Archive for the ‘North Carolina’ Category

April 15th Deadlines

Tuesday, April 14th, 2020

Yes, the tax deadline for the IRS (and federal estimated payments for the first two quarters) is July 15th. However, not all states conformed to this–especially for estimated payments. The following states all have first quarter estimated payments for individuals that are due tomorrow, April 15th:

  • Arkansas
  • District of Columbia
  • Hawaii (due April 20th)
  • Illinois
  • Iowa (due April 30th)
  • Kentucky
  • Michigan
  • Minnesota
  • New Hampshire
  • New Jersey
  • North Carolina
  • Oregon

So if you need to make estimated payments for 2020 for one of these states, do so. If you are mailing your payment, use certified mail (but not return receipt requested–there’s a possiblity no one is there to pick up the mail).

IRS Extends Deadlines for Those Impacted by Hurricane Florence

Saturday, September 15th, 2018

Hurricane Florence is battering North and South Carolina. News reports indicate “biblical” amounts of rain will fall, with catastrophic flooding probable throughout the Carolinas. Today, the IRS announced that they are extending deadlines for those in the federal disaster zone to January 31, 2019.

Hurricane Florence victims in parts of North Carolina and elsewhere have until Jan. 31, 2019, to file certain individual and business tax returns and make certain tax payments, the Internal Revenue Service announced today.

The IRS is offering this relief to any area designated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), as qualifying for individual assistance. Currently, this only includes parts of North Carolina, but taxpayers in localities added later to the disaster area, including those in other states, will automatically receive the same filing and payment relief. The current list of eligible localities is always available on the disaster relief page on

While the list of impacted areas is a ‘work in progress’ right now (the IRS’s “Hurricane Florence” webpage doesn’t list them yet), FEMA has noted President Trump’s declaration of a disaster: Beaufort, Brunswick, Carteret, Craven, New Hanover, Onslow, Pamlico, and Pender Counties. As the rains continue to fall, I would expect this list to (unfortunately) lengthen.

The North Carolina Department of Revenue will almost certainly conform to the extensions. (The South Carolina Department of Revenue will, too, as impacted regions are declared a federal disaster area.)

The extension impacts all tax filings for those in the federal disaster zone:

The tax relief postpones various tax filing and payment deadlines that occurred starting on Sept. 7, 2018 in North Carolina. As a result, affected individuals and businesses will have until Jan. 31, 2019, to file returns and pay any taxes that were originally due during this period.

This includes quarterly estimated income tax payments due on Sept. 17, 2018, and the quarterly payroll and excise tax returns normally due on Sept. 30, 2018. Businesses with extensions also have the additional time including, among others, calendar-year partnerships whose 2017 extensions run out on Sept. 17, 2018. Taxpayers who had a valid extension to file their 2017 return due to run out on Oct. 15, 2018 will also have more time to file.

In addition, penalties on payroll and excise tax deposits due on or after Sept. 7, 2018, and before Sept. 24, 2018, will be abated as long as the deposits are made by Sept. 24, 2018.

North Carolina Added to Bad States for Gamblers

Saturday, February 13th, 2016

North Carolina State Seal

North Carolina changed its tax law over a year ago. While I have professional gambling clients in North Carolina, I do not currently have amateur gambling clients. It’s likely I won’t be getting many of those, as North Carolina legislators have made the Tar Heel State a bad state for gamblers.

North Carolina eliminated many itemized deductions for the 2014 tax year while increasing the standard deduction. Overall, this simplification is likely a good thing for most residents. Gamblers, though, are severely penalized. There’s no longer a deduction for gambling losses, so an amateur gambler residing in North Carolina who has $100,000 of wins and $100,000 of losses owes tax on the $100,000 of wins.

So here is my current list of bad states for gamblers:

Connecticut [1]
Hawaii [2]
Illinois [1]
Indiana [1]
Kansas [1]
Massachusetts [1]
Michigan [1]
Minnesota [3]
Mississippi [4]
New York [5]
North Carolina [1]
Ohio [1]
Rhode Island [1]
Washington [6]
West Virginia [1]
Wisconsin [1]


1. CT, IL, IN, KS, MA, MI, NC, OH, RI, WV, and WI do not allow gambling losses as an itemized deduction. These states’ income taxes are written so that taxpayers pay based (generally) on their federal Adjusted Gross Income (AGI). AGI includes gambling winnings but does not include gambling losses. Thus, a taxpayer who has (say) $100,000 of gambling winnings and $100,000 of gambling losses will owe state income tax on the phantom gambling winnings. (Michigan does exempt the first $300 of gambling winnings from state income tax.)

2. Hawaii has an excise tax (the General Excise and Use Tax) that’s thought of as a sales tax. It is, but it is also a tax on various professions. A professional gambler is subject to this 4% tax (an amateur gambler is not).

3. Minnesota’s state Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) negatively impacts amateur gamblers. Because of the design of the Minnesota AMT, amateur gamblers with significant losses effectively cannot deduct those losses.

