tax report - Institute for Professionals in Taxation Home · tax report. Institute for ... Kyle Caruthers . The Coca-Cola Company Christopher S. Hall, CMI, CMA. ... Keith G. Landry

It Depends Upon What the Meaning of the Word “In” Is Panhandle Eastern Pipeline Co. v. HamerThis article considers the taxpayer’s unsuccessful appellate argument that revenue miles are not “in” the state for apportionment purposes when neither the point of origin nor of termination is inside the state’s borders. The court is dismissive about the enactment of legislation in post-audit years specifically including such flow-through miles in the numerator of the apportionment fraction.Cass D. Vickers IPT Executive Director Atlanta, GAPhone: 404.240.2300 Email: [email protected]

Article begins on page 4

CreDIts anD InCentIVes

In this IssueCode of Ethics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2Property Tax Calendar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2President's Corner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3Counsel's Corner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4State Business Income Taxation Book . . . . . . . . . .1322nd Annual Ohio Tax Conference . . . . . . . . . . . . .14IPT 37th Annual Conference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15

Sales Tax School I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16ABA/IPT Advanced Tax Seminars . . . . . . . . . . . . .16CMI Corner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17CMI Candidate Connection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17Career Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18Real Property Tax School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19Calendar of Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20

InCOMe taX

Reaping the Benefit: Overcoming the Burden of tax Credit and Incentive Compliance and administration This article explores the effect of the inherent complexity in the tax credit and incentive compliance and administration process on the overall use of these programs by taxpayers. It is argued that this complexity substantially reduces the utilization and effect of tax credit and incentive programs, reducing their potential private and public value. The use of tailored technology solutions and appropriately trained personnel are recommended as potential solutions.Michael LocascioDeloitte Tax, LLPSan Francisco, CAPhone: [email protected] PanasewiczDeloitte Tax, LLP Los Angeles, CAPhone: [email protected] s. Cohen, esq.Deloitte Tax, LLP San Francisco, CAPhone: [email protected]


Vat articles needed! Contact Cass Vickers [email protected] Phone: 404.240.2300

saLes taX

tax reportInstitute for Professionals in Taxation®Excellence Through Tax EducationJanuary 2013

Ohio supreme Court Weighs In On the Permanent assignment exemption from the sales and Use taxes On employment servicesThe application of the Ohio sales and use taxes to services deemed by the Tax Department to be employment services continues to confound taxpayers. This fall, the Ohio Supreme Court considered the permanent assignment exemption from the employment services tax and provided useful guidance in an area where such guidance is sorely needed. ted Bernert, esq.Kelvin Lawrence, esq.Baker & Hostetler LLPColumbus, OH Phone: [email protected]@bakerlaw.com


2013 aBa/IPt aDVanCeD taX seMInars

The Ritz-Carlton, New Orleans, LA ~ March18-22Check IPT & ABA Section of Taxation websites for

registration and program information which will be available soon .

mailto:[email protected]







IPT January 2013 Tax Report 2

IPT OFFICERS President Paul A. Wilke, CMI Weingarten Realty Investors

First Vice President Arlene M. Klika, CMI Schneider National, Inc.

Second Vice President Arthur E. Bennett, CMI Property Tax Assistance Co., Inc.

BOARD OF GOVERNORS Immediate Past President Linda A. Falcone, CMI Ryan, LLC

Kyle Caruthers The Coca-Cola Company

Christopher S. Hall, CMI, CMA Ford Motor Company

Rick H. Izumi, CMI ITA, LLC

Donna L. Jernigan, CMI, PE Exxon Mobil Corporation

Kenneth R. Marsh, CMI TransCanada Pipelines Limited

William J. McConnell, CMI, CPA, Esq. General Electric Company

Chris G. Muntifering, CMI General Mills, Inc.

Faranak Naghavi, CPA Ernst & Young LLP

Andrew P. Wagner, JD, LLM FedEx Corporate Services

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

GENERAL COUNSEL Keith G. Landry

This publication is designed to provide accu-rate information for IPT members and other tax professionals . However, the Institute is not en-gaged 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 . Re-print permission for articles must be granted by authors and the Institute . Send address changes and inquiries to Institute for Profes-sionals in Taxation®, 1200 Abernathy Road, NE, Building 600 Suite L-2, Atlanta, Georgia 30328 Telephone (404) 240-2300 . Fax (404) 240-2315 .

Thank you to IPT members who have already joined the IPT LinkedIn group as we now have over 1700 members. We encourage you to join the IPT LinkedIn Discussion group and share the group with other tax profession-

als in your network.

IPT is expanding its presence in social media and is now on Facebook and Twit-ter. 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!

CODE OF ETHICS: CANON 7IT IS UNETHICAL to offer or give anything of material value to an individual in an employment, advisory or representative relationship with a business to induce that individual to recommend the purchase of goods or services by the business, and IT IS UNETHICAL for such individuals to receive such value.

Property tax Calendar ~ February 2013

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.

Appeals Due:DE* MA* MD* ME* MI* NM* VA* WV*

AK 30 days after assessment notice

CT 2/20 or 3/20

NC 2/28

NY; NYC Villages - 3rd Tuesday (Watertown)

VA Fairfax - 30 days after notice Roanoke 2/15

Personal Property Filing Dates: LA* As early as 2/20 MI 2/20 NM 2/28 VA* 2/15

Assessment Dates: None

* Dates vary, check jurisdiction


I hope that everyone had an enjoyable year end and will have a happy and healthy new year. As each New Year begins, we typically reflect upon our goals and objectives. As your President, I also reflect upon IPT’s priorities and objectives for the coming year, among which is to continue to provide superior educational programs. The Instructors for Sales Tax School I are finalizing their course material for the upcoming February presentation. The school materials are reviewed annually and refined for optimal presentation. IPT has a new policy regarding the school materials for all seven schools. Students may now download and print a copy of the course material prior to the program or may order a printed copy of the material. This offers the option to use the electronic version and not a paper copy. This school is always filled, so please review the program brochure and register now if you are planning to attend. I would like to express my appreciation to Chair Brenda Kelley, CMI, CPA, and Vice Chair Kathy Peavley, CMI, for continuing to serve in these leadership positions. For the first time, IPT is a sponsor of the Ohio Tax Conference. We hope that you will review the program agenda and take advantage of the discount offered to IPT members and register for this very popular educational event. The 2013 Annual Conference Program Committees are working to develop a full complement of educational sessions as well as multiple opportunities for peer interaction to share ideas, concerns and general camaraderie. I look forward to working with Faranak Naghavi, CPA, the Overall Chair of the 2013 Conference and the various committees. Please contact Faranak or any member of the committee with your ideas and suggestions.

