tax report - institute for professionals in taxation home · in light of these differences, and...

ProPerty tAX

In this IssuePresident's Corner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3Counsel's Corner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4ABA/IPT Advanced Tax Seminars . . . . . 17Sales Tax School II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18Real Property Tax School . . . . . . . . . . . . 18Basic State Income Tax School . . . . . . . 19Advanced State Income Tax School . . . . 19IPT 37th Annual Conference . . . . . . . . . . 20

State Business Income Taxation Book . . 21Property Tax Calendar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22TTARA Local Lunheon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22CMI Candidate Connection . . . . . . . . . . 23CMI Corner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24Career Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25Calendar of Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Kentucky Court Upholds Separate taxation of Public Utility’s Franchise at Full State and Local Property tax ratesThis article analyzes a recent decision by a divided panel of the Kentucky Court of Appeals, which upheld an interpretation of Kentucky’s public service company property tax statutes by the Department of Revenue that was alleged to have constituted a change in the Department’s position without any change in the law . The article discusses the majority opinion’s holding regarding the statute’s ambiguity and the contemporaneous construction doctrine, as well as the different views offered by the dissent and the Board of Tax Appeals . In light of these differences, and because of the significant impact the Department’s new policy will have on numerous public service companies, the article concludes that the Kentucky Supreme Court should grant the taxpayer’s pending motion for discretionary review of the decision .

Jennifer S. Smart, esq. Stoll Keenon Ogden PLLC Lexington, KY Phone: (859) 231-3619 E-mail: [email protected]

Article begins on page 4

VALUe ADDeD tAX

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

recaptured Input tax Credits

This article discusses recaptured input tax credits which have been introduced on a temporary basis . The article focuses on the nature of the restrictions, and the taxpayers, property and services to which the restrictions apply . The article also addresses the application of certain proxies and elections, as well as some of the compliance issues presented by the restrictions .

Wendy Brousseau McCarthy Tétrault LLP Toronto, ON Phone: (416) 601-7720 E-mail: wbrousseau@mccarthy .ca


real Property tax Schooltools for Success ~ April 28 - May 3, 2013Marriott Kingsgate Conference Center, Cincinnati, Ohio

Brochure Registration Form Hotel Reservation

Illinois Amnesty - Is it Better to Be Safe than Sorry?

Although taxpayers participating in the Illinois amnesty program generally forego the right to claim tax refunds, the Department of Revenue’s Emergency Rules contain limited exceptions for taxpayers whose Illinois taxes are reduced as the result of a federal income tax audit . The Amnesty Act also provides that eligible participants who do not participate in the amnesty program will be subject to interest at 200% of the statutory rate . This article examines the effects of federal income tax examination changes on these aspects of the Illinois amnesty program by tracing the cases of three taxpayers under similar but not identical circumstances . Although the last word has not yet been spoken, these decisions suggest that taxpayers who played it safe may have a slight advantage over those who did not .

Jennifer A. Zimmerman, esq. Horwood Marcus & Berk Chartered Chicago, IL Phone: (312) 606-3247 E-mail: jzimmerman@hmblaw .com


INCoMe tAX

mailto:[email protected]



IPT March 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 accurate in-formation for IPT members and other tax profes-sionals. 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 profes-sional should be sought. Reprint permission for ar-ticles 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.

Thank you to IPT members who have already joined the IPT LinkedIn group as we now have over 1900 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!

recent trends in renewable energy LegislationThis article addresses the impact of the recent fiscal cliff federal legislation, signed into law in January 2013, specifically as it extends and enhances federal incentives for renewable energy . Also discussed are recent legislative trends, specific to renewable energy, in selected states .

Alice Nolen, esq. Experis Finance Atlanta, GA Phone: (770) 821-5700 E-mail: alice .nolen@experis .com


SALeS AND USe tAX

The Institute for Professionals in Taxation expresses its sincere appreciation to Duff & Phelps for being the Signature Sponsor for this year’s Annual Conference. This sponsorship makes a substantial contribution to the enhancement of the educational programs offered by IPT.

rent? What rent?the twists and turns of the Florida sales tax on realty rentalsUnlike most states, Florida’s sales tax is imposed on leases and rentals of commercial real property, which presents a number of issues regarding what constitutes “rent” that typically do not arise in the context of tangible personal property rentals . This article identifies a number of situations in which payments by a tenant have been deemed taxable rent by the Department of Revenue and suggests that unintended consequences may sometimes be avoided by proper structuring and documentation of the transaction .

James M. ervin, Jr., esq. Holland & Knight Tallahassee, FL Phone: (850) 425-5649 E-mail: jim .ervin@hklaw .com


CreDItS AND INCeNtIVeS




The Institute’s 2013 Sales Tax School I just concluded on March 1st in Atlanta, Georgia . The school had almost 200 in attendance and the program was very well received . I was able to meet many new sales tax professionals and express my appreciation to School Chair, Brenda S . Kelley, CMI, CPA, and her team of instructors for another excellent school . School highlights will be included in IPT’s March issue of Member News .

Next up on the schedule of school offerings are Sales Tax School II and the Real Property Tax School . Both courses are being held in Cincinnati, Ohio in late April . I encourage you to review the course agendas located on IPT’s website and pass both of them along to the appropriate individuals in your company . You may register online for both of these programs . Without the participation of the many individuals who serve as instructors at all IPT schools, these courses could not be presented, and I personally thank them for their many contributions .