4. Mississippi only allows Mississippi gambling losses as an itemized deduction.

5. New York has a limitation on itemized deductions. If your AGI is over $500,000, you lose 50% of your itemized deductions (including gambling losses). You begin to lose itemized deductions at an AGI of $100,000.

6. Washington state has no state income tax. However, the state does have a Business & Occupations Tax (B&O Tax). The B&O Tax has not been applied toward professional gamblers, but my reading of the law says that it could be at any time.

How to Wynne Your Money Back in Maryland

Tuesday, September 29th, 2015

Earlier this year the US Supreme Court ruled that Maryland had to issue full tax credits–including the county add-on tax–to individuals facing double taxation (typically, Maryland residents who earned income taxed in other states). Kay Bell in Don’t Mess With Taxes today noted that the Comptroller of Maryland (Maryland’s state tax agency) has created a webpage for those impacted.

The webpage gives the basics on this, and notes that the Comptroller’s office will not be contacting impacted taxpayers. There’s a link within to a web page on the Wynne Case and the Comptroller’s office has a new form (From 502LC) designed for this specific situation. There’s also a detailed FAQ.

I also need to point out this decision likely impacts other states and jurisdictions. Other states with “add-on” local taxes include Indiana, Ohio, Kentucky, Michigan, Missouri, New York, and Pennsylvania. However, where this impacts taxpayers is residing in a state that does not allow a tax credit for local taxes (Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, North Carolina, and Wisconsin are some of the states so identified) and/or residing in a local jurisdiction that does not allow such a credit (jurisdictions in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Missouri, Delaware, and Indiana have been so identified). I have not looked at each state/local jurisdiction to see who is impacted. If you think you’re impacted–remember, you would need to live in a jurisdiction that hasn’t been allowing such a tax credit and have taken such a tax credit on a recent tax return–you should contact your tax professional.

The Real Impact of the Wynne Decision

Tuesday, May 19th, 2015

Yesterday’s decision in Comptroller of the Treasury of Maryland v Wynne Et Ux generated some reporting in print media. Yet much of what I saw was incorrect in part or in whole.

New York does give full tax credits for individuals with out-of-state income; I do not believe they will be impacted. However, many states do not give credits for local taxes. Joe Kristan highlighted Iowa today; Kentucky is another state that does not currently offer such tax credits. Under Wynne I believe they’ll be required to offer such credits. (I only know about Kentucky because I had a client impacted by this.) Joe noted that Tax Analysts saw that North Carolina and Wisconsin (along with a host of local governments) also don’t offer such credits. That’s where I think the real impact will be.

The Flow of AGI from One State to Another

Saturday, July 20th, 2013

From comes an interesting interactive map showing how money has flowed from state to state. Back when I moved to Nevada from California, I noted this issue. Here’s yet more verification that this is real.

The five biggest losers were:
1. New York ($68.10 billion in annual Adjusted Gross Income (AGI))
2. California ($45.27 billion in annual AGI)
3. Illinois ($29.27 billion in annual AGI)
4. New Jersey ($20.62 billion in annual AGI)
5. Ohio ($18.39 billion in annual AGI)

The five biggest winners were:
1. Florida ($95.61 billion in annual AGI)
2. Arizona ($28.30 billion in annual AGI)
3. North Carolina ($25.12 billion in annual AGI)
4. Texas ($24.94 billion in annual AGI)
5. Nevada ($18.17 billion in annual AGI)

Sure, some of this is retirees moving from the snow belt to the sun belt. But California is anything but part of the snow belt; it’s clear that successful individuals are fleeing high tax states for low tax states. We here in Nevada are appreciative of the $9.59 billion in annual AGI that has moved from the Bronze Golden State to the Silver State.

Interestingly, the interactive map allows you to look county-by-county. The areas that one would think would show AGI growth are losing AGI. The area around Silicon Valley has lost AGI; so have Los Angeles and Orange County. Sure, some of this is retirees moving to the desert (Riverside County, which includes Palm Springs, showed an increase in AGI). However, there is no chance that this is just caused by retirees.

Taxes matter, and individuals absolutely do relocate because of taxes.

A Lowe Blow

Wednesday, February 20th, 2013

I know the headline is a bad pun, but I couldn’t resist. Former NBA star and current Utah Jazz assistant coach Sidney Lowe was arrested on Monday on state tax evasion charges. Lowe is accused of not filing North Carolina tax returns from 2009 through 2011. The charges are misdemeanors, but as Wesley Snipes can tell you, jail time is still possible with such charges. Lowe is a North Carolina resident, so his income is subject to North Carolina tax.

The Deseret News (of Salt Lake City) reports that Mr. Lowe will continue with his coaching duties. The Salt Lake Tribune printed Mr. Lowe’s apology to the team and fans: “This is a personal matter that I take very seriously. I am working very hard to get the issue resolved in a timely manner and I am cooperating fully with all parties involved.”

Mr. Lowe faces a March 19th court date in Winston-Salem, North Carolina.

