The SALT Professionals Community
March 2015
op
e
Valued
Add
Institute for Professionals in Taxation®
Pr
er
ty
Sale
s
&
Use
IPT Insider
e&
at al
St oc me
L o
c
In
Credits
&
Incentives
Welcome to IPT Insider
Not quite the newsletter you
were expecting? We are excited
to introduce the IPT Insider, the
new “go to” resource for news and
information created specifically for
IPT members. It looks different, but
has all of the information you need,
plus a little bit extra, in a more
efficient package.
You told us that you value the
information in the Tax Report and
Member News, but sometimes find
the newsletters overwhelming, too
lengthy and difficult to navigate. In
response to your feedback, the IPT
Insider was developed, combining
the Tax Report and Member News
into one monthly periodical that is
posted to ipt.org the first of every
month.
IPT Insider isn’t just two
newsletters consolidated into a
single publication. We have made
thoughtful changes that will make
the content stronger and more
relevant. An Editorial Committee,
co-chaired by Clark Calhoun, Esq.,
and Brian Goldstein, Esq., was
created to oversee the articles,
determining if they are meaningful
to IPT members and provide the
type of insight that members can
really use.
We added a new feature that shines
the spotlight on IPT members. We
will interview a variety of members
from across all disciplines and
ask them about their experiences
with IPT, where they found the
value within the organization, and
a little about their hobbies and
aspirations. This is all in an effort to
get to know each other better, learn
some best practices and build a
stronger professional network.
We also rearranged a bit. You will
find all the articles placed together
in a section, and the school,
symposium
and
conference
information in another. CMI
news, IPT updates and member
recognition will be sectionalized
as well. The career opportunities
information will now be available
exclusively on ipt.org and will
continue to be updated as new
opportunities are submitted.
The creation of IPT Insider is
the first, small step in a plan to
develop better communication
practices throughout IPT. In
the coming months, we’ll look
at all of our communications
vehicles and evaluate what
we need to add, eliminate and
refine to improve the overall IPT
member experience. If you have
any thoughts or suggestions on
ways to communicate or on the
newsletter, send an email to the
new Communication Manager,
Jennifer Newman at jnewman@
ipt.org.
In this Issue
President's Corner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
News You Can Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Calendar of Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Property Tax Calendar . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
CMI & CCIP Exam Schedule . . . . . . . . 16
ABA/IPT Tax Seminars . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
IPT Live Webinars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Credits & Incentives School . . . . . . . . . 18
Sales Tax School II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Basic State Income Tax School . . . . . . 19
Advanced State Income Tax School . . 19
IPT 39th Annual Conference . . . . . . . . . 20
Real Property Tax School . . . . . . . . . . 20
Upcoming Local Luncheon . . . . . . . . . 21
Sales Tax School I Highlights . . . . . . . 22
Member Spotlight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
New Members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
In Memoriam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Just One More . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Property Taxation 4th Edition . . . . . . . .
State Business Income Taxation Book
Become an IPT Sponsor . . . . . . . . . . .
CMI Corner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
CMI & CCIP Candidate Connection . .
Challenge Exam Policy Update . . . . . .
27
27
28
28
29
30
31
IPT OFFICERS
President
Arthur E. Bennett, CMI
Property Tax Assistance Co., Inc.
First Vice President
Margaret C. Wilson, CMI, Esq.
Wilson Agosto LLP
President’s
Corner
Second Vice President
Chris G. Muntifering, CMI
General Mills, Inc.
BOARD OF GOVERNORS
Immediate Past President
Arlene M. Klika, CMI
Schneider
As in the past, IPT members are
called upon to provide the content
for the articles, so I ask in advance
for your assistance when these
committee members call on you!
Carolyn L. Carpenter, CMI, CPA
JMC Express, Inc.
Leslie S. Fisher, CMI
E. I. Du Pont de Nemours and Company
Garfield A. Grant, CMI, CPA
DuCharme, McMillen & Associates, Inc.
Rick H. Izumi, CMI
ITA, LLC
Kenneth R. Marsh, CMI
TransCanada Pipelines Limited
Faranak Naghavi, CPA
Ernst & Young LLP
Carolyn M. Shantz, CMI, CPA
Superior Energy Services
Andrew P. Wagner, CMI, JD, LLM
FedEx Corporation
Allan J. Wells, CMI
ABB Inc.
CORPORATE COUNSEL
Lee A. Zoeller, CMI, Esq.
Reed Smith LLP
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
Cass D. Vickers
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS:
Brenda A. Pittler
Charles Lane O’Connor
This publication is designed to provide accurate information for IPT members and other tax
professionals. However, the Institute is not engaged in rendering legal, accounting, or other
professional services. If legal advice or other
expert assistance is required, the services of a
competent professional should be sought. Reprint permission for articles must be granted
by authors and the Institute. Send address
changes and inquiries to Institute for Professionals in Taxation®, 1200 Abernathy Road, NE,
Building 600 Suite L-2, Atlanta, Georgia 30328
Telephone (404) 240-2300/Fax (404) 240-2315.
Brian Goldstein, Esq., for agreeing
to lead this team. I also thank the
committee members: Marty Wilson,
CCIP, Jennifer Zimmerman, Esq.,
Jennifer Y. Barber, Esq., Brett R.
Carter, Esq., Eric H. Langberg, CPA,
Sylvia F. Dion, CPA, Rachel A. Le
Mieux, CMI, CPA, Steven G. Mills,
CMI, Evan B. Rice, Esq., Peter H.
Schnore, Esq., Teresa L. Sharp,
CMI, CPA, and Alex Baulf, who have
graciously agreed to give their time
and energy to this valuable effort.
Arthur E. Bennett, CMI
President June 2014-2015
Welcome to IPT Insider, the
redesigned newsletter where you
can get important IPT information
and SALT insight on the legislation,
regulations and issues that matter
most to you. I think that you will find
the new format easier to navigate
and that you will be able to access
the information you need more
quickly.
One thing we really focused on
in the redesign was incorporating
more depth and thought leadership
content into the articles, supplying
you with practical solutions to the
issues you face every day. We
created an Editorial Committee that
includes representation from across
all of our disciplines, and they have
been tasked with developing articles
that will provide information on the
latest industry topics. As a team they
will work to ensure the articles give
you insight and perspective to help
you find workable resolutions for the
issues most important to you.
My thanks to Editorial Committee
Co-Chairs Clark Calhoun, Esq., and
Overall, the goal in revitalizing
the newsletter and focusing on
the articles is to keep providing
content that you find informative and
valuable. If you have any feedback
or suggestions on the IPT Insider,
I encourage you to send it to IPT’s
Communication Manager, Jennifer
Newman, at jnewman@ipt.org.
I am very excited to see the plans
coming together for this year’s
Annual Conference to be held June
28 – July 1, 2015, at the Hilton San
Diego Bayfront. San Diego is a
beautiful place to visit, known for
its perfect weather, many family
attractions and nearly 70 miles of
beaches. Our theme this year is
ANCHORS AWEIGH in tribute to San
Diego’s maritime legacy, and it will be
an informative, yet fun, conference.
I encourage you to make plans to
attend.
As we continue to plan the
conference,
I
am
especially
enthusiastic about the strong agenda
of sessions and subject matter that
we plan to include. The Conference
Planning Committee has been hard
at work developing the roster of
general sessions, breakout meetings
and networking events to ensure the
(Continued on page 3)
March 2015 IPT Insider 2
conference is a good investment of your time. I extend my
sincere thanks to Conference Planning Committee Chair
Nancy Flagg, CPA and the committee for all of their hard
work. You will see more information about the conference
in the coming weeks as the final touches are put in place.
I hope to see you there!
On a somber note, I would like to acknowledge the IPT
members we lost recently. IPT founding member and
first IPT president Derek McCleery, CMI, passed away
February 26, 2015. In 1976, Derek and his colleagues
had a vision to create an organization with the mission
to educate, enlighten and enhance the community of tax
professionals, objectives that IPT upholds to this day.
He ushered in many IPT “firsts” including the first CMI
designation, Annual Conference, tax school, and the first
iteration of this newsletter. After he retired he continued to
support and help strengthen IPT, and ultimately in some
way influenced all that IPT has become, and I thank him
for it.
We also mourn the passing of Walt Beyer, CMI, who
served as president in 1985-86, and was a founding and
influential member of IPT. I thankfully acknowledge the
work he did to help build this organization.
Past President Carolyn Elerson, CMI, who served in
2005-06, also recently passed away. I had the pleasure
of working with her as Overall Conference Chair for the
Annual Conference in Huntington Beach, California, in
2006. She was a wonderful leader, a true professional
and I thoroughly enjoyed working with her.
We also lost Greg Lafakis, Esq., whom I taught alongside
in the early years of the Intermediate Real Property Tax
School at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville. Greg
was a staple as an instructor in our property tax programs
and was a thoughtful and memorable lecturer who shared
his knowledge with many members. All of them will be
truly missed.
News You Can Use
CREDITS AND INCENTIVES
America’s Unemployed Youth:
How Tax Credits and Incentives May
Alter the Dilemma Facing
a Jobless Generation
Employer tax incentives were a big part of the 2014
tax landscape. From the $8.7 billion Boeing Co. deal to
Nevada’s winning bid to lure Tesla, states used megadeals
to attract jobs to their respective jurisdictions. Recently,
states have undertaken the task to incentivize, through
tax credits or grants, the hiring of paid interns in hopes of
rebuilding youth employment rates.
Jennifer A. Zimmerman, Esq.
Horwood Marcus & Berk Chartered
Northbrook, IL
Phone: (312) 606-3247
E-mail: jzimmerman@hmblaw.com
Article begins on page 5
I also would like to report that in conjunction with our
Executive Committee Budget meeting, I had the pleasure
and honor of presenting some opening remarks during
the Sales Tax School I at the Georgia Tech Hotel and
Conference Center on February, 22, 2015. There were
212 students in attendance, and I thoroughly enjoyed
meeting and “talking shop” with many of them.
In closing I would like to extend my thanks to all the
committees and IPT members for your work in building a
stronger organization. Your efforts are appreciated.
Arthur E. Bennett, CMI
President
March 2015 IPT Insider 3
SALES AND USE TAX
INCOME TAX
Tax Tribunal Issues First Ruling
Regarding Scope of Authority of
Tax Tribunal Judge
State Tax Developments for
Pass-Through Entities and their OwnersApportionment of Income for
Corporate Partners
In a case of first impression for the newly-established
Alabama Tax Tribunal, the Alabama Department of
Revenue challenged the Tribunal’s ability to decide
a question of law when the pro se taxpayer did not
specifically raise the argument in its notice of appeal or
at the hearing.
Chief Judge Bill Thompson held that the Tribunal did
have the ability to decide the legal issue: whether the
Department’s lodging tax regulation exceeded the scope
permitted by the levying statute; which holding was
supported by the Taxpayer Fairness Act that created the
Tribunal; and the legislative history and the Department’s
own mission statement.
The states considering an independent tax tribunal, as
well as states with existing tax tribunals should consider
clarifying the tribunal's authority with respect to questions
of law or legal arguments not raised by the taxpayer in
their pleadings, but yet relevant to the ultimate issue of
the taxpayer’s correct liability.
Bruce P. Ely, Esq.
Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP
Birmingham, AL
Phone: (205) 521-8366
E-mail: bely@babc.com
James E. Long, Jr., Esq., CPA
Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP
Birmingham, AL
Phone: (205) 521-8626
E-mail: jelong@babc.com
Article begins on page 9
This is the third in a series of articles that will address
some of the many challenging state and local tax issues
faced by pass-through entities, including tiered groups of
such entities.