Registration for the ABA-IPT Advanced Income, Property and Sales Tax Seminars is currently underway. The programs are being offered in New Orleans March 18-22, 2013. From the yearly evaluations, it is apparent that these programs offer a different perspective from the symposia or conference and have many repeat attendees. I would like to extend IPT’s appreciation to the hard-working committee members: William M. Backstrom, Jr., Esq.; Mary T. Benton, Esq.; J. Elaine Bialczak, Esq.; Jaye A. Calhoun, Esq.; J. Whitney Compton, Esq.; Mark A. Engel, Esq.; June Summers Haas, Esq.; Kenneth W. Helms, CMI; Erica L. Horn, Esq., CPA; Edward Kliewer III, Esq.; Stephanie Anne Lipinski Galland, Esq.; Janette M. Lohman, Esq., CMI, CPA; Mark A. Loyd, Esq.; H. Michael Madsen, Esq.; Glenn C. McCoy, Jr., Esq.; Charles J. Moll, III, Esq.; William B. Prugh, Esq.; Alexandra P.E. Sampson, Esq.; Quentin “Doug” Sigel, Esq.; Stewart M. Weintraub, Esq.; Michele M. Whittington, Esq.; Thomas R. Wilhelmy, Esq.; Michael J. Willis, CA; and Margaret C. Wilson, CMI, Esq. The Sales Tax Symposium Committee will meet in Houston on January 23rd to plan the fall program. Chair Carolyn Campbell Shantz, CMI, CPA, has assembled a well-rounded committee of experienced members to develop the topical program. If you have any suggestions, please contact Carolyn directly. Nominations for the 2013 Awards Program are now being accepted by completing the form on-line at the IPT website. Awards Committee Chair Nancy Flagg, CPA, along with her committee, will meet after the February 15th deadline to make their recommendations to the Board of Governors for awards being presented at the Annual Conference. The 2013 Nominating Committee was appointed last month. The names are included in the December issue of Member News. The committee will convene in March for the purpose of selecting a slate of officers and Board members for consideration by the membership at the June Annual Meeting. Anyone interested in learning more about becoming actively involved in directing the affairs of the Institute as a member of the Board of Governors should review the policy guidelines which are also found in the December Member News. All members should have received their membership renewal information for 2013. If you have not already done so, please submit your dues payment. I encourage you to do this via our new website. It is hard to believe that my term is half over. It continues to be a most rewarding experience. If you have any questions, comments or suggestions about IPT, please let me know. Happy New Year to all.

Paul A. Wilke, CMIPresident

Paul A. Wilke, CMIPresident June 2012-2013

President’s

Corner


Counsel’sCorner

It Depends Upon What the Meaning of the Word “In” Is Panhandle Eastern Pipeline Co. v. HamerCass D. Vickers IPT Executive Director Atlanta, GAPhone: 404.240.2300 Email: [email protected]

Bill Clinton’s effort to find ambiguity in the word “is” before the grand jury investigation foreshadowing his impeachment by the House of Representatives did not resonate well with the public. Panhandle Eastern Pipeline Company (Panhandle) did

not fare much better before the Illinois Appellate Court in contending for strict limits on the meaning of the word “in.” It came up in connection with the question what “revenue miles” were includable in the numerator of Panhandle’s Illinois apportionment factor for income tax purposes for tax years 1997 through 2000.

Panhandle, a subsidiary of Duke Energy Corporation (Duke) owned and operated a natural gas pipeline system that traversed Illinois, as did two other Duke subsidiaries, Texas Eastern Transmission Corporation (TETCO) and Trunkline Gas Company (Trunkline). The Panhandle system began in Kansas and terminated in Michigan: 1,228 of the 6,334 total pipeline miles were in Illinois. TETCO’s system began in Texas and terminated in New Jersey, with 100 miles in Illinois out of a 9,000 mile run. Trunkline’s system began in Texas and Louisiana and terminated in Michigan; of its 4,142 total miles, 725 were in Illinois. Panhandle owned and operated 4 compressor stations in Illinois, which stations ran 49 engines. TETCO had 2 compressor stations in Illinois, one idle during the tax years. The compressor stations were staffed, but not necessarily operating, around the clock. The plaintiffs (Panhandle and TETCO) conceded that these were part

of a Duke unitary business group in 1997-98 (Duke and Trunkline were sold together in 1999) and that they had a physical presence in Illinois. Panhandle filed amended returns seeking refunds for 1997 and 1998 totaling about $1.29 million and Trunkline filed amended returns for 1999 and 2000 seeking returns totaling about $2.76 million.

The refund claims were predicated on the excludability of the miles traveled by natural gas through Illinois (the “flow-through miles”) from the numerator of the taxpayer’s apportionment formula when the natural gas shipment did not originate or terminate in Illinois. The claim hinged on the interpretation of 35 ILCS 5/304(d)(2) which provides:

Such business income derived from transportation by pipeline shall be apportioned to this State by multiplying such income by a fraction, the numerator of which is the revenue miles of the person in this State, and the denominator of which is the revenue miles of the person everywhere. For the purpose of this paragraph, a revenue mile is the transportation by pipeline of 1 barrel of oil, 1,000 cubic feet of gas, or of any specified quantity of any other substance, the distance of 1 mile for a consideration. [e.s.]

After all refund claims were denied by the Department, the taxpayers initiated a protest. The parties stipulated the calculations, so that there was no dispute about the amount of refunds to be paid if the claims were upheld. The Administrative Law Judge sustained the refund denials, and rejected the taxpayers’ Commerce Clause objection. Following the Director’s adoption of the ALJ recommendation, the plaintiffs sought review in circuit court. That court reversed the decision, ordering that the refunds be paid. The reversal relied, in part, on the fact that Section 304(d) was amended in 2007 “terminating the applicability of Section 304(d)(2) and providing for the applicability of Section 304(d)(3) which new subsection includes flow-through gas in the numerator of the apportionment factor.” The court concluded that the legislature intended for the inclusion of such miles to be effective prospectively. The decision discussed here is from the ensuing appeal.

On appeal, the plaintiffs maintained their assertion that the flow-through miles were not “in this State” within the meaning of Section 304(d)(2), because that provision was meant to include only gas transportation mileage which began or ended in Illinois. They stressed the limiting nature of the word “in” in the relevant statute, citing a Black’s Law Dictionary definition of the word “in” as “expressing relation of presence, existence, situation, inclusion, action, etc.; inclosed or surrounded by limits, as in a room; also meaning for, in and about, on within, etc.” The taxpayers emphasized that portion of the definition which provided that “in” means “surrounded by limits,” arguing that the

InCOMe taX

(Continued on page 5)



legislature meant to restrict numerator revenue miles to those which, by virtue of beginning their journey, ending it, or both, in Illinois were surrounded by the geographical boundaries of the state. Though the court did not say so, the same argument would seem to support the exclusion of all interstate mileage since it would cross the state’s borders and thus not be entirely “surrounded” by them.

The court instead adverted to that part of the definition referring to “presence,” pointing out that the taxpayers’ pipelines and gas were present in the state as the gas was transported through the jurisdiction. The definitive point, however, was precedent holding that “the purpose of . . . article 3 of the [Tax Act] is to assure that 100%, and no more or no less, of the business income of a corporation doing multistate business is taxed by the States having jurisdiction to tax it.” GTE Automatic Electric, Inc. v. Allphin, 68 Ill.2d 326, 335 (1997). That case does include the quoted language but is otherwise questionable authority for the holding here. The GTE court sustained the dismissal of a taxpayer’s request for a declaratory judgment. The taxpayer sought a ruling that certain drop shipment sales were not sales “within Illinois,” the governing statutory apportionment language. There were two classes of drop shipment sales that the Department included pursuant to regulation—those in which the taxpayer’s supplier shipped from Illinois to a purchaser in a state where the taxpayer was not taxable, and those from a state in which GTE was not taxable to a state in which GTE was not taxable. As to the latter class, the court concluded that they were NOT sales “within Illinois” but could be included under the Department’s discretionary authority (UDITPA Section 18 provision, enacted as Section 304(e) of the Illinois Income Tax Act) in order to effectuate the legislative intent of avoiding “gaps” in taxation—i.e., the assignment of sales to a jurisdiction where the associated income would not be taxable. While the general objective of both cases, assuring taxation of 100% of multistate income, may be the same, the questions involved are entirely distinct and the cases are not factually similar. The GTE case does not support an expansive reading of the word “in” for apportionment purposes and the Panhandle litigation did not involve the Department’s use of its discretionary authority. The other authority cited, Hartmarx Corp.& Subsidiaries v. Bower, 308 Ill.App.3d 959 (1999) is also factually distinguishable; it upheld application of the throwback rule to sales made from Illinois to a state in which the seller, a member of a unitary business group, was not taxable.