The ABA-IPT Joint Advanced Property, Sales and Income Tax Seminars are being held, once again, in New Orleans, and are scheduled for March 18-22, 2013 . Each of the committees has developed a full one and one-half day program of current and varied topics with a well-known list of speakers . Our continuing relationship with the American Bar

Association Tax Section offers property, income and sales tax professionals the chance to interact with others involved in their field. Registrations are still being accepted through the ABA .

As you all know, the CMI designation continues to gain recognition and value throughout the United States and Canada . Any member, interested in pursuing the CMI Designation in Income, Property or Sales Tax and sitting for the examinations at the Annual Conference, should submit their candidacy application by March 21st . IPT’s website provides an application and detailed information regarding the process . Exams are scheduled in conjunction with the June Annual Conference as well as the fall Symposium for that discipline .

Plans are progressing for IPT’s 2013 Annual Conference . I hope you will be able to join me in Orlando this June . A preliminary Conference program will be available for you shortly on IPT’s website . It is an excellent opportunity to meet, get acquainted with, and establish a rapport not only with other tax colleagues in your discipline, but also with those involved in other areas .

Thank you, again, for your membership in the Institute . It is through your membership support and participation that the Institute is able to accomplish what it has . If you have any questions, concerns or recommendations, please do not hesitate to contact me directly .

Paul A . Wilke, CMI President

Paul A . Wilke, CMIPresident June 2012-2013

President’s

Corner


Counsel’sCorner

ProPerty tAX

Kentucky Court Upholds Separate taxation of Public Utility’s Franchise at Full State and Local Property tax ratesJennifer S. Smart, esq. Stoll Keenon Ogden PLLC Lexington, KY Phone: (859) 231-3619 E-mail: [email protected]

I n a recent split decision, the Kentucky Court of Appeals held that the Department of Revenue (“Department”) properly treated Dayton Power & Light Company’s

(“DPL”) franchise as a separate and distinct class of property subject to public service company property tax (“PSC Tax”) at full state and local tax rates, rather than allocating or “spreading” the franchise among the various classes of property, which would have taxed most of the franchise at lower state tax rates and exempted most of it from local taxation . Dayton Power & Light Co. v. Dept. of Revenue, No . 2011-CA-001438-MR, 2012 Ky . App . LEXIS 232 (Ky . App . Nov . 2, 2012), motion for discretionary review filed, (Ky., Dec. 3, 2012).

The Department argued that the franchise of a public service company must be taxed under a “catch-all” state rate and full local rates . See, KRS 132.020(1)(r). DPL argued that Kentucky law permitted it to pay tax rates on its franchise that were spread across a range of property asset classes, and that it was exempt, in some cases, from local taxation . See, KRS 132.200. DPL based this argument on Kentucky’s requirement that “operating property and nonoperating tangible property shall be subject to state and local taxes at the same rate as the tangible property of other taxpayers not performing public services .” KRS 136.120(2(c). DPL also argued that the doctrine of contemporaneous construction applied to bar the Department from changing its prior position of spreading the franchise among property classes .

As background, DPL is a public utility with no customers in Kentucky, but required to file PSC Tax returns with the Department since it owns a 31% interest in a power generating facility in Boone County, Kentucky . DPL identified five classes of property on its PSC Tax returns: (1) real estate, (2) tangible property, (3) manufacturing machinery, (4) pollution control equipment and (5) business inventory . The Department and DPL agreed that the unit value of DPL’s operating property for the 2006 tax year was $110,621,241, and agreed that the value of DPL’s franchise was $21,164,058 .

Kentucky’s PSC tax Scheme

There is a provision in Kentucky’s statutes for “other” tangible property that does not fall into any other category . Such property is subject to state tax at $0 .45/$100 of value and is subject to local taxation . Further, business inventory is subject to state tax at $0 .05/$100 and is subject to local taxation . KRS 132.020(1)(n),(r);KRS 132.200. Manufacturing machinery and pollution control equipment are subject to state tax at $0 .15/$100 of value and are exempt from local taxation . KRS 132.020(i),(k); KRS 132.200(4),(8).

Under Kentucky’s PSC Tax scheme, the operating property of a public service company consists of “both the operating tangible property and the franchise” and is assessed or valued as a unit . See, KRS § 136 .115, et seq.

For purposes of the PSC Tax, the term “franchise” has been recently described as follows:

[T]he earning value ascribed to the capital of a domestic public service corporation by reason of its operation as a domestic public service corporation . It comprises the operating property and is assessed by the Revenue Cabinet by its fair cash value as a unit . In this case, the franchise is the earning value ascribed to Comcast’s capital by reason of its operation as a cable television provider . Said another way, the value of the franchise is determined by subtracting the assessed value of the tangible operating property from the “capital stock,” which is the “entire property, real and personal, tangible and intangible, assets on hand, and its franchise as well .”

(Continued on page 5)



Revenue Cabinet v. Comcast Cablevision of the South, 147 S .W .3d 743, 752 (Ky . App . 2003) (quoting Henderson Bridge Co. v. Commonwealth, 99 Ky . 623, 31 S .W .486, 491 (Ky . 1895)) .

Department’s Change in Position

Prior to 2006, the DPL contends that the Department allowed DPL to spread the value of its franchise among the classes of property it owned, resulting in a lower tax rate and an exemption from local taxation for part of the value of its franchise . In 2006, the Department changed its position and issued PSC Tax assessments, taxing DPL’s franchise as “other” tangible personal property at full state and local tax rates . This resulted in substantially higher taxes for DPL because the franchise was subject to a higher tax rate and its entire value was subject to local taxation . The Department contends, however, that it did not have a long-standing policy to spread the franchise among classes of property, but was simply “inconsistent” in its tax treatment of franchises . The Department contends that it should not be bound by an erroneous application of the law and that DPL should not be allowed to benefit from the Department’s errors .