This article, which focuses on apportionment of income
for corporate partners, discusses the issues surrounding
the business/nonbusiness determination, highlights the
state’s various characterizations of partnership interests,
and reviews the methods prescribed by the states to
apportion what it deems to be business income of passthrough entities.
The article also underscores the complexities involved
in apportionment for pass-through entity owners when
states’ methods vary depending on whether there is a
unitary relationship between the flow-through entity and
the owner, or on the type of interest held by the owner.
Jennifer A. Zimmerman, Esq.
Horwood Marcus & Berk Chartered
Northbrook, IL
Phone: (312) 606-3247
E-mail: jzimmerman@hmblaw.com
Joanna Fu Simek, CPA, MST
BKD, LLP
Chicago, Il
Phone: (630) 282-9612
Email: jsimek@bkd.com
Article begins on page 11
March 2015 IPT Insider 4
CREDITS AND INCENTIVES
America’s Unemployed Youth:
How Tax Credits and Incentives May
Alter the Dilemma Facing
a Jobless Generation
Jennifer A. Zimmerman, Esq.
Horwood Marcus & Berk Chartered1
Northbrook, IL
Phone: (312) 606-3247
E-mail: jzimmerman@hmblaw.com
T
America's Jobless Generation
he Great Recession ended over five years ago,
but for many millennials, the future remains bleak.
America’s young adults are frustrated in the face of
weighty student loans and a sluggish job market. Though
the unemployment rate among young Americans has
declined from its April 2010 peak of 19.6 percent, just 63.4
percent of young people age 18-29 are employed.2 About
a third of that total are employed part-time, with many
of those in college. The unemployment rate of workers
under the age of 25 stood at 14.3 percent in July, more
than twice the overall rate.3
Disproportionately high youth joblessness is not surprising
in a recession; young workers are always far more
affected by an employment crisis than older workers.
The young are often inexperienced and lower skilled and
typically the first to be laid off or shut out of the job market.
Employers looking to cut back on their workforces target
lower-skilled workers first, both because they contribute
less to the entity’s success and because they are easier
to replace when the economy picks back up.
Particularly troubling about the current situation, though,
is that researchers in the United States have found that
youth unemployment leaves a “wage scar” that can persist
into middle age.4 Young people who endure early spells of
1 The author would like to thank Allison C. Hintz, a law
clerk in her third year at DePaul University School of Law, for
her assistance with this article.
2
Billy Hamilton, Generation Jobless: Can State Tax Incentives Help?, Tax Analysts (Dec. 9, 2014).
3 Id.
Generation Jobless, The Economist (Apr. 27, 2013), available at http://www.economist.com/news/international/21576657around-world-almost-300m-15-24-year-olds-are-not-workingwhat-has-caused.
4
unemployment are likely to have lower wages and greater
odds of future unemployment than those who don’t suffer
similar unemployment bouts. This problem is not on the
shoulders of only the young. If young workers earn less and
consume less, the U.S. economy (and global economy)
will be negatively impacted. Greater proportions of their
children will be poor, and their children’s poverty will stunt
the next generation’s economic prospections.
Tax Consequences
As young Americans lose out on higher wages and
salaries, federal and state governments suffer reduced
revenue. By one study, high levels of youth unemployment
have caused federal and state governments to lose an
estimated $8.9 billion in revenue.5 This figure does not take
into account the losses associated with sales tax from the
inability to afford major purchases, such as homes and
vehicles. Governments are, of course, looking for ways to
recoup these lost funds. Tackling youth unemployment is
not just good ethics. It’s good economics.
Credits & Incentives: Reducing Youth
Unemployment
One suggested course of action to curb youths’ inexperience and, as a result, the high youth unemployment rate
is the use of internships, both paid and unpaid.6 Seen by
employers as more important than where a job applicant
attended school, what the applicant majored in, or had
as his or her GPA, internships are designed to provide
outside-the-classroom experience to the inexperienced.
The number of unpaid internships is increasing, fueled
by employers’ desire to keep costs low and students’
eagerness for experience they can put on their résumé.
A common defense of the unpaid internship is that even
if the position does not pay wages now, it will pay off in
the form of a job and possibly higher wages later. Unpaid
internships, however, can be somewhat disturbing. In
certain cases, unpaid internships have actually displaced
paid employees and interns have been without educational
supervision and mentorship.7 Additionally, unpaid interns
5
6
7
Hamilton, Generation Jobless: Can State Tax Incentives
Help?.
Amanda Gutterman, 5 Solutions to the Youth Unemployment Crisis You Probably Haven’t Thought Of, The Huffington
Post (Oct. 25, 2014), available at http://www.huffingtonpost.
com/2014/10/25/youth-unemployment-solutions_n_6044310.
html.
Unpaid internships in compliance with The Fair Labor
Standards Act must, among other things, provide vocational
education and refrain from substituting interns for paid
(Continued on page 6)
March 2015 IPT Insider 5
are sometimes victims of “The Devil Wears Prada”
mentality and are seen by employers as grunt workers
to whom they can offload all their menial tasks.8 Further
research indicates a flaw in the original premise – unpaid
internships simply don’t work in providing young people
much, if any, advantage in their hunt for a permanent job.9
Government Actions
If one answer to the problem of high youth unemployment
is to increase the number of legitimate internships, thereby
increasing the number of job opportunities for young
Americans, the next natural question must be how to
incentivize legitimate job-producing internships. Because
the jobless climate affects a majority of the country, a
case could be made for federal grants or tax breaks.
In September 2014, Sen. Bernard Sanders, I-Vt., and
Rep. John Conyers Jr., D-Mich., introduced bicameral
legislation titled the “Employ Young Americans Now
Act.”10 The legislation provided for an initial appropriation
of $5.5 billion in grants to states and local governments for
fiscal year 2015. The legislation planned to generate job
opportunities for one million young Americans and offer
job training to hundreds of thousands more. However,
with no further action taken beyond the legislation’s
introduction, the bill died in the previous Congress.
The current Congress leaves much to be desired in the
way of passing legislation geared toward providing job
opportunities or training. Moreover, Congress has cut
a billion dollars from youth jobs programs over the past
decade.
Therefore, states are perhaps better prepared for the
task at hand. Indeed, a handful of states have designed
programs that use tax credits or grants to provide
incentives for businesses to hire high school and college
students for paid internships or apprenticeships. At least
eight states currently have such incentive programs: Iowa,
Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New York, North Dakota,
Ohio and Rhode Island.11 A majority of those states,
Minnesota, Missouri, New York, North Dakota and Rhode
Island, use tax credits. Alternatively, Iowa, Nebraska, and
Ohio make direct grants to businesses that hire qualifying
interns.
Fiscally, states are strapped. Virtually all the programs
are structured in a way that limits their fiscal impact. Most
limit the number of interns a company can employ under
the program and often the amount of credits or grants is
limited to a percentage of the intern’s salary or a fixed
dollar amount.
For example, Iowa’s grant program limits businesses to
three interns eligible under the program at a maximum
grant of $3,100 per intern, $1 equal to every $2 paid by
the business. Also, in North Dakota, the employment
credit is limited to 10 percent of an intern’s compensation
for up to five interns per business, in addition to a limit on
each individual business of $3,000 in total credits.
Some states focus their incentive programs on certain
industries or business size. The Iowa program is limited
to small and mid-size companies in the advanced
manufacturing, biosciences and information technology
industries employing 500 or fewer employees. Ohio’s
program provides grants for internships in businesses
involved in advanced energy, advanced manufacturing,
advanced materials, bioscience, IT, instruments, controls
and electronics, and power and propulsion.
Minnesota.
Minnesota is one state that uses tax
incentives to induce employers into hiring youth workers.
Minnesota’s program states the number of interns and
dollar amount of the tax credit, while limiting the program’s
application to eligible internships in “greater Minnesota.”
The internship provision creates a refundable credit
against the corporate franchise tax for eligible employers
in an amount equal to 40 percent of the compensation
paid to a qualified intern certified to the business by
an eligible college or university. The maximum credit
Other states have outwardly declined to adopt such programs. For example, in March, 2013, New Jersey Gov. Chris
Christie conditionally vetoed legislation that would have provided tax credits to employers for wages that they pay to student
interns. In doing so, Christie framed his concern as to whether
the measure would actually spur full-time jobs. The bill, A-1271,
envisioned a credit against employers’ corporation business or
gross income taxes for what they paid to “qualified interns” in
tax years 2013 and 2014. According to estimates, the program
would have reduced state revenues under those taxes by $7
million over those same years. N.J. Assembly, A-1271, 215th
Leg. (2012).
11
employees. Alex Williams, For Interns, All Work and No Payoff,
N.Y. Times (Feb. 14, 2014), available at http://www.nytimes.
com/2014/02/16/fashion/millennials-internships.html?_r=0. The
case of Walling v. Portland Terminal Co., 330 U.S. 148 (1947),
outlines six requirements to satisfy in order to qualify for an
exemption from paying interns.
Id.
See Id.
10
Employ Young Americans Now Act, S. 2832, 113th Cong.
8
9
(2014).
(Continued on page 7)
March 2015 IPT Insider 6
available is $2,000 per intern. Total statewide tax credits
are capped at $2 million per year, which breaks down
to 1,000 internships annually that Minnesota expects to
fund.
InternNE is open to full-time students and recent graduates from a Nebraska college or university or Nebraska
residents enrolled full time or recently graduated from a
college or university outside of Nebraska.
“Greater Minnesota” includes areas outside the counties
of Anoka, Carver, Chisago, Dakota, Hennepin, Isanti,
Ramsey, Scott, Sherburne, Washington and Wright.
The program basically applies to areas outside the
Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area. Open to students
attending public or private nonprofit universities in
Minnesota, a student must be attending a participating
college or university and have completed 50 percent of
the necessary credits to graduate in order to be eligible.
New York. New York, in a move distinct from the tax
In addition, participating colleges and universities must
approve the businesses in order for them to be eligible
for the credit. Businesses must then certify that the
intern wouldn’t have been hired but for the tax credit.
This certification is to insure that the business is actually
hiring an additional intern that it otherwise would not
have. Recipient businesses must also certify that the
intern hasn’t worked for the business before in the same
or similar job and hasn’t previously participated in the
program. Furthermore, businesses have to agree to pay
the interns at least the state minimum wage, currently $8
per hour, and have the interns work a minimum of sixteen
hours per week for at least eight weeks.
Missouri. Missouri also has a program that gives tax
breaks for internships to those individuals and businesses
that contribute to a range of programs designed to help
young people. Recipient individuals and businesses can
apply the credits to income tax, corporate franchise tax,
bank tax, insurance premiums tax, and other financial
institution tax. To receive the 50 percent tax credit, a
business can either hire an intern, or it can contribute, for
example, to an at-risk youth program and one of the other
approved programs to help young Missourians.
Nebraska. With similar goals to traditional incentive
programs, grant programs work differently while still
providing businesses with an incentive to hire qualified
interns. For example, InternNE, Nebraska’s grant
program, awards grants of up to fifty percent of the cost of
an internship, with a maximum of $5,000 per internship.
Businesses that hire students receiving federal Pell grants
(need-based grants to low-income undergraduate and
certain post baccalaureate students to promote access
to postsecondary education) can receive a grant of up
to 75 percent of the internship’s cost and an additional
$2,500 per internship. InternNE allows businesses to be
approved for up to five interns per location and up to ten
interns companywide in each fiscal year.
credit and grant programs previously mentioned, uses
a minimum wage reimbursement credit to reimburse
employers for part of the difference in the upcoming
minimum wage increase.12 New York’s minimum wage
was set at $7.25 per hour at the time of the legislation.