Nevertheless, on the “taxation of 100% of multistate income” principle, the inclusion of flow-through miles in the numerator of the taxpayer’s revenue miles apportionment factor was sustained. The conclusion is not surprising considering the fact that income from the transportation of the gas in question results from transportation along the entire line, from the point of origin to the point of termination, and that the holding treats a portion of that income from


multistate operations as attributable to the portion of the transportation occurring within Illinois’ boundaries. The “gap” in taxation which the court concluded the legislature intended to avoid was thus closed.

The plaintiffs advanced the argument that the 2007 amendment, specifically including, under new Section 304(d)(3), such flow-through miles in the numerator, established that they were not includable for years before 2007 under Section 304(d)(2). That seems an obvious and sound conclusion. In the court’s view, however, Section 304(d)(3) had a different, and larger purpose—to change from apportioning on the basis of “revenue miles,” to apportionment based on “receipts.” That description of the new statute falls somewhat short of the full-disclosure mark, however. While based on receipts, it provides as follows with respect to flow-through miles where gas pipeline transportation is concerned: the numerator includes, in relevant part, “that portion of the person’s gross receipts from the movements or shipments of . . . gas . . . that originates in one state or jurisdiction and terminates in another state or jurisdiction, that is determined by the ratio that the miles traveled in this State bears to total miles everywhere . . . .” [e.s.] Thus, as the court’s own characterization concedes, the new statute “clearly includes any flow-through miles” in assigning receipts to Illinois. The court offers the conclusory statement in response that “just because section 304(d)(3) specifically provides for the inclusion of flow-through miles, it does not follow that section 304(d)(2)’s apportionment factor excluded the miles. Therefore, while describing the 2007 legislation as a change in the apportionment scheme, the opinion effectively treats it as a mere clarification of pre-existing legislative intent.

The court repudiated the taxpayers’ contention that they were in the same position as the taxpayer in Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. Department of Revenue, 295 Ill.App.3d 889 (1998), in which the airline succeeded in having fly-over miles excluded from its revenue miles “in this State.” The court distinguished that case, because the conclusion there was that there was an insufficient nexus between the overflights and the State to permit taxation of the flight income. It was thus predicated on the constitutional nexus barrier prohibiting tax, and was not really an apportionment ruling. By contrast, Panhandle and TETCO had a physical presence in Illinois and conceded nexus—that they were subject to Illinois income tax.

Finally, the court rejected the taxpayers’ Commerce Clause claims—which relied on the first and fourth prongs of the Complete Auto test. Since the taxpayers were physically present, through compressor stations and associated land and equipment, and personnel, and the operation of those stations and engines was a necessary part of the interstate pipeline systems, the court readily concluded that the first prong, substantial nexus, was satisfied. The court read


the fourth prong, requiring that the tax be “fairly related to the services provided by the state,” as requiring only the provision of some services. This part of the Commerce Clause test did not require a showing that there was some direct or dollar-for-dollar relationship between the taxes assessed and the benefits received in connection with the taxpayer activities under consideration. The court turned to the constriction of the fourth prong effected in Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Montana, 453 U.S. 609, 626 (1981) in which the test became whether the “measure of the tax” is “reasonably related to the extent of the contact.” Without further analysis, the court concluded that the property and operations of Panhandle and TETCO in Illinois benefitted from the provision of services by the state, so that no undue burden on interstate commerce was worked by the imposition of tax apportioned on a basis that included flow-through miles in the numerator. The court thus reversed and reinstated the ALJ/Director decision denying the refunds in question.

The case may not bring any terribly important new apportionment principles. It does, nonetheless, remind us that the meaning of a statute, a regulation, a ruling or decision can turn, with millions hanging in the balance, on the meaning of a single word, even a seemingly common word such is “in,” “and,” or “or.” That is a lesson for all of us about the need for the greatest of precision in reading and applying statutes, rules, regulations, rulings, tax return instructions, cases and other authorities.

CreDIts anD InCentIVes

Reaping the Benefit: Overcoming the Burden of tax Credit and Incentive Compliance and administration Michael LocascioDeloitte Tax, LLPSan Franciso, CAPhone: [email protected]

Marcus PanasewiczDeloitte Tax, LLP Los Angeles, CAPhone: [email protected]

Jennifer s. Cohen, esq.Deloitte Tax, LLPSan Francisco, CAPhone: [email protected]

IntroductionThousands of credit and incentive opportunities intended to save taxpayers millions and bolster the economy are available to many businesses nationwide on the federal, state, and local levels. Unfortunately, many of these opportunities remain untapped due to the complexity of these programs. Most taxpayers are not equipped to tackle the resource-intense and nuanced process that accompanies participating in tax credit and incentive programs. As a result of this complexity, only a small percentage of the credits and incentives available are being utilized, making their potential economic impact a shadow of what it could be. This underutilization may diminish the positive impact of incentives not only on the economy, but for businesses as well. Moreover, many businesses expend a considerable amount of energy, effort, and manpower on obtaining benefits, but are unable to do so given the complex and time-consuming compliance requirements. In fact, it is estimated that only 5% of potential tax credits are claimed by eligible taxpayers.1 The IRS estimates that only 20,000 corporate tax return filers out of a total 1.78 million, that’s approximately 1.1%, claim any of the major federal business tax credits available.2 This statistic is likely no less weak at the state level. What is needed are broad-based solutions for taxpayers that allow them

1 “Firms Pass Up Tax Breaks, Citing Hassles, Complexity,” Wall Street Journal, 23 July 2012.2 Id.






to identify, obtain, and monetize benefits by reducing complexity and reducing the resources taxpayers need to devote to the process. The use of appropriately trained personnel in tandem with technology solutions can be important components of this solution.

Why Governments Provide tax Credits and IncentivesTax credits and incentives are economic development tools used by federal, state, and local governments to incentivize certain business activities. Credits and incentives provide benefits to businesses for activities, such as: creating new jobs, hiring certain classes of employees, retaining jobs in danger of being lost or moved, investing in capital projects, expansion of facilities, engaging in sustainability or energy efficiency efforts, relocating to a particular area, and research and development activities. In addition, some benefits target specific industries, including film and television, oil and gas, and green business. Both tax credits and incentives tend to focus on development in economically-depressed locations or certain industries deemed desirable given the level of investment they bring, the type of jobs they create, or the industry cluster they help to expand.

Tax credits are usually statutory, whereas incentives tend to be negotiated with government agencies and representatives. Statutory tax credits typically entitle businesses to a benefit, and come often in the form of income or franchise tax offsets against tax owed in the jurisdiction. Some statutory tax credits also have provisions to offset withholding tax, sales and use tax, and/or property tax to name a few examples. For instance, the New Mexico High Wage Jobs Tax Credit can be used to offset gross receipts, compensating (use), or withholding tax.3 Statutory credits are often implemented through regulations developed by the relevant authority.