Board of tax Appeals Finds Department’s Position Violates Doctrine of Contemporaneous Construction.

DPL appealed the Department’s assessments to the Kentucky Board of Tax Appeals (“Board”) . The Board granted summary disposition for DPL, ruling the Department could not change its long-standing position without violating the doctrine of contemporaneous construction . The Board stated that “[t]he board is not inclined to overturn this precedent even though at a time of great budgetary stress the Appellee urges that after wandering in the darkness of incorrect and less remunerative interpretation they now ‘have seen a great light’, a new way of interpreting this statutory application .” Dayton Power and Light Co. v. Dept. of Revenue, File No . K07-R-20 (Order K-20663, March 23, 2010) . The Department appealed the Board’s ruling to the Franklin Circuit Court .

Circuit Court Finds Department’s Position Does Not Violate Contemporaneous Construction Because there Was No Ambiguity in the Statutes and the Department Had No Long-standing Policy of Spreading the Franchise Among Classes of Property.

The Franklin Circuit Court reversed the ruling of the Board,

holding that the Department’s past practices were incorrect and that its new method was correct under Kentucky’s PSC Tax scheme . Dept. of Revenue v. Dayton Power & Light Co ., Civil Action No . 10-CI-624, Franklin Circuit Court, (July 12, 2011) . The circuit court noted that there was no evidence of any reliance by DPL on an unbroken administrative interpretation of an ambiguous statute, but the past application of the Department’s interpretation was in the context of the negotiation of settlement of contested tax liabilities . DPL appealed the circuit court’s decision to the Kentucky Court of Appeals .

Court of Appeals’ Majority Decision Upholds the Department’s Position and Holds the Doctrine of Contemporaneous Construction Was Not Violated.

The Court of Appeals initially affirmed the circuit court’s decision in an unpublished opinion . Dayton Power & Light Co. v. Dept. of Revenue, 2011-CA-001438 (Ky . App . Aug . 10, 2012) . The Court then granted DPL’s Petition for Rehearing, withdrew the original opinion, and entered a virtually identical opinion, which was designated for publication . There was a vigorous dissent by one member of the three-judge panel. DPL filed a Motion for Discretionary Review with the Kentucky Supreme Court, which remains pending .

The Court of Appeals initially noted that KRS 136 .120(2)(c) requires the property of a public service company to be taxed at the “same rates” as non-public service companies . However, the Court then determined that DPL’s franchise fell within the catch-all provision of KRS 132 .020(1)(r) and was therefore subject to the $0 .45/$100 tax rate and full local taxation . The Court reasoned that none of the categories and rates in KRS 132 .020(1)(a) – (q) were applicable, and therefore, the catch-all provision applied . The Court also found that non-public service companies do not have taxable franchises and thus, there was no “same rate” to apply . Observing the 17 categories of property and tax rates in KRS 132 .020(1)(a)-(q) and KRS 132 .200, the Court held that had the legislature intended to tax franchises at a lower rate or exempt them from local taxation, the legislature would have done so . The Court also opined that although intangible property is generally exempt from tax, intangible property assessed under KRS Chapter 136 (PSC Tax) is taxable .

The Court then reviewed and rejected DPL’s argument that the doctrine of contemporaneous construction was applicable . The Court indicated that under the contemporaneous construction doctrine, if an



administrative agency has a long-standing policy under which it has interpreted an ambiguous statute, it may not change its position without a change in applicable law . GTE v. Revenue Cabinet, 889 S .W .2d 788, 792 (Ky . 1994) (superseded on other grounds by statute as recognized in Miller v. Johnson Controls, 296 S .W .3d 392 (Ky . 2009) .

The Court held that the PSC Tax scheme was not ambiguous and there was no evidence of record to demonstrate that the Department had a long-standing policy of spreading the tax rates among the various classifications of property . The Court found, instead, that the case involved an example of an administrative agency’s correcting itself once it determined it had made a mistake . The Court therefore held that the Department complied with the law when it corrected its mistake, since contemporaneous construction may not be invoked to memorialize or to ratify a mistake of an agency and an erroneous interpretation of law may not be perpetuated .

Dissenting opinion Concludes PSC tax Statutes Are “Inherently Ambiguous.”

The dissent argued that the doctrine of contemporaneous construction was applicable because the PSC Tax statutes were “inherently ambiguous” and that the Department is required to adhere to its previous interpretation of the law . The dissenting judge reasoned: “The fact, however, that the statute can reasonably be interpreted two ways is indicative of ambiguity, and as much as I try, I do not see the clarity of the method of taxation . The Department is bound by its prior interpretation .”

Discretionary review by Kentucky Supreme Court

DPL has sought review of this decision by the Kentucky Supreme Court; and as of the date of publication of this article, DPL’s motion is still pending . Although review of appellate decisions is purely discretionary, the Kentucky Supreme Court should grant review in this case as there are clearly “special reasons” as required for review . See, CR 76.20(1).