The passed legislation approved an increase, set to take
effect in three increments between 2014 and 2016, of
the minimum wage up to $9 an hour. Once the minimum
wage reaches $9 an hour, employers will pay 40 cents
and taxpayers $1.35 of the extra $1.75 an hour workers
will be paid.
New York’s program is less concerned with future job
opportunities as it is with preventing teenagers from being
squeezed out of jobs by the higher wage rate. Employers
will receive tax credits for seasonal employees ages
sixteen to nineteen who are still in school. In contrast
to the aforementioned credit and grant programs, New
York’s program is without a cap on the amount of tax
credits available or the types of businesses to which the
credits will generally be available. The overall cost of the
program is also not capped, though estimates put the cost
at $230 million over the first four years.
Concerns about cost are evident. New York’s incentive
package alone could cost more than a quarter of a
billion dollars over the first four years of inception. An
additional concern is that employers will use the credit
as an incentive to substitute teenagers for adult workers
in low-paying jobs, effectively replacing one problem with
another.
North Dakota. Under North Dakota’s Internship
Employment Credit program, an entity is allowed an
income tax credit for employing an individual under
an internship program located in North Dakota.13 The
program allows for a credit equal to ten percent of the
entity’s compensation paid to the intern, for up to five
interns employed simultaneously. An employer is allowed
no more than $3,000 of credits for all tax years. An intern
must be enrolled in a college or vocational technical
education program majoring in a field related to the work
12
13
Glenn Coin, New York’s Minimum Wage tax Credit
Slammed as Poorly Designed and Wasteful, Syracuse.com (Apr.
28, 2013), available at http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.
ssf/2013/04/new_yorks_minimum_wage_tax_cre_1.html.
N.D.C.C. § 57-38-01.24.
(Continued on page 8)
March 2015 IPT Insider 7
to be performed in the internship. Further, the employer
must supervise and evaluate the intern. The internship
must qualify for academic credit.
Rhode Island. With an eye towards remedying the
continuing shortage of highly skilled workers in Rhode
Island, the state legislature passed the Rhode Island
Employers’ Apprenticeship Tax Credit.14 The tax credit
applies to new machine tool & metal trade apprentice
or plastic process technician apprentice. Specifically,
the credit program provides for a tax credit equal to the
lesser of 50 percent of actual wages paid to a qualifying
apprentice or $4,800. Though Rhode Island’s program
does not specifically target young workers, it does provide
for a combination of on-the-job learning and related
classroom instruction. To qualify, the apprentice must be
enrolled in a registered qualified program through the
Rhode Island Department of Labor and Training’s State’s
Apprenticeship Council.
The Economics of a Jobless Generation
Growing national debate is centering on the value of
employer credit and incentive programs and whether they
actually create jobs or merely shift work from one location
to another. Credit packages targeted to reduce youth
unemployment are different. State programs are unlikely
to displace youth internships from one locale in favor of
another because the incentives are simply not of high
enough calibers. The incentives are strong enough to
encourage the hiring of qualified interns without being so
large as to draw one business from its current jurisdiction
to the jurisdiction offering tax credits or grants for paid
interns.
high youth unemployment results in lower tax revenue
and higher safety net expenditures for federal and state
governments. The cost of high youth unemployment
amounts to approximately $9 billion in foregone tax
revenue and benefits paid out each year at the federal and
state level. With credit and grant programs stimulating the
reduction in youth unemployment, taxpayers will benefit
through a broader tax base and increased revenues for
federal and state governments.
Conclusion
More than a one-third of the United States’ population of
300 million consists of individuals under the age of thirty.
The unemployment problem plaguing America’s youth
is large in scope and strong in persistence. Growing
evidence indicates that without immediate action, the
effects of the Great Recession and youth unemployment
will linger for years. States are correct in seeking a
solution, trying new approaches. However, concern about
the structuring of incentive programs is not misplaced as
there is little research about the effectiveness of these
programs on the unemployment rate. What is true is that
tax incentives and grants may provide a useful stimulus
to private sector job decisions. The risk of losing a full
generation of workers comes with serious consequences
– consequences so dire that the risk and costly investment
of credit and incentive programs may be well worth it.
Credit and incentive programs certainly don’t come
free. They must be financed somehow, through reduced
spending or raised taxes. Either way, taxpayers will be
affected by a state’s choice to implement a credit or grant
program targeting youth unemployment. Taxpayers will,
indirectly or directly, front the cost. The extra cost to
taxpayers may be justified. America’s youth are not the
only individuals impacted by sluggish hiring. One study
suggests that joblessness will account for a staggering
$20 billion in lost earnings over the next decade.15 This
equates to about $22,000 per person.16 Every year of
14
15
R.I. Gen. Laws § 44-11-41 (2014).
Elizabeth Jacobs, Twelve Ways to
Fix the Youth Unemployment Crisis, Governance Studies at Brookings (May
2014), available at: http://www.brookings.edu/research/
papers/2014/05/22-youth-unemployment-crisis-workforce-jacobs.
16
Sarah Ayers,
The High Cost of Youth Unemployment,
Washington DC: Center for American Progress (Apr. 5, 2013),
available at https://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/AyresYouthUnemployment1.pdf.
March 2015 IPT Insider 8
SALES AND USE TAX
Tax Tribunal Issues First Ruling
Regarding Scope of Authority of
Tax Tribunal Judge
Bruce P. Ely, Esq.
Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP
Birmingham, AL
Phone: (205) 521-8366
E-mail: bely@babc.com
James E. Long, Jr., Esq., CPA
Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP
Birmingham, AL
Phone: (205) 521-8626
E-mail: jelong@babc.com
C
hief Judge Bill Thompson of the newly-established
Alabama Tax Tribunal ("the Tribunal") issued his
first, and a key, ruling involving the scope of his
authority when the taxpayer, Stone Bridge Farms of
Cullman, Alabama, does not specifically raise a viable
argument or defense in its notice of appeal. This raises
the question of whether a tax tribunal judge may invalidate
an Alabama Department of Revenue (the “Department”)
regulation, even though the taxpayer challenging the
underlying assessment did not attack the regulation in
its pleadings or at the hearing. Stone Bridge Farms, LLC
v. State of Alabama Department of Revenue, Ala. Tax
Tribunal Docket No. S. 14-510 (January 27, 2015).
The case involves a taxpayer that owns and rents facilities
for special events such as weddings, rehearsal dinners,
and receptions in rural Cullman County. Initially, the
facility included only a wedding chapel, a banquet room,
and other buildings. It was undisputed that the rental
proceeds from these specific facilities were not subject
to the lodgings tax. However, beginning in January 2013,
the taxpayer began renting three nearby chalets on the
property to overnight guests, typically those involved
with a wedding at the adjacent facility. At that point, the
taxpayer began filing lodgings tax returns and paying
lodgings tax on the chalet rentals.
The Department audited the taxpayer and assessed it for
additional lodgings tax on the proceeds from the rental
of the wedding chapel, banquet room and any other
facility on the property used by the guests that previously
had not been subject to lodgings tax. The Department
relied on its Regulation 810-6-5-.13, which requires the
collection of lodgings tax on all rented facilities “where
rooms or other accommodations are offered for the use
of travelers, tourists or other transients . . .” That is,
pursuant to the regulation, once any part of the taxpayer’s
facilities became subject to lodgings tax, the rentals from
all facilities became subject to the tax.
The taxpayer’s CEO, who had appealed the final
assessment, did not attend the hearing or file a brief.
Nevertheless, Chief Judge Thompson ruled that the
regulation was invalid because it expanded the scope of
the lodgings tax beyond the levy permitted by the statute,
and voided the final assessment. Instead of challenging
the substance of the ruling, the Department raised a
procedural defense in its application for rehearing. It
argued that the taxpayer’s failure to raise the issue of the
overbroad regulation barred the Tax Tribunal from ruling
in favor of the taxpayer on that ground.
This procedural challenge has broad implications to tax
practitioners and, of course, to the authority of the new
Alabama Tax Tribunal. If the Department’s position was
correct, then the burden would presumably be on both
the taxpayer and the Department to raise every argument
in their pleadings or at the hearing before the Tribunal;
otherwise, the Tribunal would lack jurisdiction to even
consider these questions of law. This would create a heavy
burden for any taxpayer, especially pro se taxpayers
(including in-house counsel or tax managers of corporate
taxpayers) who frequently appear before the Tribunal. It
would also deliver a significant blow to the new Tribunal
as a “user-friendly” forum to resolve tax disputes.
Chief Judge Thompson rejected the Department’s attempt
to limit the Tribunal’s scope of authority and ability to
review questions of law:
I agree that if a taxpayer disputes a final
assessment on factual grounds, the
taxpayer must present evidence that the
final assessment is incorrect. . . . This
case can be distinguished, however,
because the relevant facts, as stated
in the Department’s answer, are not
disputed, and the case involves a purely
legal issue. That is, the case does not
involve a disputed issue of fact.
He ruled that by appealing in a timely manner, the
taxpayer had invoked the jurisdiction of the Tribunal,
and that the validity of the regulation was also before the
Tribunal because the Department cited the regulation as
the basis for the assessment in its answer. He also added
that “the Alabama Legislature has empowered the Tax
Tribunal to increase or decrease a final assessment upon
appeal ‘to reflect the correct amount due’.” See Ala. Code
§ 40-2A-7(b)(5)d.1.
(Continued on page 10)
March 2015 IPT Insider 9
As additional support for the distinction between
questions of law versus fact, the judge also cited new Tax
Tribunal Regulation 887-X-1-.6, which provides that the
Tribunal’s final order may “grant such relief and invoke
such remedies as deemed necessary by the tribunal
judge for a fair and complete resolution” of the case. He
added: “[f]undamental fairness mandates that a taxpayer
should not be required to pay a tax that is not due under
Alabama law.”
The Department’s attorneys argued that the Tribunal was
in essence placing the burden of proof on the Department
to justify the validity of its assessments, and that the
Tribunal had “effectively become an advocate for the
[t]axpayer.” The judge flatly rejected both arguments,
referring to the fundamental premise for the establishment
of the Tribunal last year: “By establishing an independent
Alabama Tax Tribunal . . . this chapter provides taxpayers
with a means of resolving controversies that ensures
both the appearance and the reality of due process and
fundamental fairness.” Ala. Code § 40-2B-1(a).
The judge asserted that if the Department’s position was
upheld, it would cause the taxpayer to pay “a tax that
is not due under Alabama law, because the taxpayer’s
pro se representative may not have properly plead the
taxpayer’s case… If that position is accepted, then small
businesses and non-lawyer taxpayers could fall prey to
procedural and other legal traps, and would in practical
effect be forced to hire an experienced attorney to
represent them in an appeal before the Tribunal, which is
clearly contrary to the intent of the Legislature.” To buttress
that statement, the judge cited a recent article in Business
Alabama Monthly in which one of the principal authors
and sponsors of the bill made essentially the same point.
Citing the Department’s mission statement to administer
Alabama’s revenue laws in an equitable manner, the
judge added a strong personal note:
In my 38-plus years as an employee of the
Revenue Department, first as an assistant
counsel and then for 31-plus years as the
Department’s Chief Administrative Law
Judge, I personally observed that the
Department’s employees, and especially
those in its operating divisions, almost
universally applied the proverbial
Golden Rule and took the position that a
taxpayer should only pay the correct tax
due, nothing more or less. Unfortunately,
it appears that this case is an exception
to that commendable mindset… Rather,
the Department’s position is that the
[t]axpayer should be required to pay
lodging tax that isn’t due … based on
what most citizens of Alabama would
consider a procedural or technical trap.
In conclusion, he pointed out the potential waste of
resources since the taxpayer could appeal an adverse
ruling of the Tribunal to circuit court, raise the validity of
the regulation in question at that level, and have a trial
de novo. “Not resolving an issue while it is before the
Tribunal would thus cause an unnecessary waste of time
and expense for the [t]axpayer and the Department and
also waste the circuit court’s time and resources.”