Negotiated incentives on the other hand are usually discretionary and are a result of negotiations between businesses and state and local economic development organizations or agencies. Negotiated incentives are more flexible by nature and tend to be more tailored to a particular taxpayer. The provisions of a negotiated incentive can include tax and non-tax benefits, such as: tax abatements, low or no-interest financing, infrastructure improvements, reduced tax rates, and other incentives to attract business.

Tax credits and incentives exist at both the federal and state levels. Some notable federal programs include the New Markets Tax Credit, which incentivizes investments in businesses in low-income communities, the Work Opportunity Tax Credit, which provides credits for hiring certain disadvantaged classes of workers, and the Research and Experimentation Credit. Examples of state 3 7-9G-1 N.M.S.A.


programs include enterprise zones which generally target specific locations, capital investment credits, and training grants and credits that help to lessen the burden of workforce training on employers. One thing most credits and incentives have in common is the complexity involved in the application, administration, and compliance process which vexes many taxpayers.

Understanding Key elements of the Credits and Incentives ProcessStakeholdersThe process of obtaining credits and incentives requires the involvement of many stakeholders. From an external standpoint, businesses may need to interact with state or local economic development agencies and representatives, state departments of revenue, federal agencies, the IRS, credit investors, and perhaps third party consultants. Internally, applying for and obtaining credits and incentives may require multiple departments to work together. Many tax credits rely on hiring, purchasing, investing, or other incentivized activities, requiring some combination of coordination between human resources, real estate, property management, procurement, research and development, tax, and IT departments. Additionally, due to the fact that many of these benefits are ultimately claimed on a tax return or are an offset to a tax, the tax department and the CFO are usually key players in any credit or incentive program. It can be a challenge to coordinate the necessary stakeholders and create a process by which information and responsibility is shared beginning with the application for the incentive through the end of the incentive life cycle, which may be many years down the road. If internal resources are not available to manage this process then turning to a third party consultant, a technology tool, or both, may be the only way to successfully manage these programs.

Application ProcessRegardless of whether the benefit is a credit or incentive, state or federal, statutory or negotiated, the first step to securing the benefit is the qualification process. The qualification process requires that businesses ask a few simple questions, including:

Does my business qualify?1.

What are the applicable prerequisites, including 2. pre-approval if necessary?

Can I utilize or monetize the incentive?3.

What is the compliance process?4.

The answers to the first three questions are fairly straightforward and require the taxpayer to evaluate whether its activities include any incentivized activities,


meet any prerequisites of the program, including whether pre-approval is required prior to commencement of the incentivized activity, and whether their business is in a position to monetize benefits. For example, if the taxpayer had substantial net operating losses and does not anticipate paying income tax for the foreseeable future, it does not make sense for the taxpayer to pursue a tax credit that only has a five-year carryover provision.

After these questions are answered and it is determined that the taxpayer potentially qualifies, the application process begins. If a taxpayer is not experienced with credits and incentives in a particular jurisdiction, it may be advisable to contact the relevant agency or representative that administers the program to facilitate compliance with their application procedures and the correct timing and sequence of actions. Some benefits can be claimed directly on tax returns with no application process, but it appears the trend is increasingly towards pre-certification and an application process as a gateway to benefits. A complex qualification process may also be required for some benefits to determine preliminary eligibility before the qualified expenditures or actions are taken. Even when a pre-eligibility determination is obtained there may still be subsequent levels of review before the taxpayer may commence the qualified activity. One example of this is the Arizona Training Grant Program for new employees. In this program, a taxpayer must apply for the grant and have it approved by the State before the new employees are hired and begin training. If the grant has not been approved, any employees hired prior to that approval date are not considered new employees for the purpose of the grant, even though they are new employees to the taxpayer.4

It is during this application stage that businesses begin to heavily invest resources in determining what needs to be filed, where the necessary information resides within their organization, and if there are any required due dates or timelines that need to be observed. At this point, relevant departments within the organization need to start gathering and analyzing data, such as general ledger account data, payroll data for employee hires and terminations, business plans, or capital expenditure data. These activities are best managed when a business has a process in place for managing the application process and tracking and processing the data collected so nothing falls through the cracks. The application process requires that taxpayers put forth a diligent effort in gathering the information required so that it can take advantage of the program being offered. The effort may require a large investment in resources to collect the information from various departments within the organization, some of which may get little recognition for supporting the effort. In today’s environment of lean administrative staffing, the task may be even more daunting because it requires pulling personnel away from their dedicated roles. 4 A.R.S. §41-1541 et seq.


Needless to say, without the requisite effort and follow through, a company may have wasted resources and an unrealized benefit.

Compliance and Administration

Once a benefit has been identified and, if needed, an application approved, the compliance process itself will be critical to the success of the taxpayer’s incentive program. It is during this stage that many taxpayers are unable to obtain potential benefits as they unsuccessfully navigate the complex compliance and administration of the benefit program. Furthermore, as with the application process, the compliance process can be very complex and resource intensive, thus becoming a deterrent and a possible obstacle to taxpayers claiming credits for which they are eligible, leaving a substantial portion of potential benefits unclaimed.

Aside from the application process, there are many administrative restrictions that govern how credits are claimed, refunded, transferred, sold, carried forward and/or carried backward, many with specific time deadlines. A leading practice for taxpayers would be to establish a procedure to confirm that they are in compliance with these rules and restrictions to avoid putting their benefit in jeopardy. Essential to monetizing any credit is understanding the process through which the benefit is claimed. This process may include amending prior returns in the case of a credit with a carryback provision, brokering the sale of credits to a third party, claiming the credit on a current year return, carrying forward credit that cannot be utilized on a current year due to absence of tax liability, and/or knowing how and when to claim a cash refund if allowed.

Furthermore, the process of claiming a credit can range from simply calculating the credit and claiming it on the correct form in the tax return to complex periodic submissions and certifications that require ongoing calculations and the managing of several due dates and deadlines. Many credits and incentives involve a significant administrative burden. Typically, statutory credit administration may require the inclusion of schedules with the return to justify the credit, proof of expenditures and hiring, maintenance of audit ready workpapers, and potentially filing follow-up applications or proof of compliance with the relevant agencies.

Negotiated incentives may necessitate a more involved and demanding administrative burden, including the filing of multiple progress and compliance reports with the issuing agency and providing proof that the taxpayer is upholding its end of the bargain under the incentive agreement. This may include proving the amount of capital investment, the number of jobs created or retained, salaries paid, progress on the project at issue, and investment in real


estate. Many negotiated incentives contain provisions that require the taxpayer to meet certain requirements which may be many years into the future.