The Court of Appeals’ decision to uphold the Department’s separate taxation of DPL’s franchise is a case of first impression in Kentucky, and will substantially increase every public service company’s PSC Tax . The affected taxpayers include railway companies, sleeping car

companies, chair car companies, dining car companies, gas companies, water companies, bridge companies, street railway companies, interurban electric railroad companies, express companies, electric light companies, electric power companies, commercial air carriers, air freight carriers, pipeline companies, privately owned regulated sewer companies, municipal solid waste disposal facilities, railroad car line companies and every other like company or business performing any public

service . See, KRS 136.120(1)(a).

Further, the PSC Tax scheme is arguably arbitrary, ambiguous and subject to different interpretations, as demonstrated by the Department’s alleged policy for several years of allowing the spreading of the franchise among property classes, but then reversing its position in 2006 and requiring separate taxation of the franchise . The Kentucky Supreme Court should grant review of the DPL case to determine whether the Court of Appeals

erred in upholding the Department’s application of the PSC Tax scheme, and whether Section 2 of the Kentucky Constitution (prohibiting arbitrary state action) and the doctrine of contemporaneous construction were violated by the Department’s actions in changing its method of taxing public service companies with no change in applicable law .

The Department’s actions here appear to be similar to its actions in a sales tax case where it changed its administrative position with no corresponding change in the law . There, the Court held that the doctrine of contemporaneous construction applied to bar the Department’s change in position . See, Revenue Cabinet v. Humana, Inc., 998 S .W .2d 494 (Ky . App . 1998) . The Court held in Humana:

[I]f the statute contained no ambiguity, we can fathom no reason for Revenue’s differing interpretations . . . . . For eighteen years, Revenue applied the statute in one manner . Suddenly it announced, without any legislative change, any public hearing, or any other logical reason, an opposite interpretation of the statute . Such arbitrary and naked exercise of power is forbidden by the Constitution of Kentucky, section 2; the contemporaneous construction doctrine is merely an application of that constitutional provision .



The Court reasoned that the sales tax statutes at issue must have been ambiguous as demonstrated by the Department’s interpretation for nearly 20 years that for-profit hospitals were entitled to the prescription drug exemption, despite its subsequent reversal of that position in a letter to hospitals that they were no longer entitled to the exemption and would be taxed on prescription drugs .

The Humana case also held that the Department violated KRS Chapter 13A, which forbids administrative agencies from expanding, limiting or modifying statutes, administrative regulations and constitutional rights via internal agency policies or memoranda, which provides another potential basis for the Supreme Court’s review .

The DPL case also involves important questions of statutory interpretation, since the Court of Appeals’ majority opinion is arguably contrary to the plain language of the PSC Tax statutes .

The Court should also review whether Kentucky Constitution Section 171, requiring uniformity in taxation of property, was violated by the Department’s disparate tax treatment of public service companies and non-public service companies .

Because the DPL case involves novel questions of constitutional and property tax law affecting hundreds of public service company taxpayers, the Kentucky Supreme Court should grant review .

INCoMe tAX

Illinois Amnesty - Is it Better to Be Safe than Sorry?Jennifer A. Zimmerman, esq. Horwood Marcus & Berk Chartered Chicago, IL Phone: (312) 606-3247 E-mail: jzimmerman@hmblaw .com

I n 2003, Illinois enacted the Amnesty Act which provided amnesty to taxpayers who paid “all taxes due” for any taxable period after June 30, 1983

and prior to July 1, 2002 . To participate in the amnesty program, taxpayers had to make full payment of all taxes due during the amnesty period of October 1, 2003 through November 17, 2003 (“amnesty period”) . If a taxpayer eligible for amnesty did not participate in amnesty, the statute provided for “double interest,” interest imposed at 200% the statutory rate .

Pursuant to the Amnesty Act, the Illinois Department of Revenue (“Department”) enacted Emergency Rules which provided a taxpayer who was under federal audit may participate in amnesty by making a good faith estimate of the increased liability that may be owed to the Department . In addition, the Emergency Rules stated that although participants in the amnesty program may not seek refunds, a limited exception to this rule will be permitted for taxpayers whose refund claims are based upon final determinations of the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) .

With this background, three similarly-situated corporate taxpayers took two different routes with respect to the 2003 Illinois amnesty program with three different outcomes . The first taxpayer, Con-Way Transportation Services (“Con-Way”), was in the midst of a federal audit for the 1997 tax year during the amnesty period . On November 17, 2003, Con-Way participated in amnesty by filing a First Amended Return and making a good faith estimate of additional Illinois tax due based on the federal changes it anticipated .

Con-Way received a final determination of its federal changes in August 2004, nine months after the expiration of the amnesty period . On November 29, 2004, more than one year after the good faith estimate was paid, Con-Way




timely reported the federal changes to the Department when it filed its Second Amended Return to correct its federal taxable income amount from that reported during amnesty to the amount finally determined by the IRS. Con-Way requested a refund attributable solely to a reduction in federal taxable income from the amount last reported on its First Amended Return filed during amnesty to the amount as finally determined by the IRS. The Department issued a Notice denying Con-Way’s refund claim because it had not been timely filed within one year from date of payment as provided in the general statute of limitations under Section 911(a) of the Illinois Income Tax Act (“Act”) . Con-Way protested, both the administrative tribunal and circuit courts issued decisions in favor of the Department, and Con-Way appealed .

The second taxpayer, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (“Metropolitan”), who was in the midst of a federal and Illinois audit for the 1998 and 1999 tax years during the amnesty period did not participate in amnesty . Metropolitan received a final determination of its federal changes in August 2004, nine months after the expiration of the amnesty period . Metropolitan timely reported the federal changes to the Department auditor, and made payments of additional Illinois income taxes . In May 2008, the Department assessed Metropolitan double interest for failing to pay the additional Illinois income tax for the 1998 and 1999 tax years during the amnesty period. Metropolitan filed a complaint and the circuit court found in favor of Metropolitan . The Department appealed .