As Chief Judge Thompson’s ruling makes clear, one of
the overriding goals of a state-level tax tribunal, court,
board or commission is to provide a system that is fair to
both the taxpayer and the state department of revenue –
in appearance and in reality. While it is unknown whether
the Department will appeal this ruling to circuit court, this
case is especially instructive for any state considering
establishing an independent tax tribunal or court.
According to Eileen Sheer and the AICPA’s State and
Local Tax Technical Resource Panel (TRP), only sixteen
states still lack some form of an independent tax tribunal.
While Alabama joined the majority of states last year with
the passage of the Alabama Taxpayer Fairness Act, there
are similar proposals currently pending in New Mexico
and Washington.
The states considering an independent tax tribunal, as
well as states with existing tax tribunals of whatever stripe,
should consider clarifying the authority of their tribunal
with respect to questions of law or legal arguments not
raised by the taxpayer in its pleadings but yet relevant to
the ultimate issue of determining the taxpayer’s correct
liability. And this authority should not be limited to appeals
involving pro se taxpayers.
© February 22, 2015. Bruce P. Ely/ James E. Long, Jr./
Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP. All rights reserved.
March 2015 IPT Insider 10
INCOME TAX
State Tax Developments for
Pass-Through Entities and their OwnersApportionment of Income for
Corporate Partners1
Jennifer A. Zimmerman, Esq.
Horwood Marcus & Berk Chartered
Northbrook, IL
Phone: (312) 606-3247
E-mail: jzimmerman@hmblaw.com
Joanna Fu Simek, CPA, MST
BKD, LLP
Chicago, Il
Phone: (630) 282-9612
Email: jsimek@bkd.com
T
axation of corporate partners in multistate
partnerships raises interesting problems because
in many circumstances the corporate partner itself
is subject to multistate taxation and therefore must be
engaged in the process of apportioning and allocating its
income on a multistate basis.
The underlying constitutional premise is that any taxpayer
doing business in several states has a right to have its
income fairly apportioned among the taxing states. The
most common method to divide the income is by using
a formula that compares the taxpayer’s property, payroll
and sales in a particular state with those same factors
everywhere. Flow-through entities apportion their income
to a state using the state’s specified apportionment
formula. The entity is also required to notify its partners of
the distributive share of state source income – generally
via a state specific Form K-1.
Furthermore flow-through entities are generally required
to decide whether income is business or non-business
income, in order to determine the distributive share
of income attributable to each state. If the income is
determined to be non-business income, it will be allocated
to a specific jurisdiction; whereas if it is determined to
be business income, it will be apportioned among the
states where the entity has activity as described above.
The difference between allocating and apportioning
partnership income could have a material impact on a
1
The authors would like to thank Allison C. Hintz, a law
clerk in her third year at DePaul University School of Law, for
her assistance with this article.
corporation’s state-blended rates utilized for provision
purposes and could go as far as turning an otherwise
non-cash paying taxpayer into one that pays cash taxes.
Thus, two questions often arise with respect to corporate
partners: (1) is the business/nonbusiness income
determination made at the partner or partnership level;
and (2) will the corporation’s income from the partnership
be determined on an “aggregate” basis or “entity” basis
for purposes of computation of the corporate income tax
base.
Business/Nonbusiness Determination
The last 20 years reflect a substantial increase in use
of pass-through entities, but states always seem to be
playing “catch-up” with changes in the way business
is being done. As a result, one area in which there is
little guidance is whether the business/nonbusiness
determination is made at the partner or partnership level.
As a result, most states have not addressed the issue of
whether the business/nonbusiness income determination
is made at the partner or partnership level. There are
a few exceptions. Alabama, Arizona, California, Illinois
and Pennsylvania have all provided direct guidance on
this issue. Alabama2, California3 and Illinois4 require that
the determination be made at the partnership level, but
Arizona5 and Pennsylvania6 require that it be done at the
partner level.
For a partnership’s non-business income, the
determination of the state to which the income should be
allocated will depend on the sourcing rules in the states
at issue. The income will be attributed to the state or
states that are considered to be the source of the income.
For example, Illinois and California require that nonbusiness income, which is determined at the partnership
level, should be sourced to the state where the partner
is domiciled, unless the partner has attained a business
situs in the state.
Other states require that the non-business income be
determined at the partner level, which yields different
results because the corporate investment in the
partnership is typically treated as an intangible asset.
Ala. Admin. Code r. 810-27-1-1-.09.
Cal. Code Regs. tit. 18 § 25137-1(a).
4
Ill. Admin. Code tit. 86, § 100.3500(b)(1).
5
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 43-1412.
6
061 PA Code § 153.29.
2
3
(Continued on page 12)
March 2015 IPT Insider 11
A handful of states, including Arkansas7, Louisiana8,
Mississippi9 and Oklahoma10, presume that a corporate
partner’s distributive share of income or loss is nonbusiness income. They therefore require separate
allocation with regard to such income.
Despite the position of these few states, one may assume
that most states consider income to be “business income”
unless the taxpayer can prove otherwise. This theory
is reinforced by the Multistate Tax Commission (MTC)
regulations, which construe the Uniform Division of
Income for Tax Purposes Act (UDITPA), that establish
a presumption in favor of apportionment in stating, “the
income of the taxpayer is business income unless clearly
classifiable as non-business income.”11 New Jersey,
however, has taken the position in Chiron Corp. v. Director,
Division of Taxation12 that there is a presumption against
finding a unitary relationship between a corporate partner
and partnership in the context of partnership factor flowthrough. Absent a unitary finding, partnership income is
treated as non-business income and separately allocated
to a state based on the appropriate sourcing rules for that
state.
Apportionment
Assuming that a business income determination has
been made, the next step is to determine how the income
is to be apportioned. Like the business/nonbusiness
determination, states have adopted several different
approaches. Most states follow the “aggregate” or “flowthrough” approach. Under this approach, partnership
income is aggregated with the corporate partner’s business
income. The total business income is then apportioned
using an apportionment formula that combines the
corporate partner’s distributive share of the partnership’s
apportionment factors with the corporation’s own
apportionment factors. In other words, the apportionment
factors flow-through from the partnership to the corporate
partner.
An example of the “aggregate” approach is: A corporation
has a 60% interest in a partnership. The corporate partners
calculate their apportionment factor by including 60% of
the partnership’s payroll, property and sales (assuming
Ark. Code Ann. § 26-51-405.
8
La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 47:204.
9
Miss. Code Ann. § 27-7-25.
10
Okla. Stat. tit. 68, § 2363.
11
MTC Reg. IV.1.(a).
7
12 Chiron Corp. v. Director, Div. of Taxation, 21 N.J. Tax
528 (Tax Ct. 2004).
that the state uses a three-factor apportionment formula).
On the other hand, under the “entity” approach, a
partnership is treated as a separate entity distinct from
its partners and the corporation is taxed on its distributive
share of the partnership income determined separately.
If the corporate partner has operations of its own in the
state, it computes its own state apportioned income and
adds to the result the income from the partnership’s K-1.
An example of the “entity” approach is: A corporate
partner has a 60% interest in a partnership that earns
$100 of income. If apportionment is calculated at the
partnership level and the partnership computes a 50%
apportionment factor in a state, the partner would include
$30 of partnership income in its tax base in that state,
which is 60% of the partnership’s income in the state after
apportionment (i.e. $100 x 50% = $50, and $50 x 60% =
$30).
A few states, including California13, Illinois14, Michigan15 and
New Jersey16, require the flow-through of apportionment
factors only if the corporate partner and the partnership
are unitary. The analysis in states that take a unitary
approach becomes more complicated considering states’
differing unitary standards. For example, in California,
traditionally a unitary relationship existed if any of
three unity tests was satisfied. These tests include the
Mobil three-factor test17, the three unities test18, and the
contribution and dependency test19.
In a recent case, ComCon Production Services I, Inc. v.
California Franchise Tax Board20, California attempted
13
Cal. Code Regs. tit. 18. § 25137-1. If partners and partnership are not unitary, but the income is considered business
income, partners must apportion partnership income separately
from their other business income.
14
15
Ill Admin. Code tit. 86, § 100.3380.
Mich. Comp. Laws §§ 206.661(2), 206.663(1).
16 N.J. Admin Code § 18:7-7.6.
Mobil Oil Corp. v. Comm’r, 445 U.S. 425 (1980) (consisting of functional integration, centralized management, and
economies of scale).
17
18 Butler Bros. v. McColgan, 17 Cal. 2d 664 (Cal. 1941)
(consisting of unity of ownership, unity of operation, and unity
of use).
Edison Cal. Stores, Inc. v. McColgan, 30 Cal. 2d 472
(Cal. 1947) (consisting of whether the operation of the portion
of the business done within the state is dependent upon or
contributes to the operation of the business without the state).
19
ComCon Prod. Servs. I, Inc. v. California Franchise Tax
Bd., Los Angeles Superior Court, No. BC489779.
20
(Continued on page 13)
March 2015 IPT Insider 12
to prove that Comcast and its subsidiary QVC formed
a unitary business. Comcast presented evidence that
focused chiefly on the three Mobil indicia. Under the Mobil
test, unity is established with a showing of centralized
management, functional integration, and economies of
scale between the entities in question. The Franchise
Tax Board, however, focused on the application of the
contribution and dependency test, which focuses on
whether the entities contribute to, or depend on, one
another, in its attempt to affirmatively show unity between
Comcast and QVC.
The court rejected the State’s contentions and held that
the evidence presented at trial demonstrated that none of
the unitary tests were satisfied. In its decision, the court
relied on the Mobil indicia of a unitary business, which
it found incorporated the contribution and dependency
test. Relatedly, a few California courts have noted that,
while using slightly different terminology, the Mobil
indicia and the three unities test look to the same basic
factors, with the most emphasis placed on centralized
management (unity of use) and functional integration
(unity of operation). In the aggregate, these decisions
could be interpreted as meaning that the Mobil indicia
are the sole factors used to determine whether a unitary
relationship exists in California and that the contribution
and dependency test is simply a subset of the Mobil test.
As ComCon illustrates, a unitary relationship analysis can
be complex and confusing. The uncertainty surrounding
such a determination is only amplified if there is more
than one test to determine unity.
On the other hand, there are some states that provide
much clearer guidance for making a unitary determination.
For example, in Michigan, a taxpayer is unitary with a
flow-through entity if that taxpayer:
•
•
Owns or controls, directly or indirectly,
more than 50% of the ownership interest
with voting rights or ownership interests
that confer comparable rights to voting
rights of the flow-through entity, and
The taxpayer has business activities or
operations with the flow-through entity
that (1) result in a flow of value between
or among persons in the group, or (2) are
integrated with, are dependent upon, or
contribute to each other.21 Another point to consider when making a unitary
determination is that generally limited partners are not
considered to be unitary with the partnership due to the
21 Mich. Comp. Laws § 206.663(1).
passive nature of the relationship (as always though in
the state and local tax world, there is no hard and fast rule
to such effect applied by the states). The converse is not
necessarily true however, i.e. whether a general partner
is unitary with the partnership is a factual determination
made in accordance with the particular state’s rules.