Apart from taxpayers losing or foregoing benefits, noncompliance can lead to the execution of clawback or recapture provisions that compel taxpayers to pay back benefits previously received. Clawback provisions can be included in statutes or negotiated agreements, and obligate the recipient of benefits to return all or a prorated portion of benefits received if the taxpayer drops out of compliance. Examples of noncompliance that can trigger clawback include the disposal of equipment within a certain timeframe, and failure to meet hiring goals or investment amounts. For example, the Connecticut Fixed Capital Investment Tax Credit requires a 100% recapture of the credit if the qualified fixed capital equipment is not held and used in the ordinary course of the taxpayer’s trade or business in the state for three full years following its acquisition.5

Potential SolutionsThe process of claiming and monetizing tax credits and incentives can be complex and overwhelming, however, it may result in specific economic benefits for taxpayers if managed correctly. Most taxpayers attempt to monitor their credits and incentives through Microsoft Excel spreadsheets created and maintained by employees who may not have in-depth knowledge of the field or who are unable to devote the time and effort necessary for successful compliance. Unfortunately, successfully managing the credit and incentive process takes a great deal of time, knowledge and experience, follow through, and diligence, which are often lacking due to resource constraints. Dedicated resources and personnel are needed to track and review the benefit process and maintain oversight of any ongoing requirements. This will also manage the risk of disputes with tax or other administering authorities. All of this needs to be accomplished while simultaneously decreasing the burden compliance places on taxpayers. Solutions should be considered in relation to their cost to determine a reasonable return on the taxpayer’s investment.

Technology solutions overseen by appropriately trained personnel may be a cost effective way to address the above issues while reducing the burden on taxpayers. The use of technology is expanding the ability of both taxpayers and consultants to effectively manage complex application, administration, and compliance requirements for credits and incentives. Software dedicated to tracking the specific requirements and attributes of statutory incentives and the specific agreements under negotiated incentives with individual taxpayers, streamlines the process and determines timely compliance with all statutory and negotiated requirements. Technology can

5 Conn. Gen. Stat. §12-217w.

play a pivotal role from the identification of potential benefits all the way through the end of the compliance process.

Utilizing software can take the administrative burden out of gathering relevant information and screening employees, assets, investments, or locations for eligibility, and preparing and filing required applications or forms. For instance, the federal Work Opportunity Tax Credit requires a pre-screening including the collection of certain employee information before an offer of employment is made, and the submission of required forms to the relevant State Workforce Agency within 28 calendar days after the new employee begins work.6 The use of software can immensely simplify this process by electronically pre-screening applicants and submitting the required forms.

Software can demystify the compliance process and facilitate timely performance of obligations which can significantly lessen the chance of audit or costly administrative proceedings with tax authorities. Technology in conjunction with appropriately-trained personnel can ease the burden on taxpayers and allow them to target more benefits while monetizing the benefits they are already entitled to, freeing up resources to devote toward their core business.

ConclusionThe complexity of the application and compliance process related to tax credits and incentives reduces their intended effect on the economy and prevents taxpayers from taking advantage of available incentives. These hurdles may be overcome with the assistance of suitably-trained personnel in conjunction with technology solutions developed specifically to reduce administrative burdens by automating the application, administration, and compliance process involved in obtaining benefits. Utilization of technology may be a cost effective way to reduce the burdens on the taxpayer while increasing the immense public and private value that lies dormant in tax credit and incentive programs.

6 26 U.S.C.S. §51.


saLes taX

Ohio supreme Court revisits sales tax on employment servicested Bernert, esq.Kelvin Lawrence, esq.Baker & Hostetler LLPColumbus, OHPhone: [email protected]@bakerlaw.com

On September 26, 2012, the Ohio Supreme Court once again considered the “permanent assignment” exemption from the sales tax on employment services. Bay Mechanical & Electrical Corporation v. Testa, Slip Opinion 2012-Ohio-4312. The decision, although a victory for the Ohio Tax Commissioner, provides useful guidance to taxpayers grappling with Ohio’s tax on employment services.

BackgroundEmployment services have been subject to Ohio sales and use tax since January 1993. The simplest example of the employment service is a contract with a temporary employment agency (“Agency”) to replace a worker during a vacation or sickness or for seasonal needs. One striking feature of the tax is that the tax base is not limited to the fee for the service but includes the effective pass-through of the salary and withholding taxes incurred by the provider of the service for the individuals whose services are provided.

The relevant statutory language in R.C. 5739.01(JJ) provides that “employment service” means “providing or supplying personnel, on a temporary or long-term basis, to perform work or labor under the supervision or control of another, when the personnel so provided or supplied receive their wages, salary, or other compensation from the provider or supplier of the employment service or from a third party that provided or supplied the personnel to the provider or supplier.” “Employment service” does not include:

(1) Acting as a contractor or subcontractor, where the personnel performing the work are not under the direct control of the purchaser;

(2) Medical and health care services;

(3) Supplying personnel in accordance with the requirements of the permanent assignment exemption as discussed below;

(4) Transactions between members of an affiliated group, which is defined in a manner similar to the consolidated group for federal income tax purposes; and

(5) A limited resale exemption principally arising when one temporary employment service provides personnel to another temporary employment service for resale.

The tax is applied by the Ohio Tax Department more broadly than one would expect from reading the statute thereby creating significant audit activity and litigation. The two exemptions that are most frequently contested on audit are the (a) “contractor” exemption and the (b) “permanent assignment” exemption.

The contractor exemption disputes frequently arise for transactions that are billed on an hourly basis but in the view of the consumer constitute contracts for distinct non-taxable services or deliverables rather than employment services provided by an Agency. The corollary issue frequently disputed is whether the personnel performing the service are under the supervision and control of the consumer so as to constitute an employment service.

The contractor exemption is worthy of a detailed discussion but the Bay Mechanical decision was limited to the permanent assignment exemptions. The focus of this article, therefore, is limited.

Permanent assignment exemptionThe permanent assignment exemption arises when a transaction otherwise fits the definition of an employment service except that the workers are employed for longer periods. The permanent assignment exemption includes, but is not limited to, “employee leasing” when the staff of a company is transferred to a separate organization as a means to outsource the human relations (“HR”) function. The specific language of the exemption in R.C. 5739.01(JJ)(3) is “supplying personnel to a purchaser pursuant to a contract of at least one year between the service provider and the purchaser that specifies that each employee covered under the contract is assigned to the purchaser on a permanent basis.” Emphasis added.

To qualify for exemption, the contract between the Agency and the consumer must extend at least one year. The Ohio Board of Tax Appeals (“BTA”) has concluded that contracts need not be in writing. See Excel Temporaries v. Tracy,





BTA No. 97-T-257 (October 30, 1998). Practitioners are wary of relying on oral contracts because of the difficulty of proving the one year requirement when no written expression satisfying this requirement exists.

The fact that by the time audit arises the arrangement between the Agency and the consumer has continued for at least one-year is helpful. The actual length of the contract, however, may not be sufficient if the consumer cannot prove that the contract was for at least one year from the contract’s commencement.

The existence of a contractual provision permitting either the Agency or the consumer to terminate the contract before the end of the one-year term should not destroy the exemption. See B.J. Alan Company v. Tracy, BTA No. 99-N-196 (March 1, 2002). Obviously, the Ohio Tax Department can be expected to challenge an agreement that is short term in operation even if the contract recites a one-year term.

The one-year term requirement generally has not proven to be too troublesome so long as the contract specifically recites the contract’s duration. In contrast, the permanent assignment prong of the exemption has proven to be more difficult in application.

One frequent concern in claiming permanency is the reluctance of the company’s HR department to classify individuals as “permanent workers” for fear that the individuals could claim to be employees of the consumer. After the tax practitioner calms down the HR person, usually this problem can be dealt with by careful drafting of the agreement.