The third taxpayer, Marriott International Inc . (“Marriott”), paid federal and state taxes for the 2000 through 2002 tax years . The IRS did not begin its audit of Marriott until 2004, a year after the expiration of the amnesty period . In 2007, the IRS determined that Marriott understated its taxable income for the 2000 through 2002 tax years . Marriott timely filed amended returns reporting its federal changes to Illinois and paying additional Illinois income taxes based on those changes . The Department assessed Marriott double interest for failing to pay all taxes due for the 2000 through 2002 tax years during the amnesty period. Marriott filed a complaint and the circuit court found in favor of Marriott . The Department appealed .

All three cases were appealed to the Illinois Appellate Court, 1st District. We represented the first taxpayer, Con-Way, who argued that the Department, pursuant to its


Emergency Rules, provided that (1) for the sole purpose of participating in the amnesty program taxpayers undergoing federal audit and thereby subject to Act Section 506(b) must report any “federal change” prior to final notification by filing an amended return during the amnesty period and making payment of tax upfront; and (2) if upon receiving final determination from the IRS, these taxpayers overpaid Illinois tax based on its good faith estimate, these taxpayers were entitled to a refund . Con-way then argued that the limitations period for refunds attributable to alterations required to be reported in accordance with Act Section 506(b), including those reported in accordance with the Illinois amnesty program, is the extended two-year statute of limitations provided for in Act Section 911(b)(1) .

The Department’s position was that the refund was not timely filed within the one-year limitation period in Section 911(a) . The Department argued that Con-Way could not

claim a refund under Act Section 911(b)(1) because the alterations required to be reported under Act Section 506(b) are final federal changes determined by the IRS, and Con-Way’s good faith estimate of tax paid with its First Amended Return was not an alteration that was required to be reported . The Department compared Con-Way’s original return to its Second Amended Return, and maintained

that Con-Way had actually underpaid its tax because the final determination resulted in additional taxable income from that reported on Con-Way’s original return .

On January 17, 2013, the Appellate Court issued a decision in favor of Con-Way . Applying the clearly erroneous standard, all three judges determined that there is no requirement in Act Section 911(b) that an overpayment must arise solely from a final federal action. Instead, Act Section 911(b) only refers to an alteration required to be reported under Act Section 506(b) which describes an alteration as a change in taxable income reported in a federal return that affects the computation of such person’s Illinois net income . The Appellate Court stated that the decrease in federal taxable income along with the resulting overpayment of Illinois taxes in this case arose from a combination of Con-Way’s actions as well as from a final federal action. The Appellate Court indicated that but for Con-Way having to report a good faith estimate in its First Amended Return and having to pay the tax due under this estimate, there would be no


overpayment . The Appellate Court then held that the First Amended Return is the appropriate return to consider when determining whether the number reported in the Second Amended Return alters Con-Way’s net income because there is no language in Section 911(b) to support the view that it should be disregarded . In fact, the Appellate Court noted that by ignoring the First Amended Return, the Department ignores the Illinois taxes actually paid by Con-Way . The Appellate Court concluded that because Con-Way’s good faith estimate of income was altered by a final determination required to be reported by Section 506(b), Con-Way’s refund claim fits the requirements of Act Section 911(b), and the 2-year statute of limitations applies .

As for the second taxpayer, on March 5, 2012, another panel of the 1st District of the Illinois Appellate Court issued a decision in favor of Metropolitan finding that it is not subject to double interest due to its failure to participate in amnesty . The Appellate Court was asked to interpret the phrase “all taxes due” in the Amnesty Act . The Department pointed to Section 601(a) of the Illinois Income Tax Act which provides that taxes due for a taxable year become due when the return is filed. Therefore, the Department’s position was that all of Metropolitan’s taxes for the 1998 and 1999 tax year were due when its income tax return was filed. The Department also maintained that since Metropolitan could have paid the additional amount of taxes that it owed during the amnesty period by making a good faith estimate, Metropolitan was subject to double interest .

In its decision, the Court looked to the plain language of the statute and determined that “all taxes due” means those taxes that Metropolitan knew were due and owing during the amnesty period . The Court stated that since Metropolitan was undergoing both a federal and state audit during the amnesty period, it did not know whether it owed additional taxes and had no tax liability eligible for amnesty . While the Court agreed that Section 601(a) does provide for when income taxes become due, it found that Section 601(a) did not control the interpretation of “all taxes due” under the Amnesty Act . The Court noted that Metropolitan did in fact pay the taxes due as reflected on their returns that were filed. However, it was not until the state audit was complete and resulted in additional taxes due after the end of the amnesty period that Metropolitan became liable for the additional amount . Finally, the Court found that the Emergency Rules which required taxpayers to make a payment of unknown liability to the Department under amnesty exceeded the legislative intent of the Amnesty Act and the actual statutory language of the Amnesty Act .

In an unusual twist, Presiding Judge Hoffman issued a dissenting opinion in which he construed the phrase “all taxes due” to mean all taxes due on the date fixed for filing the taxpayer’s tax return, without assessment, notice or demand, and without regard to any extension of time for filing the return.