It is interesting to note that one state, Georgia, specifically
looks to the type of interest held by the partner in
determining what apportionment approach applies. In
Georgia, the flow-through of apportionment factors occurs
if the foreign partner is a general partner. However, when
a foreign partner is a limited partner, the partnership’s
income is apportioned and allocated at the partnership
level and the foreign partner’s distributable share of the
partnership’s Georgia income is subject to allocation.22
Corporate partners that engage in business with the flowthrough entities in which they own an interest must also
determine whether a state will require elimination of these
intercompany transactions for purposes of calculating the
apportionment factor. For example, Michigan provides
that sales between a taxpayer and a flow-through entity
unitary with that taxpayer must be eliminated when
calculating the apportionment sales factor.23 Complexities
may arise when the intercompany transaction takes place
indirectly or with an affiliate. In addition, some states
have only specified the elimination of intercompany
transactions between partners and a partnership24, but
have not expanded the elimination for Limited Liability
Companies (LLCs) and their members. However, at least
one state, Oregon25, specifically provides for elimination
between a corporate member and LLCs, but does not
address transactions between partners and a partnership.
All of the above mentioned issues are also relevant
when a tiered partnership structure exists. Income and
apportionment factors can be flowed up through numerous
levels of entities, depending upon applicable state law.
Finally, there is one more consideration with respect to
Joyce/Finnigan issues. When determining sales to be
thrown back or out, is the determination made at the
partnership level or the partner level? In Joyce states,
each entity’s apportionment factors are calculated
independent of the others and then combined. Thus, a
partnership’s sales to a state where it doesn’t have nexus
Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. 560-7-7-.03.
MCL 206.663(3).
24
IL DOR Ruling IT 08-0001-PLR (5/19/08) (If unitary and
22
23
all partners are members of the same unitary group, intercompany transactions are eliminated).
25
OR Reg. Sec. 150=314.650(9).
(Continued on page 14)
March 2015 IPT Insider 13
may be subject to throwback despite the fact that the
corporate partner has nexus in such state. Conclusion
As outlined in the first two articles in this series, given
the constant changing nature of states’ treatment of
pass-through entities and their owners, it is critical for
such persons to vigilantly monitor changes, particularly
relating to apportionment, in an effort to avoid unknown
tax liabilities and unnecessary penalties.
March 2015 IPT Insider 14
IPT 2015 CALENDAR OF EVENTS
ABA-IPT Advanced Income Tax
Seminar
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel
New Orleans, LA
March 16 - 17, 2015
ABA-IPT Advanced Sales/Use Tax
Seminar
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel
New Orleans, LA
March 17 - 18, 2015
ABA-IPT Advanced Property Tax
Seminar
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel
New Orleans, LA
March 19 - 20, 2015
IPT Live Webinar
Unleash the Potential:
The Due Process Clause
March 26, 2015
2:00 - 3:00 p.m. EST
IPT Live Webinar
Regional Sales Tax Update:
Southern States
April 1, 2015
2:00 - 3:00 p.m. EST
Credits & Incentives School
The Cliff Lodge
Salt Lake City, UT
April 20 - 23, 2015
Sales Tax School II
Marriott Kingsgate Conference
Center
Cincinnati, OH
April 26 - May 1, 2015
CMI Sales Tax Exams
Hilton San Diego Bayfront
San Diego, CA
June 26 - 27, 2015
CCIP Exams
Hilton San Diego Bayfront
San Diego, CA
June 27 - 28, 2015
CMI Income Tax Exams
Hilton San Diego Bayfront
San Diego, CA
June 27 - 28, 2015
CMI Property Tax Exams
Hilton San Diego Bayfront
San Diego, CA
June 27 - 28, 2015
IPT Annual Conference
Hilton San Diego Bayfront
San Diego, CA
June 28 - July 1, 2015
Real Property Tax School
AT&T Executive Education Center
Austin, TX
July 19-24, 2015
Property Tax School
Georgia Tech Hotel &
Conference Center
Atlanta, GA
August 9 - 13, 2015
Personal Property Tax School
Georgia Tech Hotel &
Conference Center
Atlanta, GA
October 11 - 15, 2015
CMI Income Tax Exams
JW Marriott Austin
Austin,TX
October 31 - November 1, 2015
CMI Property Tax Exams
JW Marriott Austin
Austin,TX
October 31 - November 1, 2015
CMI Credits and Incentives Exams
JW Marriott Austin
Austin, TX
November 2 – 3, 2015
Income Tax Symposium
JW Marriott Austin
Austin, TX
November 1 - 4, 2015
Property Tax Symposium
JW Marriott Austin
Austin, TX
November 1 - 4, 2015
Credits & Incentives Symposium
JW Marriott Austin
Austin, TX
November 3 - 6, 2015
CMI Sales Tax Exams
Renaissance Esmeralda Resort
Indian Wells, CA
September 25 - 26, 2015
Basic State Income Tax School
The Cliff Lodge
Salt Lake City, UT
May 31 - June 5, 2015
Sales Tax Symposium
Renaissance Esmeralda Resort
Indian Wells, CA
September 27 - 30, 2015
Advanced State Income Tax
School
The Cliff Lodge
Salt Lake City, UT
May 31 - June 5, 2015
Value Added Tax Symposium
Renaissance Esmeralda Resort
Indian Wells, CA
September 30 - October 2, 2015
Please check IPT’s online Calendar of Events for additional programs that may be added.
March 2015 IPT Insider 15
Property Tax Calendar ~ April 2015
This information is provided by International Appraisal
Company (IAC) and is provided for quick reference/
reminder purposes only. IPT and IAC make no guarantee to completeness or accuracy and are not responsible for errors or omissions or for any results
from the use of this information. We strongly suggest
confirmation of all information with local taxing jurisdictions.
HI*
IA*
KY*
NC*
ND*
OK*
KS4/1
MN 4/30 Tax Court (Prior Year)
NJ4/1
NY Corning, Nassau County
Rochester (Local)
ND Townships - 1st Monday;
Cities - 2nd Monday
DC By 4/1
VA* Assessor Reviews
Personal Property Filing Dates:
AZ
CO
AK*
SC*
CA FL GA LA ME MS ����������������������4/1
MD TX����������������������������������������������������4/15
VT ����������������������������������������������������������4/20
VA* WA ������������������������������������������������4/30
ME 4/1
VT 4/1
Assessment Dates:
* Dates vary, check jurisdiction
CMI Sales Tax Exams:
June 26 – 27, 2015
Hilton San Diego Bayfront
San Diego, California
September 25 – 26, 2015
Renaissance Esmeralda Resort and Spa
Indian Wells, California
CMI Property Tax Exams:
Appeals Due:
AZ* DE*
SD* VA*
2015 CMI & CCIP Exam Schedule
June 27 – 28, 2015
Hilton San Diego Bayfront
San Diego, California
October 31 – November 1, 2015
JW Marriott Austin
Austin, Texas
CMI Income Tax Exams:
June 27 – 28, 2015
Hilton San Diego Bayfront
San Diego, California
October 31 – November 1, 2015
JW Marriott Austin
Austin, Texas
CCIP Exams:
June 27 – 28, 2015
Hilton San Diego Bayfront
San Diego, California
November 2 – 3, 2015
JW Marriott Austin
Austin, Texas
Applications must be received in the IPT
office 90 days prior to the examination date.
Potential candidates are encouraged to plan ahead to
avoid missing the application deadlines and thus the
opportunity to sit for the exam. Visit the IPT website for all
deadlines and to download an application.
March 2015 IPT Insider 16
Join Us in the Big Easy!
INCOME TAX SEMINAR
MARCH 16-17, 2015
SALES/USE TAX SEMINAR
MARCH 17-18, 2015
Best Practices for the Tax
Administration of Income Taxes
Remaining Ethical During These
Times of Cost Cutting
Best Practices for Managing
Audits and Litigation in Today’s
Challenging Environment
The Annual Big Easy Brawl:
The Panelists Go Head-to-Head
“Discussing” Current State and
Local Tax Issues
Traps for the Unwary in Dealing
with the Major Business Taxes
– Income, Gross Receipts and
Margin Taxes
State of State Taxation – Views
from the Bench
The Tough Compliance Issues
Associated with Taxing Services
Sales Taxation of Loyalty
Programs
Does PL 86-272 Cover More
Than You Think?
Local Tax Issues: Keeping Up
With the Other 9,948 Sales and
Use Tax Collectors
Statutes of Limitation (RARs)
Potpourri
The Revival of Due Process - An
Update on Economic Nexus
Ask the Collector!
How to Build an Audit File on
“Unitary-ness”
Combined Reporting – A Case
Study
An In-depth Look at the New
MTC Rules and Recent State
Developments on Apportionment
Issues
Economic Substance, Sham
Transactions
National Multi-State Sales and
Use Tax Update
Fact or Fiction? Cooperation
and Communication between Tax
Professionals and Their Inside/
Outside Advisors
PROPERTY TAX SEMINAR
MARCH 19-20, 2015
Fee Simple and Leased Fee
Valuations: Distinctions with Real
and Subtle Differences
Judges of General Jurisdiction:
How to Present a Winning Case
Valuation Issues for Senior
Housing
No Place But Up – Interest Rates,
Rents, Prices, Real Estate and the
Economy
Roundtable:
Perspectives on Valuation Issues
Practical Applications of the
Commerce Clause to Preempt
Property Taxes on Inventory in
Transit
Regional Mall Valuations . . .
Market Solutions to Win Your
Case
Murder, Mischief, Mayhem and
Property Values: What Happened
Next Door?
Roundtable: Update on Key
States
Are We Having Fun Yet? The
Valuation of Entertainment Venues
Remaining Ethical During These
Times of Cost Cutting
Ethics in a Tax Practice: Are They
Mutually Exclusive?
ABA/IPT Advanced Tax Seminars
March 16 - 20, 2015
The Ritz-Carlton ~ New Orleans, LA
Bringing together business tax professionals
Brochure
Registration
Hotel Reservations:
King Bed Accommodations or Double Bed Accommodations
March 2015 IPT Insider 17
Credits and Incentives School
IPT Live Webinars
Unleash the Potential:
The Due Process Clause
March 26, 2015, 2:00 - 3:00 p.m. EST
Regional Sales Tax Update:
Southern States
April 1, 2015, 2:00 - 3:00 p.m. EST
Unleash the Potential:
The Due Process Clause
March 26, 2015
This session will provide an overview of due process
analysis to date, with a focus on the U.S. Supreme Court
cases addressing the Due Process Clause and the state
tax cases that have applied it to negate the state’s taxing
authority.
Click here to register.
Regional Sales Tax Update:
Southern States
April 1, 2015
The Southeastern update will discuss recent developments in indirect taxes in southeastern states, including:
Florida, Georgia, North Carolina and South Carolina.
The webinar will include legislative updates, department
rulings and court cases. Topics include: Florida’s enactment of an industrial machinery and equipment exemption; Georgia’s broadening of its manufacturing exemption to include consumable supplies; the current status of
the Georgia high technology exemption; North Carolina’s
codification of the terms “real property contractor” and
“retailer-contractor”; North Carolina’s treatment of service
contracts; and the broadening of South Carolina’s medical exemption.
Click here to register.
Recorded Distance Learning Courses
are Available at IPT.org
April 20 - 23, 2015
The Cliff Lodge, Salt Lake City, Utah
IPT’s second Credits and Incentives School will take
place at the Cliff Lodge near Salt Lake City, Utah, from
April 20 - 23, 2015. The school covers the fundamentals
of credits and incentives and is designed for individuals
who have a basic knowledge of the topic.
The registration fee covers 9.5 hours of pre-requisite
web-based coursework, approximately 22.5 hours in a
face-to-face school, and six hours of additional E-learning
electives. The pre-requisites must be completed prior to
the school.
In the live portion of the school, emphasis is placed upon
student participation via a case study and group discussion. Successful completion of all three segments and the
school examination is required. The faculty represents a
broad-based set of backgrounds and many decades of
experience.