A trap that captures some consumers lurks in the requirement in the permanent assignment exemption that the contract between the Agency and consumer must extend for one year. This requirement leads consumers to conclude that when the contract extending for one year assigns the workers for the same one-year period then the requirements for the exemption are met. The opposite is true. A contract that assigns the workers for one year will sink the exemption because those workers are not assigned indefinitely but are actually assigned for a definite period, which disqualifies those workers from qualifying for the permanent assignment exemption. Thus, the contract between the Agency and consumer must be for a term of at least one year but no term of duration should be assigned to the workers under that contact because the workers must be assigned indefinitely.

Another trap is known as the “one bad apple rule.” Recall that the specific language of this exemption is “[s]upplying personnel to a purchaser pursuant to a contract of at least one year between the service provider and the purchaser that specifies that each employee covered under the

contract is assigned to the purchaser on a permanent basis.” Thus, according to the Ohio Tax Department, if a contract has multiple persons assigned permanently but even one individual is assigned temporarily and not permanently, the entire contract is disqualified from the exemption and sales and use tax applies to all of the fees paid for all of the individuals that otherwise would qualify as permanently assigned.

It seems very unlikely that the General Assembly intended to enact this particular trap for the unwary. Nevertheless, taxpayers should ensure that separate contracts are provided for those workers that are permanently assigned separately from temporary workers.

Broadly speaking, the two big concerns for this exemption are: (a) marrying and reconciling the contract with actual operations and (b) proving that the arrangement creates “permanency.” The Bay Mechanical decision seemingly provides some guidance on these important issues.

Bay Mechanical Decision at the Ohio Supreme CourtThe holding of the Bay Mechanical decision is neither surprising nor very helpful to taxpayers. The taxpayer in Bay Mechanical argued that if the contract language used “permanently” or “indefinite

assignment” terminology, then the taxpayer was entitled to the exemption as a matter of law no matter what actually transpired in its operation. The tax agents were not even permitted to investigate the facts under the taxpayer’s view. Few took that argument seriously and the Court’s rejection was expected.

The taxpayer in Bay Mechanical also refused to provide operational facts and circumstance data such as invoices to the Ohio Tax Department on audit or even to the BTA. The only surprising part of the Court’s decision, therefore, was the closeness of the vote: 4-2 for the Tax Commissioner with Justice O’Donnell not participating.

The nature of this case was such that most practitioners were not really following the case and had low expectations that anything useful would arise from the decision. It was welcome, therefore, when the Court meaningfully weighed in on some of the issues that continue to trouble taxpayers.

It is necessary to qualify our presentation because the useful discussion by the Court was not essential



to the Court’s decision—in other words, it was dicta. Nevertheless, because any review of an employment services tax assessment could end up in the Supreme Court, it makes sense to consider what that Court says—even in dicta. Several observations arise from the decision.

The consumer cannot rely on “magic •words” in the contract like “permanent assignment” or “indefinite” to assure exemption as a matter of law. Bay Mechanical at ¶ 23.

The absence of such words in a contract, •while certainly unhelpful, should not be fatal to a taxpayer’s case. Bay Mechanical at ¶ 22.

“What is actually done” by the parties is •key in determining “permanency” for tax purposes. Bay Mechanical at ¶ 24.

The Court provided a succinct description •of the types of workers that would not be permanent: seasonal workers, substitutes for regular employees and labor needed to meet a short term workload. Id. We do not suggest that these are the only types of workers that are not permanent or that the Court meant to be all-inclusive in its description. The Court’s description, however, appears to be a useful short-hand description of the non-permanent employee.

It appears that a consumer is not under •an obligation to produce on audit the contracts between the Agency and its workers. Bay Mechanical at ¶25-26.

One issue that arises in audits and on •appeal is what the target of the audit must provide to the tax agent during the audit. This issue warrants more discussion.

In Information Release ST 1993-08, the Tax Commissioner addresses the burden on taxpayers as follows:

When the Tax Commissioner’s agents examine an employment service contract, they must be able to determine at the time whether an employee has been assigned on a permanent basis. The contract, along with the facts and circumstances of the assignment, should permit the Tax Commissioner’s agent to determine permanency.

Emphasis added.

On audit, tax agents likely will want to see the contract between the Agency and the consumer, the statements of work, the invoices and perhaps even time cards. These requests are seen as the basic presentation before addressing the additional burden on the consumer to show that in operation the workers were permanently assigned.

In Bay Mechanical, the Court neither absolved taxpayers from the obligation to provide the documents nor authorized the Tax Commissioner to decide the matter against the taxpayer whenever the documentation is deemed inadequate. One would expect that a consumer holding back documents will suffer for the failure to provide. Otherwise, both the Ohio Tax Department and taxpayers can find helpful language in the Bay Mechanical decision to support the respective positions in the never-ending quest for what proof is enough.

Our experience has been that consumers that cannot produce the core documents will have a hard time prevailing on audit. Unfortunately, even when available, the language of the contract by itself may not resolve the issue and will leave open the question as to what actually is going on with these arrangements. Expect the tax agents to insist that contracts, statements of work, invoices, etc. are necessary but not sufficient and that the consumer must prove the case beyond producing the documents.

In the end, the Bay Mechanical analysis—that the contracts and other documents have their place but the taxpayer must further show actual operation—seems hardly remarkable. Nevertheless, practitioners would do well to consult the Bay Mechanical decision before dealing at any level with a dispute concerning the permanent assignment exemption.


State Business Income Taxation

The Institute for Professionals in Taxation® is pleased to announce the release of a new text on state corporate income taxation. Priced at $100 for IPT members and $200 for non-members, this book joins IPT’s sister publications Property Taxation and Sales and Use Taxation as a must-have reference source for professionals employed by or advising corporate taxpayers in the United States. The approximately 500-page treatise, along with CD, includes contributions from some of the most highly regarded state business income tax professionals in the nation, and is of substantial scope. Click here to order.

The text includes the following:

Ch. 1 — An Economist’s View of State Corporate Income Taxes—Prof. William F. Fox, University of Tennessee

Ch. 2 — History and Nature of the Tax—Paul H. Frankel and Kara M. Kraman, Morrison & Foerster

Ch. 3 — Jurisdiction to Tax—June Summers Haas, Honigman Miller Schwartz and Cohn

Ch. 4 — Partnerships, LLCs, REITs and Other Entities—Christopher R. Grissom, and William T. Thistle, II, Bradley Arant Boult Cummings; Erica L. Horn, and Timothy J. Eifler, Stoll Keenon Ogden

Ch. 5 — The Tax Base—Doug Sigel, Ryan Law, and Ray H. Langenberg, Scott Douglass & McConnico

Ch. 6 — Returns: Separate, Consolidated and Combined—Marilyn A. Wethekam, Horwood Marcus & Berk Chartered

Ch. 7 — Unitary Business Principles/Applications—David J. Shipley, McCarter & English

Ch. 8 — Business/Nonbusiness Income and Allocation Rules—Mark E. Holcomb, Madsen Goldman & Holcomb, and Pilar Mata, Sutherland Asbill & Brennan

Ch. 9 — Apportionment of Business Income/Factors—Charles J. Moll, III, Winston & Strawn LLP and Michael J. Wynne, Reed Smith

Ch. 10 — Alternative and Special Industry Apportionment—Kendall L. Houghton, Clark R. Calhoun, and Michael Giovannini, Alston & Bird, and William M. LaVere, Ryan

Ch. 11 — Accounting and Reporting Considerations—Duane W. Dobson and Terry J. Gaul, Grant Thornton