Several months later, on August 23, 2012, a third panel of the 1st District of the Illinois Appellate Court issued a decision against the third taxpayer, Marriott, holding that Marriott is subject to double interest due to its failure to participate in the amnesty program . Even though the facts in Marriott were perhaps more favorable to the taxpayer than those in Metropolitan because the IRS did not even begin its audit until a year after the expiration of amnesty, the Court looked to section 601(a) of the Act which provides that “[e]very taxpayer required to file a return under this Act shall, without assessment, notice or demand, pay any tax due thereon to the department[ .]” The Court said a plain reading of that section demonstrates that taxes are “due” on the date fixed for filing the taxpayer’s tax return. Citing to primarily federal law interpreting the Internal Revenue Code, the Court noted that “all taxes due” “means those taxes that are due on the date the tax return for that year is to be filed, irrespective of whether the Department or the taxpayer is aware of their existence and of whether the Department has issued a formal assessment .” The Court explicitly addressed Metropolitan and, rather than distinguishing the cases, adopted Justice Hoffman’s dissent .

Since these three decisions have been issued, the Department declined to file a petition for leave to appeal Con-Way to the Illinois Supreme Court . However, the Department appealed Metropolitan, and the Illinois Supreme Court accepted the appeal petition . Briefs have been filed with the Illinois Supreme Court and it is likely that oral argument will be scheduled in the next six months . Finally, Marriott has filed a petition for leave to appeal its case with the Illinois Supreme Court . The Illinois Supreme Court has not accepted or rejected Marriott’s appeal petition yet, though presumably the Court’s decision in Metropolitan should control the outcome for Marriott .

Based on these three decisions, it appears that when it comes to Illinois amnesty, taxpayers who erred on the “conservative” side by making a good faith estimate, may have an advantage over those who did not . However, there is no certainty that the Department will apply Con-Way to any similarly-situated taxpayers . So, the question remains- when it comes to Illinois amnesty, it is better to be safe than sorry?


recaptured Input tax CreditsWendy Brousseau McCarthy Tétrault LLP Toronto, ON Phone: (416) 601-7720 E-mail: wbrousseau@mccarthy .ca

one of the fundamental principles of a value added tax system such as the goods and services tax (“GST”) and the harmonized sales tax (“HST”)

is the ability of entities engaged in commercial activities to recover the GST/HST paid by them by means of the input tax credit (“ITC”) mechanism . The “recapture” or repayment or restriction of ITCs is, therefore, contrary to the underlying principles of a value added tax .

The concept of “restricted” input tax refunds (“ITRs”) has existed in the province of Québec, which levies a separate provincial Québec value added tax called the Québec sales tax (“QST”), since the introduction of the QST .

The provinces of British Columbia and Ontario harmonized their provincial sales taxes with the federal GST to impose the HST, as of July 1, 2010 . The HST in the province of Ontario is made up of the 5% federal (GST) component and the 8% provincial component; and in the province of British Columbia (until March 31, 2013), it is made up of the 5% federal (GST) component and the 7% provincial component .1 It was the introduction of the HST in British Columbia and Ontario that resulted in the introduction of the “temporary” recaptured ITCs (“RITCs”) for the provincial part of the HST paid in respect of specified property or services . It should be noted that the temporary RITC will apply only to the provincial component of the HST – ITCs in respect of the federal portion will not be affected .

Please note that effective April 1, 2013, the province of British Columbia will repeal the HST and re-implement the GST and a separate 7% provincial sales tax, thereby eliminating the RITC requirement in that province as of April 1, 2013 . Also effective April 1, 2013, the province

1 The provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Newfoundland and Labrador also impose the HST but the RITC requirement does not apply in those provinces . The HST rate for the provinces of New Bruns-wick and Newfoundland and Labrador is 13% and in Nova Scotia is 15% (to be reduced to 14% in 2014 and further reduced to 13% in 2015) .

of Prince Edward Island will harmonize its PST with the GST to impose the HST at a rate of 14% and the RITC requirement will be imposed in Prince Edward Island on a basis similar to that of Ontario and British Columbia .

One of the important differences between the restricted ITRs in Québec and the RITCs is that persons subject to the RITC requirement will not be restricted from claiming RITCs; instead, they will be required to report the gross amount of the ITC and then repay or “recapture” the provincial component of the HST paid or payable (8% in Ontario and currently 7% in British Columbia until March 31, 2013) in respect of any specified property or services for that same period, by province . In most cases, large businesses subject to the RITC requirement are required to recapture the RITC in the first reporting period in which the ITC becomes available (i .e ., the earlier of the day on which the tax becomes payable and the day on which the tax is paid) rather than when the ITC is actually claimed . Failure to recapture RITCs, as and when required, could result in the imposition of substantial penalties .

The RITC requirement will be imposed on a temporary basis . The rate of RITC recapture will be 100% for the first five years that the HST is in effect in Ontario, Prince Edward Island and in British Columbia until March 31, 2013 . The RITC requirement will then be phased out by reducing the rate of recapture in equal increments over the following three years . With the QST form of harmonization, Québec has also agreed to phase out its restricted ITRs within 8 years .

Who is subject to the rItC requirements?

Generally, only large businesses will be subject to the RITC requirement – which includes businesses with taxable supplies (including associated businesses) in excess of $10 million made through a permanent establishment in Canada and certain specified financial institutions.

The RITC requirements will not apply to public services bodies (such as schools hospitals, municipalities and non-profit organizations), persons whose chief source of income is farming and to certain government entities .