Online Registration
Brochure
Registration Form
Hotel Reservation
2015 IPT Sales Tax School II:
Theory and Practice for the Experienced Sales
& Use Tax Professionals
April 26 – May 1, 2015
Marriott Kingsgate Conference Center
University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio
The school is composed of the 16 general sessions shown
below, followed by breakout sessions which expand on
the material.
hh Ethics
hh Constitutional Issues
hh Advanced Topics in
Retailing
hh Advanced Topics in
Leasing
hh Advanced Audit
Management
hh Taxpayer Remedies
hh Statistical and Block
Sampling
hh Mergers & Acquisitions
hh Tax Planning
hh Taxation of Computer
Online Registration
Brochure
Software & Services
hh Advanced Topics in
Telecommunications
hh Advanced Topics in
Manufacturing
hh Advanced Topics
in Construction
Contracting
hh Advanced Topics in Oil
and Gas
hh Taxation of Electronic
Commerce
hh Managing the Sales
Tax Function
Registration Form
Hotel Reservation
March 2015 IPT Insider 18
BASIC STATE INCOME TAX SCHOOL
The Cliff Lodge ~ Salt Lake City, Utah
May 31 - June 5, 2015
ADVANCED STATE INCOME TAX SCHOOL
The Cliff Lodge ~ Salt Lake City, Utah
May 31 - June 5, 2015
This school is focused on teaching fundamental state income tax concepts and practices. The five-day program is
designed to provide the essential state tax building blocks
for those students with less than five years income tax
experience.
This school is a thorough, five-day program that provides
an in-depth examination of the complex problems state
income tax professionals face, including nexus and entity concerns, separate and consolidated/combined return
issues, apportionment complexities, reorganizations and
mergers, tax planning nuances, and more.
The curriculum includes a thorough review of basic income tax concepts, such as apportionment, nexus and
the unitary business principle. It also provides an introduction to more advanced issues and features specific courses on accounting principles, income tax audits
and compliance, as well as best practices for researching
and documenting income tax issues. The curriculum will
also provide an introduction and analysis of recent trends,
such as states’ greater emphasis on the sales factor and
resort to gross receipts taxes.
The format of this school includes lectures as well as interactive case studies and group discussions. Students
will benefit from the insight and diversity of experiences
of faculty, which consist of tax professionals from public
and private companies and top accounting and law firms.
Topics Include:
hh State of the States
hh Jurisdiction to Tax, Part 1:
Federal Constitutional Limitations
hh Jurisdiction to Tax, Part II: Nexus and P.L. 86-272
hh Determination of Income Tax Base
hh Case Study: Nexus and P.L. 86-272
hh What is a Unitary Business
hh Income Subject to Allocation
hh Income Tax Filing and Compliance
hh Common Issues in Mergers and Acquisitions
hh Fundamentals of Formulary Apportionment
hh Pass Through and Disregarded Entities
hh Allocation and Apportionment
hh Tax Return Basics
hh Handling an Income Tax Audit
hh Tax Provisions 101
hh Case Study: Tax Provisions
hh Researching and Documenting Findings
hh Ethics
Mark your calendar!
Information for each of these schools will
be available soon on IPT's website.
Topics Include:
hh State of the States
hh Evaluating Risk in Nexus and PL 86-272 Issues
hh Nonbusiness Income:
Recent Cases & Remaining Questions
hh Unitary Business:
Core Theory & Recent Applications
hh Case Study:
Differences Between Unitary and Non-Business
hh State Tax Issues for Foreign Affiliates
hh Complex Problems in Combined Reporting and
Advanced Return Mechanics
hh Case Study: Combined Reporting
hh Advanced Problems in Mergers & Acquisitions
hh Tax Planning
hh Case Study: Tax Planning
hh Passthroughs — Advanced Issues
hh Case Study: Passthroughs
hh Advanced Issues in Using and Accounting for Net
Operating Losses
hh SALT Tax Provisions and Accruals
hh IFRS: What the Future Holds for SALT
hh Thorny Issues with “Other” Business Taxes: Margin
Tax, Franchise Tax, B&O, Etc.
hh Apportionment — Current Issues with Factors:
Market vs. COP, Joyce vs. Finnigan, Gross vs. Net,
(MTC Compact)
hh Apportionment — Weighing Constitutional Issues
hh Apportionment — Seeking Alternative Relief
hh Case Study: Tax Apportionment
hh Related Party Transactions:
Transfer Pricing, 311(b) Distributions, etc.
hh Case Study: Related Party Transactions
hh Coordinating Federal and State RARs and
Compliance
hh Taxpayer Remedies:
The How To’s of Tax Controversies
hh Ethics
March 2015 IPT Insider 19
IPT’s 2015 Annual Conference is a two and one-half day
program designed to inform, educate and connect IPT
members, providing them with the knowledge and resources they need to be successful. The conference is
intended for all IPT members and other associated individuals, and features IPT’s annual business meeting, as
well as in-depth presentations by industry experts on a
number of current issues important to our industry.
At the conference, you will have a forum to discuss and
debate the issues most important to you and the opportunity to participate in deep-dive discussions on current and
emerging topics. You will also have ample opportunity to
network with your colleagues, reconnecting with some
and meeting new ones.
Set in sunny San Diego, the conference will be held in the
beautiful Hilton San Diego Bayfront, which has a spectacular waterfront location, numerous amenities, spa services and daily poolside specials that you and your family
can enjoy during your stay. Because of the US Navy’s
strong presence in San Diego, it was natural that the
conference’s theme is ANCHORS AWEIGH, in respectful
homage to San Diego’s proud maritime history. You can
expect to see more about this nautical
theme
in the
comPhoto
by Joanne
DiBona
ing months.
The Hilton Bayfront is located steps from the downtown
Gaslamp Quarter and PETCO Park and is minutes from
the San Diego airport. During your stay in San Diego, you
can visit the USS Midway Museum, Balboa Park, SeaWorld, the San Diego Zoo, and over 68 miles of beaches.
There is a lot to do in San Diego, and you can do it all in
San Diego’s famed “perfect weather.”
Space is limited, so make your plans to attend as soon
as possible for several days of learning, networking and a
little bit of fun. See you in San Diego!
Real Property Tax School
AT&T Executive Education Center
July 19 - 24, 2015 ~ Austin, Texas
This is a comprehensive, five-day school for property tax
professionals who have at least three years of full-time
experience in the real property tax area. The purpose
of the program is to provide students with fundamental
and integrated knowledge of property tax principles,
concepts and technical skills essential to the field. The
course is designed to provide a deep dive into the real
property tax valuation process and related subjects.
Registration information will be available ninety days prior
to the course. The Property Tax School must either
be successfully challenged, or attended and
passed, before an individual can take the Real
Property Tax School. For more information on
challenging the Property Tax school, visit www.
ipt.org.
March 2015 IPT Insider 20
Upcoming IPT Local Luncheons
Delaware Valley
Wednesday, March 11, 2015
Charlotte Area
Time: 11:30 a.m.
Place:
Drinker Biddle
One Logan Square, Suite 2000
Philadelphia, PA
Time:
11:30 a.m.
Place:
The Duke Mansion
400 Hermitage Road, Charlotte, NC
http://www.dukemansion.com/
Speaker: Joseph C. Bright, Esq.
Member, Cozen O’Connor
Topic:
Pennsylvania’s new market-sourcing
apportionment rules
Contact: Kaitlin A. McKenzie-Fiumara at
Kaitlin.McKenzie-Fiumara@dbr.com
North Carolina Triangle Area
Thursday, March 26, 2015
Time:
11:30 a.m.
Place:
18 Seaboard Restaurant
located at 18 Seaboard Avenue #10, in
Raleigh (information and directions at
http://www.18seaboard.com/)
Speaker: The Honorable Lyons Gray
Secretary of Revenue
State of North Carolina
Topic:
Friday, March 20, 2015
Speaker: Jason Sullivan, CPA
Partner, International Tax
Dixon, Hughes, Goodman LLP
Topic:
FATCA: Not Just for Financial Institutions
Contact: Kathy Foster at
kathleen.foster@dimensiondata.com
Other Meeting of Interest:
Join the Texas Taxpayers and Research
Association (TTARA) for upcoming luncheons
where updates on budget and tax issues will be
discussed. Click here for more information.
Looking Forward at the Department of
Revenue
Contact: Kirk Neely at Kirk.Neely@us.abb.com
March 2015 IPT Insider 21
2015 Sales Tax School I Highlights
This year’s program was held on the campus of Georgia Tech in Atlanta on February 22 – 27, 2015, and was attended by 212 individuals from the United States and Canada. Seventeen instructors presented during the school,
volunteering to share their insight and expertise with IPT students. We thank them for their many efforts. This
year was especially difficult due to inclement winter weather, which prevented some from attending and wreaked
havoc for the entire week. Everyone, instructors, students and staff, weathered the storm and showed flexibility
and understanding that ultimately made the school a success.
Brenda S. Kelley, CMI, CPA, was this year’s school chair, and Kathleen L. Peavley, CMI, was its vice chair. IPT
President Arthur E. Bennett, CMI, opened the program and welcomed the students to Atlanta.
Take a look at some who were there starting with the instructors.
INSTRUCTORS
Jesse R. Adams II
Esq.
Jones Walker LLP
New Orleans, LA
Kimberly Burkey
CMI, CPA
Crowe Horwath LLP
Atlanta, GA
Rodney L. Cole
CMI
Essilor of America Inc.
Dallas, TX
Christian Eduardo Diaz
The Coca-Cola Company
Atlanta, GA
Rolston A. Dyer
CMI
The Coca-Cola Company
Atlanta, GA
William F. Fox
Ph.D.
University of Tennessee
Knoxville, TN
Garfield A. Grant
CMI, CPA
DuCharme, McMillen
& Associates, Inc.
Sugar Land, TX
Josie Ann Henneke
CMI, CPA
Kemper CPA Group LLP
Greenfield, IN
Brenda S. Kelley
CMI, CPA (Chair)
Fontaine & Kelley, LLP
Hartsburg, MO
Samantha C. Maqueo
CMI
General Solutions
Associates, LLC
Alpharetta, GA
William J. McConnell
CMI, CPA, Esq.
General Electric
Company
Ft. Myers, FL
LiKeisha G. Mills
CMI
DuCharme, McMillen
& Associates, Inc.
Irving, TX
March 2015 IPT Insider 22
2015 Sales Tax School I Highlights (continued)
INSTRUCTORS (continued)
Lynn L. Monsalvatge
CMI
The Home Depot
Atlanta, GA
Paul Douglas Nagode
CMI
Deloitte Tax LLP
Atlanta, GA
Kathleen L. Peavley
CMI (Vice Chair);
HD Supply
Orlando, FL
Michele D. Swanson
CMI
Turner Broadcasting
System, Inc.
Atlanta, GA
Allan Wells
CMI
ABB Inc.
Cary, NC
MORE HIGHLIGHTS
Opening Session
The general sessions are the backbone of
the school. This is where we come together
to learn about the topics that are the foundation of the school. We then separate into
breakout groups where we deep dive into the
subject matter.
Breakout Session
There were five sets of breakout sessions during the school. Each of the 212 students were
placed in one of the eight breakout groups.
They worked together to share knowledge and
problem solve.
Quiz
A quiz and final examination are part of the
week long program.
2015 Sales Tax School I Sponsors
We would like to thank the following companies for their sponsorship.
50
March 2015 IPT Insider 23
Member Spotlight
Welcome to our new feature, Member Spotlight, which shines the light on individuals from all areas
of IPT’s membership. The purpose is simply to provide members another opportunity to connect by
learning about each other’s interests and experiences. Each month we will select two members, ask
them a few questions and get to know them a little better. We will focus on choosing members who
have different perspectives, areas of expertise and professional responsibilities, all of which will help
tell the story of IPT, who we are and what we do. Enjoy!