Ch. 12 — Protests and Enforcement—Kirk R. Lyda, Jones Day, and Michael J. Wynne

Ch. 13 — Alternative Taxes—Kirk R. Lyda

Ch. 14 — Mergers, Acquisitions and Tax Planning—Margaret C. Wilson, Reeder Wilson

Ch. 15 — Credits and Incentives—Holly MacLean Whitaker, Clinton Hopkins, L. Jane McDermott, Dorian Hunt, Michael Bernier, Gopika Parikh, and Gabriella Ianoale, Ernst & Young

$$OHIOCLE/CPECREDIT

AWARDED

Tuesday & Wednesday, January 29-30, 2013 Hyatt Regency Columbus Columbus, Ohio

Major Ohio Business Tax ReformManufacturing Renaissance in Ohio • Sales & Use Tax • CAT Pass-Thrus

Economic Development & Jobs • Ohio State Taxation & Tax Accounting • NexusTax Issues for Retailers & Health Care Sector • Audits • Property Valuations

Economic Incentives & Tax Credits • Michigan, Pennsylvania, Indiana& Kentucky Taxes • Municipal Tax Uniformity for a Healthier Economy

Recovery Belt … Resurgence in Manufacturing, and Boom inNatural Gas & Oil Production in Ohio

For program brochure, please click here.

Along with the Ohio Chamber of Commerce, the Ohio Department of Taxation, and the Manufacturers’ Educa-tion Council, the Institute for Professionals in Taxation® is pleased to be one of the co-sponsors of this business tax conference. Register and join 600 of your colleagues at this multidisciplinary educational forum.

The Hyatt Regency Columbus, 350 North High Street, Columbus, has a block of rooms for January 28 - 29. Click here for online reservations or call the Hyatt at 1.888.421.1442 and mention the Tax Conference to receive the $143 rate before the cut-off date of January 7, 2013.

The registration fee for the first attendee is $695.00. IPT members please contact the IPT office for the promotional code to receive a discount of $200 off the registration fee. Click here to register.

22nd ANNUAL

Ohio Tax Conference

Register Now!$200 discount for

IPt members!


IPT37th ANNUALCONFERENCE

Renaissance Orlando at SeaWorld® Orlando, FloridaJune 23-26, 2013

It’s not too early to think about your travel plans for 2013! Mark your calendars and plan to attend IPT’s 37th Annual Conference which will be held at the Renaissance Orlando at SeaWorld® in Orlando, Florida from June 23-26.

The Conference planning committee is developing a full information-packed educational program for each tax discipline, which includes a variety of current and cutting-edge topics of interest to state and local income, property, sales/use, and value added tax professionals. There will also be a session devoted to credits and incentives.

The speakers are well-respected specialists in their field who will present up-to-date information that you will be able to use back in the office.

In addition to the professional and educational value of attending this program, you may want to make plans to bring your family along to take advantage of the many fun-filled activities in the Orlando area.

See you in Orlando!


2013 aBa/IPt taX seMInarstHe rItZ-CarLtOnneW OrLeans, LaMarch18-22

Registration and program information available soon at IPT & ABA Section of Taxation websites

the aBa section of taxation and the Insti-tute for Professionals in taxation® again present this popular opportunity for CLe and CPe. the aBa/IPt advanced Income tax, sales/Use tax and Property tax seminars are designed for attorneys, accountants, tax directors, state and local tax managers, government tax officials, appraisers, prop-erty tax managers, commercial and indus-trial property managers, and others inter-ested in state and local income, sales, use, and ad valorem taxation. Over the course of five days comprising three one and one-half day seminars, a distinguished and multidis-ciplinary group of speakers, including ap-praisers, government and private sector tax officials, tax managers, and state and local tax attorneys, will lead you in the practical examination of current state and local tax is-sues facing different businesses and indus-tries. the program devotes substantial time to current issues in the field and practical solutions to recurring difficulties in handling and winning a state and local tax appeal.

aDVanCeD InCOMe taX seMInarMarCH 18-19

aDVanCeD saLes/Use taX seMInarMarCH 19-20

aDVanCeD PrOPertY taX seMInarMarCH 21-22

A Section of the American Bar AssociationTAX ATION

2013 IPt sales tax school IIntroduction to sales and Use taxesFebruary 24 - March 1, 2013Georgia tech Hotel & Conference Centeratlanta, Georgia

registration is now available online.

registration Brochure Hotel

Sales Tax School I is a five-day school that provides students with an exposure to essential sales and use tax principles and concepts. Research, accounting, auditing and other technical skills are discussed and practiced. Emphasis is placed on small discussion groups and practical applications. Successful completion of a final examination is required. Reference books and a compendium of materials are an integral part of the course.

This school is an introductory school and a prerequisite for the Sales Tax School II being offered April 21-26, 2013. Individuals who plan to take Sales Tax School II are required to successfully complete Sales Tax School I or pass a Sales Tax School I Challenge Exam.


CMi CandidateConneCtion

CMiCorner

If you have any questions on the CMI designation or your current standing, please contact Christina Webb, Manager of Education and Certification Programs at [email protected] or Emily Archer, Certification Specialist at [email protected]. If you have any additional questions specifically relating to challenging a school exam, please contact Helen Johnson at [email protected].

Important Changes in IPt’s CMI Property tax Designation Program!

Effective November 9, 2012, CMI property tax applicants must now attend both the Personal Property Tax School and Real Property Tax School as part of the requirements to sit for the CMI Exams. A successful challenge exam result will not be accepted in lieu of attending the two schools. Current CMI candidates who applied prior to this effective date will be grandfathered in during their current candidacy period. If an applicant does not complete the requirements during their current candidacy period, he or she may reapply under the policies in effect at the time of the new application. Both the written and oral examinations must be passed during the same candidacy period. For more information, please see the brochure and application on the CMI Property applicant page on IPT’s website.

Coming soon…CMI status reports Online!

Please watch your email for changes to the way CMIs access their continuing education records and submit continuing education to the IPT office.

The annual CMI Continuing Education Status Reports will be available to all active CMIs in January. If you are an active Certified Member and do not have access to your annual report by February 1, please contact Emily Archer at the IPT office ([email protected]). Please review your continuing education record and make note of your “term began” and “term ends” dates.

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 five 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 2012 Calendar year will be March 30, 2013. Please note that we will not process or accept any credit earned prior to the preceding year.






Positions Available:Please go to IPt's webpage, www.ipt.org, to see a complete announcement with position description and requirements.

state & Local tax, transaction tax – UHY Advisors SALT LLC. Send resume to [email protected]. Date Posted: 12/19/2012 (IPT1065)

Property tax analyst (Duluth, Georgia) – RockTenn. Send resume to [email protected]. Date Posted: 12/17/2012 (IPT1064)

Property tax associate (Brighton, Michigan) – Paradigm Tax Group, www.paradigmtax.com. Qualified candidates should send their resume to Robert Fuchs via e-mail at [email protected]. Date Posted: 12/17/2012 (IPT1063)

state & Local tax senior associate (Cincinnati, Ohio) – Grant Thornton. Send resume to [email protected]. Date Posted: 12/17/2012 (IPT1062)

sales & Use tax senior associate (Cincinnati, Ohio) – Grant Thornton. Send resume to [email protected]. Date Posted: 12/17/2012 (IPT1061)

senior tax analyst (nashville, tennessee) – Nissan North America, Inc. Send resume and salary requirements to: [email protected]. Date Posted: 12/12/2012 (IPT1059)

transaction tax accountant (Dallas, texas) – Sabre Holdings. Please apply online by visiting the Sabre Careers website: Transaction Tax Accountant. Date Posted: 12/11/2012 (IPT1058)

sales & Use tax Manager (syracuse, new York) – Carrier Enterprise (www.carrierenterprise.com). Send resume to [email protected]. Date Posted: 12/6/2012 (IPT1057)

Senior Analyst, Federal Income Tax (Richfield, Minnesota) – Best Buy. To apply for this position, please use the link given below http://www.bestbuy-jobs.com/job/Richfield-Senior-Analyst%2C-Federal-Income-Tax-Job-MN-55423/2123766/. Date Posted: 12/6/2012 (IPT1056)

Ca r ee r s Please visit the Career Opportunities page on the IPt website for complete position descriptions and requirements.

