You might be able to get part of the tax WAIVED along with the penalty and interest
We’ve been beating the drum on the amnesty in Washington for some time. We don’t like to beat the drum too long and loud, but in this case, we feel compelled to call your attention to the opportunity, lest you miss out.
The State is NOT Meeting Their Projections
In December of 2010, during Senate hearings of the Washington State Tax Amnesty (SB 6892), the WA Department of Revenue Interim Director, Tremaine Smith, testified that the proposed Amnesty program was projected to generate $28.3 million. The Amnesty which subsequently passed, began on February 1, 2011 and continues through April 18, 2011, may not meet it’s projections. According to a Tri-City Herald article published 3/24/2011, “5,000 businesses in Washington have taken advantage of a new tax amnesty program and paid more than $12.6 million into the state”. Using those numbers our calculations show that more 70% of the time had elapsed yet less than 45% of the revenue had been generated.
Read more »
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
BIT, CIT, MBT, MGRT & SBT
News and Views on the Alphabet Soup of MI Taxes
On February 17, 2011, as part of his 2012-2013 budget, Michigan Governor, Rick Snyder announced his proposal for the elimination of the Michigan Business Tax (MBT) and for the replacement of it with a flat Corporate Income Tax (CIT) of 6%. While not surprising (it was part of his campaign platform) it is unsettling. You see, the MBT was passed in 2007 but it didn’t replace the Single Business Tax (SBT) until January 1, 2008. Tax professionals are already tasked with knowing both the SBT and MBT. They must retain a working knowledge of the SBT as the audit periods are still open and they obviously must contend with the complexities of the current MBT. Now they must grapple with the reality that they may have another tax to plan for. In theory, you could have a tax professional defending an SBT audit, filing MBT returns and at the same time be involved with tax planning for the CIT. Talk about a heavy workload and it’s not farfetched at all. While we cannot say for sure that the Governor’s CIT will pass, it does seem probable. And there seems to be growing support for the elimination of the MBT. If the MBT is eliminated it will have to be replaced by something. In the meantime, working with the SBT, MBT and it’s component parts the BIT and MGRT will be taxing enough.
Read more »
By Michael J. Fleming
On February 17, 2011, as part of his 2012-2013 budget, Michigan Governor, Rick Snyder announced his proposal for the elimination of the Michigan Business Tax (MBT) and for the replacement of it with a flat Corporate Income Tax (CIT) of 6%. While not surprising (it was part of his campaign platform) it is unsettling. You see, the MBT was passed in 2007 but it didn’t replace the Single Business Tax (SBT) until January 1, 2008. Tax professionals are already tasked with knowing both the SBT and MBT. They must retain a working knowledge of the SBT as the audit periods are still open and they obviously must contend with the complexities of the current MBT. Now they must grapple with the reality that they may have another tax to plan for. In theory, you could have a tax professional defending an SBT audit, filing MBT returns and at the same time be involved with tax planning for the CIT. Talk about a heavy workload and it’s not farfetched at all. While we cannot say for sure that the Governor’s CIT will pass, it does seem probable. And there seems to be growing support for the elimination of the MBT. If the MBT is eliminated it will have to be replaced by something. In the meantime, working with the SBT, MBT and it’s component parts the BIT and MGRT will be taxing enough.
Read more »
Thursday, March 17, 2011
An Amnesty Worth Its SALT
A look at the B & O, Economic Nexus, Elimination of Physical Presence and Amnesty
In the current economic environment, states have a tightrope to walk between balancing the need to increase revenues with the need to save and create jobs. The state of Washington probably thinks it has found a creative way to do both.
Prior to June 1, 2010 many of WA’s in-state companies that provided services were at a competitive disadvantage to out of state companies. In instituting an economic nexus standard in addition to changing the apportionment method for certain companies to “single factor receipts apportionment” WA has leveled the playing field. In fact, many WA companies with out of state sales will see their taxes go down, some substantially.
On the other hand, out-of-state companies who have never worried about the B & O before will now be subject to the WA tax, even if they don’t have a physical presence. Common sense tells us that WA will look at ways to not only make up for the tax relief they have provided their domestic companies, but also to bring in the additional revenues all states are looking for. Increased enforcement of both the B & O and the sales and use tax are two of the most logical ways to do this. Out-of-state companies who are not paying the B & O seem to be likely (and lucrative) targets. The current amnesty program is a useful tool that many taxpayers may or may not take advantage of for a multitude of reasons.
Read more »
By Michael J. Fleming
In the current economic environment, states have a tightrope to walk between balancing the need to increase revenues with the need to save and create jobs. The state of Washington probably thinks it has found a creative way to do both.
Prior to June 1, 2010 many of WA’s in-state companies that provided services were at a competitive disadvantage to out of state companies. In instituting an economic nexus standard in addition to changing the apportionment method for certain companies to “single factor receipts apportionment” WA has leveled the playing field. In fact, many WA companies with out of state sales will see their taxes go down, some substantially.
On the other hand, out-of-state companies who have never worried about the B & O before will now be subject to the WA tax, even if they don’t have a physical presence. Common sense tells us that WA will look at ways to not only make up for the tax relief they have provided their domestic companies, but also to bring in the additional revenues all states are looking for. Increased enforcement of both the B & O and the sales and use tax are two of the most logical ways to do this. Out-of-state companies who are not paying the B & O seem to be likely (and lucrative) targets. The current amnesty program is a useful tool that many taxpayers may or may not take advantage of for a multitude of reasons.
Read more »
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)