Randy Barnes
Did you ever dream of sailing
the high seas, captaining your
own boat in the waters of the
Atlantic? Randy Barnes has.
In fact, it’s an item that is high
on his bucket list. Randy is
relatively new to IPT, joining
in August of 2014. He says
that his experience with IPT
has helped him recognize
the nuances of the various
taxing jurisdictions around the
country, and given him tips on how to deal with them.
Randy is the president of Integrity Tax Consulting, a firm that
focuses on real and personal property tax services and is
located in Fort Wayne, Indiana. Randy joined IPT because of
the wealth of continuing education opportunities we offer and
to help grow his professional network, which has connected
him to professionals from across the country.
He recalls that one of his best experiences as an IPT
member was during the Property Tax Symposium held in
Fort Lauderdale, Florida last November. He enjoyed meeting
and interacting with all of the other tax professionals, and
really felt he gained a lot of insight and knowledge from the
open exchange of ideas and best practices that took place
during the sessions.
Randy and his wife of 25 years have two grown children and
like to spend time near the water, whether it is on a beach in
Florida or by a lake in the Midwest. He likes to play golf and
looks forward to the day when he is navigating the waters off
the Florida Keys.
Jim Sinnott, CMI
When Jim Sinnott first joined
IPT, it was 1976 and he was
working as a corporate tax
manager at General Foods
Corporation. IPT was a new
organization with the purpose
of bringing tax professionals
together to help solve problems
through the exchange of
information and learning from
each other, and it grew to
become so much more.
Jim fondly remembers attending IPT's inaugural conference
at The Carousel Inn, a small hotel outside Cincinnati, with
around 70 property tax professionals in attendance. After
attending about 25 annual conferences since then, he has
seen the event grow into a robust event with hundreds of
attendees, top notch subject matter and an increased ability
to connect with tax professionals.
IPT has been a part of Jim’s career every step of the
way. He is a CMI and has experienced membership both
as a corporate tax representative at General Foods and
SCM Corporations and as an outside consultant after
establishing his own consulting firm in 1986. Jim still runs
Tax Management Associates, Inc., a taxpayer advocate real
estate and personal property tax consulting firm that covers
the needs of clients throughout the Northeast (he adamantly
reminds us that his firm is in no way related to the assessor
audit firm of the same name).
All in all, Jim believes that his involvement with IPT has
helped him immeasurably throughout the years. IPT has
helped him expand his expertise and, by serving many
years as an instructor at the basic property tax school and a
frequent symposium presenter, he has had the opportunity
to share that knowledge with others. As the original chair of
the Local Luncheon program in the NYC metropolitan area,
he grew his professional network while inviting others to join
his.
Jim and his wife Anne make their home in Greenwich,
Connecticut. So if you’re there this summer, you may find
Jim on the golf course, volunteering for various animal rights
organizations, or simply at home cheering on his beloved
Yankees.
March 2015 IPT Insider 24
NEW MEMBERS
PROPERTY TAX MEMBERS
*Elizabeth Arriaga
American Water
Cherry Hill, NJ
Terry Bishop
Altus Group Limited
Toronto, ON
Kevin Blaisure
Property Tax Advocates, Inc.
Irving, TX
Johnny Paul Cook
PepsiCo, Inc.
Plano, TX
Porsche Farr
Florida Power & Light (FP&L)/
NextEra Energy, Inc.
Juno Beach, FL
Lani Merda
Saputo Cheese USA, Inc.
Lincolnshire, IL
Jason K. Nelsen
Property Reserve Inc.
Salt Lake City, UT
Michael J. Snyder
CONSOL Energy Inc.
Canonsburg, PA
SALES TAX MEMBERS
*Elizabeth Arriaga
American Water
Cherry Hill, NJ
Travis Austin
Grant Thornton LLP
Oklahoma City, OK
Michael Bontrager
Walgreen Co.
Deerfield, IL
SALES TAX MEMBERS,
continued
SALES TAX MEMBERS,
continued
Theismon Giles
Michaels Stores, Inc.
Irving, TX
Sarah Melton
TaxConnex, LLC
Roswell, GA
Lynisha I. Grey
Georgia-Pacific LLC
Kennesaw, GA
Meghan Morgan
Ryan, LLC
Bellevue, WA
Daisy Jacinto
Deloitte Tax LLP
Sacramento, CA
*Matthew Overaker
Johann Haltermann LTD
Houston, TX
Nola Jackson
Dollar Tree Stores, Inc.
Chesapeake, VA
Adina Phillips
Hein & Associates
Dallas, TX
*Carol Johnston
Brookfield Renewable
Energy Group
Ottawa, ON
Carley A. Roberts, Esq.
Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP
Sacramento, CA
James D. Jones, Esq.
Boardwalk Pipelines, LLC
Houston, TX
Jessica Jones
GoDaddy.Com LLC
Scottsdale, AZ
*Sabahudin Jonic
Karl Storz EndoscopyAmerica, Inc.
El Segundo, CA
Keith G. Landry, Esq.
Keith G. Landry, LLC
Atlanta, GA
Dennis Marshall
Deloitte Tax LLP
Chicago, IL
Lynda Marucheau
DPR Construction
Sacramento, CA
Lisa Bo Young Cha
Grant Thornton LLP
Dallas, TX
*Rebecca McCarty
Philips Electronics
North America Corp
Andover, MA
Jennifer Elwick
Michaels Stores, Inc.
Fort Worth, TX
Laura McClish
BKD, LLP
Indianapolis, IN
Patricia Feller
Grant Thornton LLP
Chicago, IL
Jose Melendez
Acushnet Company
Fairhaven, MA
Christian Galicia
Stronghold Ltd.
La Porte, TX
Lani Merda
Saputo Cheese USA, Inc.
Lincolnshire, IL
Juan Rodriguez
Walgreen Co.
Deerfield, IL
Marc Dalton Speer
Ernst & Young LLP
Tulsa, OK
Jace A. Stamper, Esq., LL.M.
Ernst & Young LLP
Nashville, TN
*Kimberly Toomer
GreatAmerica Financial Services
Corporation
Cedar Rapids, IA
Therese Trotter
GM Financial Company, Inc.
Fort Worth, TX
Joseph Wagner
Michaels Stores, Inc.
Irving, TX
Melissa Warren
LKQ Corporation
Nashville, TN
Hannah Yoo, J.D.
Ernst & Young LLP
Chicago, IL
Joshua Zamarron
McGladrey LLP
Dallas, TX
*Denotes Regular Member
March 2015 IPT Insider 25
NEW MEMBERS, continued
INCOME TAX MEMBERS
Sacramento, CA
Erin Digan
Grant Thornton LLP
Dallas, TX
Ryan Poynter
Grant Thornton LLP
Dallas, TX
Kevin Lindley
Grant Thornton LLP
Dallas, TX
CREDITS & INCENTIVES MEMBERS
Jennifer A. Carroll, Esq.
True Partners Consulting LLC
Dallas, TX
Catherine McClaine
DPR Construction
Jennifer Paedon
Lockheed Martin Corporation
Sunnyvale, CA
Rebecca D. Truelove
Ernst & Young LLP
New York, NY
Leo Winter
Grant Thornton LLP
Iselin, NJ
In Remembrance of Derek S. McCleery, CMI
Derek was a founding member of
IPT and was the organization’s first
president, helping shape and define
IPT’s mission, purpose and ethical
standards. During his tenure, he
and his colleagues established IPT,
gave us our vision and implemented
an infrastructure that would grow
stronger over time and evolve into
the organization we have today.
Derek S. McCleery, CMI
IPT President 1976-1978
Derek S. McCleery, CMI,
of Newtown, Connecticut, died
peacefully at his home surrounded
by family on February 26, 2015.
Mr. McCleery was born in Bangor,
Northern Ireland, and immigrated
with his wife, Iris M. McCleery, to
America in 1953. He is survived
by son Ian Michael McCleery,
and daughters Sharron (Steve)
Lavatori, Siobhan (Chris) Santini,
and Stephanie (Robb) Heering, and
by eight grandchildren Jeff Lavatori,
Brandon, Michael, and Morgan
Santini, and Robb Jr., Kyle, Derek,
and Connor Heering.
He led the first full IPT membership
meeting on October 19, 1976,
in Atlanta with 125 individuals in
attendance. Derek was the first
person with a CMI designation.
He worked diligently with IPT cofounders to create the first iteration
of IPT’s schools, presiding over
and teaching at the first one, which
was held in conjunction with IPT’s
first Annual Conference in 1977
in Cincinnati. He also reached
out to the Canadian Property Tax
Association to support the exchange
of ideas throughout North America.
Derek remained involved with IPT
throughout its history and within the
past several years, participated in
IPT ethics programs.
work as a consultant in ad valorem
taxation. He was very active in
many community organizations,
including the Boys and Girls Club,
The Community Center, Board of
Tax Review, Historical Society and
St. Stephen's Church.
Derek had a passion for his chosen
field and the vision to create an
organization that would help tax
professionals navigate the increasing
complexities of the industry. Through
his professional life and charitable
work, Derek was a man driven by the
need to help others grow and thrive,
and thousands of lives are the better
for it.
Most, though, say they will remember
the simple pleasures of spending
time with him. He had a wonderful
Irish brogue, a true gift for storytelling
and a laugh that filled up a room. He
will be missed.
Derek was the senior vice president
of Gulf & Western Industries until
his retirement at age 50. During his
retirement years he continued to
March 2015 IPT Insider 26
MORE
1
JUST
M
embers who refer at least one new member to IPT will be entered into a prize drawing
at IPT’s Annual Business Meeting. Each time you refer a new member to IPT, your
name will be placed in the drawing. In order to receive recognition and the opportunity
to participate in the drawing, please make sure the person(s) you refer includes your name on
his or her application. As we grow our membership, IPT can bring you better benefits, such as
greater educational opportunities. Please participate in the Just One More Campaign and help
in the continued growth of IPT. Individuals who referred one or more new members during the
previous month are listed below.
Carla Faye Alfers
Marke C. Greene
Faranak Naghavi, CPA
Zachary T. Atkins, Esq.
Cecil Douglas Gregory, Jr., CPA
Nola T. Newcomb
Dean A. Barney, CMI
Darcy N. Kooiker, CPA
Anna O’Hara
Jeffrey R. Burgher
Whitney Lang
Naseem Qussar
Andre B. Burvant, Esq., CPA
Stephanie Mills Leonard
Kristen Renee Scherer, CMI
Lindsy Castro
Todd A. Lard, Esq.
Alexander St. Clair, CPA
Angela Deamico, CMI
Anthony Levatino
Christopher A. Stanton, CMI
James Derbyshire, FRICS, MIMA,
PLE
Catherine McClaine
Lisa G. McCoy
IPT’s Policy Statement on
Member Entertaining
The 4th Edition of the Property Taxation
Book is Now Available!
The 4th edition of the Property Taxation
book has been updated and is now
available in a convenient new format!
The book includes updated content,
paired with the essential information
that is useful to tax professionals at
every stage of their career.
Member feedback revealed that at
almost 650 pages, the book was too
cumbersome to carry when traveling. This made it difficult
to use the resource outside of the office. To solve this issue,
the book was condensed into a flash drive, which is userfriendly, easily searchable and highly portable. You will notice
the difference!
The flash drive costs $100 for IPT members, $125 for those
employed by companies with IPT members and $175 for
non-members. Order your copy today at ipt.org.
Institute Policies: The Institute has a longstanding policy
which prohibits any planned hospitality suites or entertaining
by individual members for business solicitation purposes. All
social events are scheduled by the Institute, and each member’s participation in these activities is most appreciated.
