sites will find themselves enjoined from serving New York customers. This isn’t a certainty, but if you’re going to place a bet on the results that’s the favored side.

I still think we will end up with a dichotomy within the states. States that are notoriously anti-gambling or have constitutional provisions against gambling (including much of the South: Texas, Florida, and Tennessee; Utah, and Hawaii) will ban DFS, either by Attorney General rulings or by court actions. Other states will regulate DFS. Some states will order the DFS companies to shut down until regulations are in place. A very small number of states will just ignore the issue, and leave DFS in an unregulated state.

DFS proponents need to remember that a regulator’s first instinct when confronted with something new is to ban it. Add that to the fact that DFS is legal by way of a loophole (in the view of regulators) and you get a strong inclination for them to end DFS.

That’s the most likely outcome. However, there is still the chance that DFS could end completely. There are federal investigations of the sites which could, if indictments result, end the industry.

This is a fascinating story–and the greed of the sites has sped up the story line. It was inevitable that DFS would attract scrutiny. The pace of that scrutiny sped up because the sites went overboard in their advertising and had very poor visuals. We’ll all be able to see the future of this product unfold in the next few weeks.

Yes, Two States Rank Lower than California

Tuesday, November 17th, 2015

It’s not all bad news in the Tax Foundation’s 2016 State Business Tax Climate Index for California. You could always be in New York or New Jersey. Still, it’s better to be elsewhere.

Two excerpts from the article note why states rank at the top of the list or at the bottom:

The absence of a major tax is a common factor among many of the top ten states. Property taxes and unemployment insurance taxes are levied in every state, but there are several states that do without one or more of the major taxes: the corporate income tax, the individual income tax, or the sales tax. Wyoming, Nevada, South Dakota, and Texas have no corporate or individual income tax (though Nevada and Texas both impose gross receipts taxes); Alaska has no individual income or state-level sales tax; Florida has no individual income tax; and New Hampshire and Montana have no sales tax…

The states in the bottom 10 tend to have a number of afflictions in common: complex, non-neutral taxes with comparatively high rates. New Jersey, for example, is hampered by some of the highest property tax burdens in the country, is one of just two states to levy both an inheritance tax and an estate tax, and maintains some of the worst-structured individual income taxes in the country.

So who are the winners and the losers? Here are the top ten states:

1. Wyoming
2. South Dakota
3. Alaska
4. Florida
5. Nevada
6. Montana
7. New Hampshire
8. Indiana
9. Utah
10. Texas

Here are the bottom ten states:

41. Maryland
42. Ohio
43. Wisconsin
44. Connecticut
45. Rhode Island
46. Vermont
47. Minnesota
48. California
49. New York
50. New Jersey

My home state, Nevada, does very well (ranking fifth overall). It ranks first in individual income tax (there isn’t one), fourth in corporate tax (there is no a gross receipts tax on businesses, but only large businesses and the tax rate is low), seventh in property tax, but 39th in sales tax and 42nd in unemployment insurance tax.

Note that it is possible to have every major tax and still rank highly (Indiana and Utah manage that) if the taxes are broad with low rates. Of course, you can be like New Jersey, New York, and California: have broad taxes at high rates. If you do that, you end up on the bottom.

I should point out that it is possible that New York will rise in the rankings. As the Tax Foundation noted, New York enacted corporate tax reform which should improve its standing. Meanwhile, California is apparently considering more and higher taxes for the future. That, combined with the regulatory environment in the Bronze Golden State, should give legislators pause…but probably won’t.