Amazon 1, North Carolina 0

Wednesday, October 27th, 2010

Back in April I reported on’s petition for declaratory relief from North Carolina; the North Carolina Department of Revenue requested information on every purchase of goods since 2005 in the Tar Heel State. And that request was rather inclusive:

By letter hand delivered on March 19, 2010, to Amazon in Seattle, Washington (the “March Information Request”), the DOR stated that Amazon’s initial response to Question 16 of the December Information Request omitted the “Bill to Name; Bill to Address (Street, City, State, and Zip); Ship to Name; Ship to Address (Street); Product/item code or description” (the “Customer Data”). The DOR demanded that Amazon provide this information “for examination” on or before April 19, 2010.

Well, the District Court has made its ruling in v. Lay

The DOR concedes that it has no legitimate need or use for having details as to North Carolina Amazon customers’ literary, music, and film purchases. In spite of this, the DOR refuses to give up the detailed information about Amazon’s customers’ purchases, while at the same time requesting the identities of the customers and, arguably, detailed records of their purchases, including the expressive content. With no compelling need for both sets of information, the DOR’s request runs afoul of the First Amendment. It bears noting, too, that the DOR’s requests for information were made solely in the context of calculating Amazon’s potential tax liability. Amazon has provided all of the data necessary to determine its tax liability, except any potential tax exemptions. The DOR has failed to articulate the compelling need to calculate these possible exemptions, particularly where it has admitted that it can and will assess Amazon at the highest rate and it would permit Amazon to “challenge the assessment and … establish that exemptions or lower tax rates applied to some products.” Even assuming there is a compelling need to calculate Amazon’s tax liability inclusive of exemptions, the DOR’s requests are not the least restrictive means to obtain the information. The request is overbroad. The Court GRANTS the motion for summary judgment.

So on First Amendment grounds Amazon wins this battle. Amazon also wins based on the Video Privacy Protection Act (the NC DOR’s request would cause Amazon to violate that act).

Note, though, that the court specifically noted that Amazon must comply with valid tax rulings. Of course, whether Amazon must collect North Carolina tax will continue to be fought….

North Carolina Has a Use for Amazon

Wednesday, April 21st, 2010

Via the Volokh Conspiracy comes the news that North Carolina is seeking the names of everyone who has bought anything from since 2003. Now, why in the world would the North Carolina Department of Revenue want to know what everyone in North Carolina has purchased from Amazon?

Use Tax.

When you buy something from an out-of-state merchant that has no physical presence in the state, you are supposed to pay Use Tax. Use Tax laws have, for the most part, been on the books for years (California’s law dates back to the 1930s). North Carolina tax authorities figure that if they sent an administrative summons to Amazon maybe they could find $16 million or so of easy money.

In December, North Carolina sent the first request to Amazon. Amazon sent a list of what North Carolinians purchased from Amazon by product, city, and ZIP Code, but left off the customer names and addresses. There’s no question that Amazon isn’t subject to collecting sales tax in North Carolina–they have no offices, employees, or any physical ties to the state. So the “audit” of Amazon’s sales tax collections in North Carolina would seem to be just a grab for the names of state residents who hadn’t paid Use Tax.

And that was basically confirmed. North Carolina wasn’t satisfied with the initial data that Amazon sent:

By letter hand delivered on March 19, 2010, to Amazon in Seattle, Washington (the “March Information Request”), the DOR stated that Amazon’s initial response to Question 16 of the December Information Request omitted the “Bill to Name; Bill to Address (Street, City, State, and Zip); Ship to Name; Ship to Address (Street); Product/item code or description” (the “Customer Data”). The DOR demanded that Amazon provide this information “for examination” on or before April 19, 2010.

That comes from the request for Declaratory Relief filed by Amazon in federal court in Seattle. “Amazon respectfully asks this Court for … [a] declaration that, to the extent the March Information Request demands that Amazon disclose its customers’ names, addresses or any other personal information, it violates the First Amendment and 18 U.S.C. § 2710 .”

If North Carolina is successful, expect every state to come calling on every online merchant demanding sales information. I might even get summonsed by Florida, a state where there’s sales tax on services (I do have clients in Florida). This will be a very important battle that will likely shape sales and use tax law for some time.

What Do Hawaii, North Carolina, New York, Illinois, and California Have In Common?

Sunday, February 21st, 2010

The Tax Foundation noted last week that several states will be delaying income tax refunds. Hawaii won’t be sending out refunds until July 1st; North Carolina will send them out “when they feel like it,” and New York Governor David Paterson wants to delay refunds for those who file in March. Meanwhile, Illinois is simply not paying its debts.

Meanwhile, it’s almost a certainty that California will be joining this list. Barring a miracle in the Legislature (the Democrats and Republicans and Governor Schwarzenegger coming to an agreement in the next few weeks), registered warrants (aka IOUs) will have to be sent out beginning in late March or early April. Controller John Chiang implied this when he said the state was running out of cash. Meanwhile, the Democrats in the legislature continue to pass big ticket programs (e.g. healthcare legislation) so it’s as if they’re living in dreamland.