Specified Property and Services

The RITC requirement will generally apply only to specified property and services that are acquired, or brought into Ontario, British Columbia (until March 31, 2013), and in

VALUe ADDeD tAX




Prince Edward Island (as of April 1, 2013), by a large business for consumption or use by that business in these provinces. In general, specified property and services include:

• qualifying motor vehicles, including certain vehicle parts and services, and in Ontario, motive fuel (other than diesel fuel) for use in motor vehicles;

• specified energy;

• specified telecommunication services; and

• specified meals and entertainment that are currently subject to an ITC repayment requirement of 50% under the Act .

The RITC requirement generally does not apply to the following specified property and services:

• specified property acquired by a large business for the sole purpose of being resupplied by that large business (i .e ., either by way of sale, or by way of lease, licence or similar arrangement),

• specified property acquired by a large business for the sole purpose of it becoming a component part of other tangible personal property that is to be supplied by the large business, or

• a specified service that is acquired by a large business for the sole purpose of being resupplied by that business .

Proxies and elections

To simplify compliance with the RITC requirement, optional proxy methods are available in respect of specified energy used in production of tangible personal property for sale, specified energy used directly in qualifying SR&ED activities and specified telecommunication services where a supply includes both telecommunication services and other services and/or goods that are not subject to the RITC requirement .

For example, businesses producing tangible personal property in Canada for sale (if at least 10% of the production is carried out in a province subject to the RITC requirements) are able to elect to use a production proxy to determine what portion of the specified energy

is considered to be used directly in the production of tangible personal property for sale (and, therefore, not subject to the RITC requirement) . This production proxy will be based on the Canadian detail of the North American Industry Classification System for 2007, a statistical tool that classifies particular sectors, subsectors and industries into categories based on production-oriented principles .

There are also proxies available in respect of specified telecommunication services . Generally, RITCs apply to specified telecommunication services other than internet access, toll-free telephone services and telecommunication services acquired by a sponsor or organizer of a convention . Where telecommunication services subject to the RITC requirement are supplied together with non-restricted goods or services that are not separately identified, a proxy may be used to determine the proportion of the consideration attributable to the specified telecommunication.

There are also elections available to allow large businesses to elect to use an estimation, installment and reconciliation method, which allows a large business to estimate the amount of RITCs and then at the end of its fiscal year, reconcile any differences between the estimate and actual RITCs .

Compliance Issues

The RITC requirement is essentially a temporary tax on large businesses – in the provinces of Ontario until 2018, British Columbia until March 31, 2013 and in Prince Edward Island until 2021 . In addition to imposing a temporary tax, in the form of recaptured or repaired ITCs, the RITC requirement has imposed significant compliance obligations on large businesses and is currently identified by the Canada Revenue Agency as one of the top audit issues .


recent trends in renewable energy LegislationAlice Nolen, esq. Experis Finance Atlanta, GA Phone: (770) 821-5700 E-mail: alice .nolen@experis .com

AtrA Federal Legislation

The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 (ATRA), known as the “fiscal cliff legislation,” was signed into law on January 2, 2013 by President Obama .

This legislation extends a number of federal tax credits, including several provisions that directly impact renewable energy incentives, including the production tax credit under section 45 of the Internal Revenue Code . The production tax credit is a per-kilowatt-hour tax credit for electricity generated by qualified energy resources and sold by the taxpayer to an unrelated person during the taxable year . Eligible sources include facilities producing energy from wind, closed- and open-loop biomass, geothermal, landfill gas, trash, qualified hydropower and marine and hydrokinetic sources . The credit generally has duration of 10 years after the date the facility is placed in service .

The ATRA legislation revised the production credit by:

• Removing the existing “placed in service” deadlines and replacing them with deadlines that use the commencement of construction as a basis for determining eligibility . Prior to the enactment of the less stringent begin construction standard, facilities were required to be placed in service before 2014 in order to be eligible for credit . The term “construction” was not defined in the legislation.

• Extending the deadline for wind energy facilities by one year, from December 31, 2012 to December 31, 2013 .

• Increasing, from seven to eight years, the production tax credit period for Indian coal facilities placed in service prior to 2009 .

• Extending the election to take the 30% investment tax credit in lieu of the

CreDItS AND INCeNtIVeSproduction tax credit for eligible projects that begin construction before January 1, 2014 .

• Additional renewable energy provisions extend the $1 .01 per gallon cellulosic biofuel producer credit by one year through 2013 and expand it to include algae as a qualifying fuel, extend the 50% depreciation allowance for cellulosic biofuel plants by one year, and retroactively extend the $1 per gallon biodiesel fuels credit to apply to any sale or use in 2012 or 2013 .

While the “beginning of construction” terminology has yet to be clarified, this standard is clearly less stringent than the prior “placed in service” deadline, and arguably should have a positive impact on the continued development of relevant renewable energy projects that may have stalled due to the anticipated expiration of the credit for wind production, or the looming “placed in service” prior deadline for other renewable sources .