Income Tax Analyst (Richfield, Minnesota) – Best Buy. To apply for this position, please use the link given below: http://www.bestbuy-jobs.com/job/Richfield-Income-tax-analyst-Job-Mn-55423/2160248/. Date Posted: 12/6/2012 (IPT1055)

tax associate, tax Matrix (Dallas, texas) – To apply, please send the following (all required): resume, cover letter and compensation history to Lisa McCarthy at [email protected]. Date Posted: 12/5/2012 (IPT1054)

state & Local tax, Property tax staff – UHY Advisors, Inc. For more information on UHY Advisors, please visit our website at www.uhy-us.com. Date Posted: 12/4/2012 (IPT1053)

sr. International tax analyst (Lake Forest, Illinois) – Send resume to [email protected]. Date Posted: 11/29/2012 (IPT1052)

staff accountant, audit/research (englewood, Colorado) – Tax Specialty: Sales & Property Tax. DISH. To apply, https://dish-assessment1-dish.icims.com/jobs/15274/job. Date Posted: 11/29/2012 (IPT1051)

senior sales and Use tax accountant (atlanta, Georgia) – If you are interested in exploring this career opportunity, please submit a copy of your resume to [email protected]. Date Posted: 11/27/2012 (IPT1050)

tax accountant (atlanta, Georgia) – SunTrust Bank. Send resume to [email protected]. Date Posted: 11/27/2012 (IPT1049)

tax Manager (Basking ridge, new Jersey) – Verizon. Send resume to [email protected]. Date Posted: 11/27/2012 (IPT1048)

tax associate (Basking ridge, new Jersey) – Verizon. Send resume to [email protected]. Date Posted: 11/27/2012 (IPT1047)

sr. tax analyst (Basking ridge, new Jersey) – Verizon. Send resume to [email protected]. Date Posted: 11/27/2012 (IPT1046)

sr. tax analyst (Basking ridge, new Jersey) – Verizon. Send resume to [email protected]. Date Posted: 11/27/2012 (IPT1045)











http://www.uhy-us.com









senior tax accountant (Basking ridge, new Jersey) – Verizon. Send resume to [email protected]. Date Posted: 11/27/2012 (IPT1044)

tax Manager (Dallas, texas) – Dixon Hughes Goodman LLP. To apply http://bit.ly/UbBvcL. Date Posted: 11/27/2012 (IPT1043)

senior tax Manager (Dallas, texas) – Dixon Hughes Goodman LLP. To apply http://bit.ly/SwX3kr. Date Posted: 11/27/2012 (IPT1042)

tax senior associate (Dallas, texas) – Dixon Hughes Goodman LLP. To apply http://bit.ly/TNAM5z. Date Posted: 11/27/2012 (IPT1041)

Position Wanted:Property tax – CMI with over 35 years in property tax available for consulting, contract or subcontract engagements. Contact Jim at [email protected]. Date Posted: 12/17/2012 (IPT1060)

2013 real Property tax schoolMarriott Kingsgate Conference Center University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio

April 28 - May 3, 2013

This is a comprehensive, five-day school for property tax professionals who have some experience in the real property area. The purpose of the program is to provide students with a fundamental and integrated knowledge of property tax principles, concepts and technical skills essential to the field. The course is designed to investigate in-depth the real property tax valuation process and related subjects. For a sample program agenda, visit IPT's website.

registration will begin approximately 90 days prior to the program.

Tools of the Profession




22nd annual Ohio tax Conference Hyatt Regency Hotel Columbus, Ohio January 29 - 30, 2013

Sales Tax School I: Introduction to Sales and Use Taxes Georgia Tech Hotel and Conference Center Atlanta, Georgia February 24 - March 1, 2013

aBa/IPt Income tax seminar The Ritz-Carlton New Orleans, Louisiana March 18 - 19, 2013

aBa/IPt sales tax seminar The Ritz-Carlton New Orleans, Louisiana March 19 - 20, 2013

aBa/IPt Property tax seminar The Ritz-Carlton New Orleans, Louisiana March 21 - 22, 2013

Sales Tax School II: theory and Practice for the experienced sales & Use tax Professional Marriott Kingsgate Conference Center University of Cincinnati Cincinnati, Ohio April 21 - 26, 2013

real Property tax school Marriott Kingsgate Conference Center University of Cincinnati Cincinnati, Ohio April 28 - May 3, 2013

Basic state Income tax school Georgia Tech Hotel and Conference Center Atlanta, Georgia June 2 - 7, 2013

advanced state Income tax school Georgia Tech Hotel and Conference Center Atlanta, Georgia June 2 - 7, 2013

CMI - Income tax exams Renaissance Orlando at SeaWorld® Orlando, Florida June 21 - 22, 2013

CMI - sales tax exams Renaissance Orlando at SeaWorld® Orlando, Florida June 21 - 22, 2013

CMI - Property tax exams Renaissance Orlando at SeaWorld® Orlando, Florida June 22 - 23, 2013

37th annual Conference Renaissance Orlando at SeaWorld® Orlando, Florida June 23 - 26, 2013

43rd annual Wichita Program Wichita Marriott Wichita, Kansas July 28 - August 1, 2013

Property tax school Georgia Tech Hotel and Conference Center Atlanta, Georgia August 11 - 15, 2013

CMI - sales tax exams Hyatt Regency Monterey Monterey, California September 27 - 28, 2013

sales tax symposium Hyatt Regency Monterey Monterey, California September 29 - October 2, 2013

Personal Property tax school Georgia Tech Hotel and Conference Center Atlanta, Georgia October 13 - 18, 2013

CMI - Property tax exams Renaissance Esmeralda Hotel Indian Wells, California November 2, 2013

CMI - Income tax exams Renaissance Esmeralda Hotel Indian Wells, California November 2 - 3, 2013

Property tax symposium Renaissance Esmeralda Hotel Indian Wells, California November 3 - 6, 2013

Income tax symposium Renaissance Esmeralda Hotel Indian Wells, California November 3 - 6, 2013

texas taxpayers and research association (ttara) AT&T Conference Center Austin, Texas November 13-14, 2013

Please check IPT’s online Calendar of Events for additional programs that may be added.

IPT 2013 CALENDAR OF EVENTS

Documents

tax report - Institute for Professionals in Taxation Home · tax report. Institute for ... Kyle Caruthers . The Coca-Cola Company Christopher S. Hall, CMI, CMA. ... Keith G. Landry