Members attending IPT events should make every effort to
attend each social and business function, thereby supporting
the organization. The Institute has a strict policy prohibiting
non-IPT literature, the distribution of gifts (except exhibit and
permitted sponsor materials), and the solicitation of business
during an IPT event. Use of IPT registration lists (any school,
symposium, seminar or conference registration list, or the
Membership Directory) for business solicitation is also prohibited.
If you feel that you are being solicited at an IPT program or
function, please advise the person soliciting you that his or
her solicitation is unwanted. If the behavior persists, please
notify the IPT staff immediately so the matter can be directly
addressed.
We expect that all attendees will comply fully with these official policy positions of the IPT Board of Governors.
Thank you.
s
r
e
e
r
Ca
Helping to connect IPT members with careers, IPT connects great people
with great opportunities. Visit the Career Opportunities page on the
IPT website for career position descriptions and requirements.
March 2015 IPT Insider 27
State Business Income Taxation Book
State Business Income Taxation includes contributions from some of the nation’s
preeminent state business income tax practitioners, a virtual Who’s Who of SALT
professionals. This treatise, derived from the authors’ many years of expertise in
state business income taxation, is a vital reference tool. Let the leading state and
local income tax experts provide you with the answers you need by purchasing this
book and accompanying CD today!
Click here to order this vital resource.
Sponsor an IPT Event this Year!
IPT’s 2015 Sponsorship program offers the opportunity for businesses to sponsor individual events (i.e., continental
breakfasts, lunches, receptions, breaks, internet service, charging station(s), and mobile app) at any of the symposia or
at the Annual Conference. Below is a chart indicating the individual events and pricing for each of the programs. There
are still many sponsorship opportunities available.
For further information on how you can sponsor one of these events, please contact Helen Johnson at hjohnson@ipt.
org.
Event:
Annual
Conference
Sales Tax
Symposium
Value
Added Tax
Symposium
Income Tax
Symposium
Credits and
Incentives
Symposium
Reception:
S - $5,000
M - $6,000
T - $8,000
S - $7,500
M - $7,500
W - $2,500
Th - $2,500
S - $2,500
M - $2,500
T - $2,500
T - $4,000
S - $5,000
M - $5,000
T - $5,000
Continental
Breakfast:
M - $4,000
T - $4,000
W - $2,500
M - $4,000
T - $4,000
W - $3,000
Th - $1,000
F - $1,000
M - $1,200
T - $1,200
W - $1,000
W - $2,000
Th - $2,000
F - $1,000
M - $2,500
T - $2,500
W - $2,000
Luncheons:
M - $4,500
T - $4,500
M - $4,500
T - $4,500
Th - $1,500
F - $1,500
M - $1,500
T - $1,500
W - $2,500
Th - $2,500
M - $3,000
T - $3,000
Each Break:
AM or PM
$2,500
$2,500
$1,000
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
Internet:
$3,000
$3,000
$1,500
$1,500
$2,500
$2,500
Charging
Stations:
$2,500
$3,000
$1,500
$1,500
$2,000
$2,500
Mobile App:
$2,000
$2,000
$1,500
$1,500
$2,000
$2,000
Property Tax
Symposium
Strike-Through = Sponsorship no longer available
Companies may also continue to sponsor any of our national programs as a regular General Sponsor. Click here for
the 2015 General Sponsor application.
March 2015 IPT Insider 28
6. Sign In at www.ipt.org.
CMI
CE
RT
IFIED MEMB
®
XATION •
TA
• INSTITUTE
S
ROFE SIONAL
SI
RP
N
FO
To submit non-IPT Continuing Education:
C MI C o r n e r
ER
7. Hover your mouse over “Professional Designations”
on the main blue menu bar, and click on “Application
for Non-IPT Continuing Education Credit.”
8. Fill out the form, attach the supporting documentation,
digitally sign the form and click submit.
Online IPT Ethics Courses Available
The newest IPT Ethics course, “Ethics in Tax and Life”
with speakers Jack T. Bone, CMI and Joseph A. Vinatieri,
Esq., is now available! The course counts for 1 hour of
IPT Ethics towards CMI continuing education credit.
Course Description: Ethical standards and commitment
to the interests of the taxpayer one represents are key
elements of professionalism. Are these elements in
conflict with each other? The question impacts taxpayers
on a daily basis. In some contexts the answers are clearcut. In others they are grayer in nature. Most will vary in
the eye of the beholder. This session will address the
critical importance of ethics to professionalism, and its
relationship to one’s responsibility to the taxpayer. IPT now has three online IPT Ethics courses available
for $50 each. You may register for and take any of these
courses by signing in to the IPT website, going to the
Distance Learning Page, and clicking on “Register” next
to the course name.
Reminder: Online Continuing
Education Tracking System for CMIs
You can no longer submit non-IPT Continuing Education
to the IPT office through email, fax or mail. Rather, you
will sign in to the IPT website, fill out the form and upload
supporting documentation. This process allows for a
timelier posting of CE to your report. Attendance at IPT
programs will be automatically posted to this report with
the exception of Local Luncheons. The Local Luncheon
Chairs will continue to submit sign-in sheets to the IPT
office.
To access your CMI Status Report:
1. Sign In at www.ipt.org.
2. Click on your name in the top right corner.
3. Click on the “CMI Members” tab.
4. In the top right corner of this section, there is an
option to request your Status Report. Click that link
and fill out the form.
9. You will receive a message that the form was
submitted.
Continuing Education Requirements
Each CMI must complete at least 60 hours of relevant
continuing business education during each five-year
term as an active CMI. Of those 60 hours, at least 30
hours must be relevant to your tax specialty (i.e., sales,
property, or income tax) with 5 hours devoted specifically
to ethics. Three of the ethics hours must be from IPT
courses/programs. Included within the 30 specialty hours,
each CMI must attend at least 12 hours at one IPT Annual
Conference, IPT Academy, IPT Symposium, IPT School
or IPT/ABA Seminar in their respective discipline (sales,
property or income tax) within each five-year term.
Board Policy states that all CE earned during a previous
year must be submitted no later than 60 days following
receipt of yearly status reports which will be available to
CMIs in January. The last day to submit any CE credit
earned during the 2014 Calendar year will be March 31,
2015. Please note that we will not process or accept any
credit earned prior to the preceding year.
If you have any questions on the CMI designation or
your current standing, please contact Emily Archer,
Certification Officer, at earcher@ipt.org.
T
hank you to IPT members who have already joined
the IPT LinkedIn group as we now have over
3200 members. We encourage you to join the IPT
LinkedIn Discussion group and share the group with other
tax professionals in your network.
Follow IPT on Facebook and Twitter and "like" our Facebook page for updates on IPT event registration, photos,
and other IPT news.
If you have not already done so, please join these
groups today by clicking on the icons below.
Thank you for your continued support of IPT!
5. An email will be sent to the email address on file with
IPT.
March 2015 IPT Insider 29
CMI
&
CCIP
C andidate
C onnection
2015 Income Tax Symposium Exam –
Austin, Texas
The exams held in conjunction with the Income Tax
Symposium in Austin, Texas are scheduled for October
31 – November 1, 2015.
Applications must be submitted 90 days prior to the
examination date.
Planning to take the CMI or CCIP
exam in 2015?
Applications are now being accepted for the 2015 CMI
& CCIP Exams. Potential candidates are encouraged to
plan ahead to avoid missing the application deadline and
thus the opportunity to sit for the exam. Applications are
available on the IPT website.
2015 Annual Conference Exams –
San Diego, California
The exams held in conjunction with the Annual Conference
in San Diego, California are scheduled for June 26 - 28,
2015.
Applications must be submitted 90 days prior to the
examination date.
The deadline for submitting applications for the June
2015 Exams is March 27, 2015.
Candidates are required to complete and submit
verification of any needed final requirements no later
than May 13, 2015.
Candidates must notify the IPT office of their intention
to sit for the examination no later than May 27, 2015.
2015 Sales Tax Symposium Exam –
Indian Wells, California
The exams held in conjunction with the Sales Tax
Symposium in Indian Wells, California are scheduled for
September 25 - 26, 2015.
Applications must be submitted 90 days prior to the
examination date.
The deadline for submitting applications for the
September 2015 Exam is June 26, 2015.
Candidates are required to complete and submit
verification of any needed final requirements no later
than August 11, 2015.
Candidates must notify the IPT office of their intention
to sit for the examination no later than August 26,
2015.
The deadline for submitting applications for the
November 2015 Exam is August 3, 2015.
Candidates are required to complete and submit
verification of any needed final requirements no later
than September 16, 2015.
Candidates must notify the IPT office of their intention
to sit for the examination no later than October 1,
2015.
2015 Property Tax Symposium Exam –
Austin, Texas
The exams held in conjunction with the Property Tax
Symposium in Austin, Texas are scheduled for October
31 – November 1, 2015.
Applications must be submitted 90 days prior to the
examination date.
The deadline for submitting applications for the
November 2015 Exam is August 3, 2015.
Candidates are required to complete and submit
verification of any needed final requirements no later
than September 16, 2015.
Candidates must notify the IPT office of their intention
to sit for the examination no later than October 1,
2015.
2015 Credits & Incentives Symposium Exam –
Austin, Texas
The exams held in conjunction with the Credits &
Incentives Symposium in Austin, Texas are scheduled for
November 2 – 3, 2015.
Applications must be submitted 90 days prior to the
examination date.
The deadline for submitting applications for the
November 2015 Exam is August 3, 2015.
Candidates are required to complete and submit
verification of any needed final requirements no later
than September 16, 2015.
Candidates must notify the IPT office of their intention
to sit for the examination no later than October 1,
2015.
Please review the CMI Income Tax Applicant, CMI
Property Tax Applicant, CMI Sales Tax Applicant or CCIP
Applicant pages for a complete overview of the application
process and eligibility requirements.
March 2015 IPT Insider 30
Challenge Exams
New Policy:
At its November 9, 2014 meeting, the Board of Governors
has made a number of changes of which you need to be
aware.
School Prerequisites: Sales Tax School I has for a
number of years been a prerequisite to Sales Tax School
II. School I must either be successfully challenged or
attended and passed before the individual can take on
School II. Now similar requirements are applicable in
Property Tax and Income Tax. Effective immediately,
the Property Tax School will be a prerequisite to the
Real Property Tax School and the Personal Property
Tax School, and the Basic Income Tax School will be a
prerequisite to the Advanced Income Tax School.
Challenge Experience Prerequisites: Effective with
respect to challenge applications received by IPT after
November 20, 2014, the following experience in the
relevant field will be required of those wishing to challenge
a School:
Basic Income Tax School:
- 3 years full-time experience
Sales Tax School I:
- 3 years full-time experience
Four years of full time experience in Credits and Incentives
will be required of those wishing to challenge the C&I
School. The Real Property Tax School and Personal
Property Tax School may not be challenged.
Ethics: All Schools taught on or after January 1, 2015
will include a one-hour (50 minute) block of IPT-Code
based Ethics. Those wishing to challenge a School will
be required first to successfully complete a one-hour
online ethics course, expected to be available at some
time prior to January 1, 2015.
In lieu of attendance at any IPT school for which a
challenge exam is permitted, any member of the Institute
in good standing shall be allowed to challenge a course
via a written examination providing they meet specific
requirements. Please read the Policy on Challenge
Examinations and/or Challenge Exam Application.
Once a challenge exam application is approved, the
IPT member will receive an e-mail with information on
downloading study materials that can be used to prepare
for the exam. These materials are read-only. You may not
print a copy of the materials, nor can a hard copy be sent
to you by mail.
Property Tax School:
- 3 years full-time experience
Advanced Income Tax School:
- 5 years full-time experience
Sales Tax School II:
- 5 years full-time experience
March 2015 IPT Insider 31