The wind energy production industry arguably is one of the energy sources most significantly affected by this legislation . According to some sources, the credit is expected to cost $12 .1 billion over the next ten years . There are approximately 75,000 people currently employed in the wind industry, which has factories or wind farms in all 50 states, and the extender is expected to save some 37,000 jobs . Last year saw a record 44 percent of newly installed electric generation capacity take the form of wind turbines which substantially outpaced natural gas at 30 percent . Siegel, R .P . “Wind Production Tax Credit Extended in Fiscal Cliff Deal.” 3 Jan . 2013 . TriplePundit . Web . 30 Jan . 2013 .

recent State Developments

Although the production tax credit is a federal credit, extensions and changes to this incentive will likely impact the states as well, most obviously with the increase in sales and income tax revenue associated with increased development . In addition to increased tax revenues, states will likely see an increase in the number of jobs created, as additional workers will be needed to complete the various projects that began as a result of the credit extension . “Incentives Watch: Fiscal Cliff Legislation Temporarily Bolsters Renewable Energy Industry .” 9 Jan . 2013 . Bloomberg BNA . Web . 5 Feb . 2013 . Many states historically have enacted lucrative incentives to attract renewable energy companies and continue to support the




industry with incentives programs . Other state legislatures are anticipating the effects of this increase in activity and have begun the debate over the costs and associated benefits of attracting renewable energy producers in their 2013 sessions .

Massachusetts

In August 2012, Massachusetts Governor Patrick signed into law a significant energy bill, SB 2395. The law extends a renewable energy long-term contracting pilot program to require the state’s investor-owned utilities to jointly and competitively procure an additional 4% of the total energy demand from all distribution customers under long-term contracts for renewable energy between 2013 and 2016 .

Important features of this contracting provision include allowing associated transmission costs to be included as part of the bid, and if so, authorization by the Department of Public Utilities for contracting parties is required to seek recovery of such transmission costs through federal transmission rates .

The energy law also extends the maximum contract duration from 15 to 20 years, allowing for installed costs to be amortized over a longer period (thus potentially reducing the cost to ratepayers) . The law also increases the total net metering cap from 3% to 6% of peak load, expanding a provision that has been a driver of community-scale wind activity in the state . New England Wind Forum . 14 Jan . 2013 . Windpoweringamerica .gov . Web . 14 Feb . 2013 .

The Act does not include a proposed revision to the tax code that would have clarified the application of local property tax law to renewable energy facilities . The current law, in effect since 1978, provides some renewable energy systems with a local property tax exemption . However, due to development of large commercial installations, involving net metering, significant uncertainty has surrounded the extent of that exemption .

The House and Senate versions of the Act both included provisions that would have clarified that an exemption from local taxation would be available to projects that sold at least 50% of their energy output to the host municipality, produced no more than 125% of the annual energy used by the host building, or made a payment in lieu of taxes of 5 or 6% of the gross proceeds from the project’s energy sales . The legislation that emerged from the House and Senate, however, did not include any of these provisions . This leaves developers and owners of renewable energy projects with continued uncertainty over the extent of the current exemption . That uncertainty will have to be

resolved through individual negotiations and/or litigation between each renewable energy developer and the relevant locality . O’Connor, McCourt, Sichel, and Sasso, “New Massachusetts Law Boosts Wind and Solar Energy ., 3 August 2012, ML Strategies Alert. Web . 5 Feb . 2013 .

Maryland

Maryland Governor Martin O’ Malley is promoting offshore wind development by championing the introduction of the Maryland Offshore Wind Energy Act of 2013 . SB 275, introduced in January 2013, proposes:

• Altering the Maryland renewable energy portfolio standard program to include a specified amount of energy derived from offshore wind energy;

• Prohibiting the portion of the renewable energy portfolio that represents offshore wind energy from applying to retail elec-tricity sales by a supplier in excess of specified amounts of specified loads;

• Defining “offshore wind renewable ener-gy credit” for specified purposes; and

• Establishing an application process for specified proposed offshore wind energy projects; etc .

Kansas

Current Kansas Statute 74-50,136 provides that manufacturers of solar or wind equipment or components in Kansas may be eligible for financing through the Kansas Department of Commerce to support research, development, engineering or manufacturing projects . To qualify, the project must result in at least $30 million in new investments in Kansas, and the hiring of at least 200 new employees within five years, with an average annual compensation of at least $32,500 per Kansas employee . The manufacturer must first apply for financing to the Kansas Department of Commerce, which will request that the Kansas Development Finance Authority issue bonds to finance the project. Individual solar or wind projects may be eligible for up to $5 million in financing. The principal and interest of the bonds are retired using the payroll tax withholding from the new jobs . This credit is set to expire in July of 2013 . Database of State Incentives for


http://kslegislature.org/li/statute/074_000_0000_chapter/074_050_0000_article/074_050_0136_section/074_050_0136_k/


Renewables and Efficiency. U .S . Department of Energy . 2012 . Web . 18 Feb . 2013 .

As the Kansas credit is set to expire in in 2013, legislators in Kansas are currently debating the extension of the law . Opponents of extension estimate that the price of electricity will rise by 45% in Kansas if the credit is extended . Kansas Governor Brownback, however, has expressed support for extending the production tax credit for wind . He believes that it has created jobs in Kansas, made wind energy more affordable, and led to $3 billion in new investment . Doroghazi, Lauren . “States Take Divergent Paths on Wind Energy”, 9 Jan . 2013 . Multistate Insider. Web . 18 Feb . 2013 .

Virginia

In January 2013, Dominion Virginia Power informed environmental groups that the company reached a tentative agreement with Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli to support legislation that would effectively repeal the state’s clean energy law . The company has already accepted $77 million from ratepayers without making the clean energy investments that the General Assembly first intended with its original 2007 law.

Under the agreement, power companies would no longer be eligible to receive the bonuses called “adders” for using sources of renewable energy or building new power plants that use fossil fuels . Incentives for nuclear and offshore wind may remain in effect, but the bonuses would be reduced .

The agreement does not, however, repeal the state’s voluntary goals that utilities have 15 percent of their generation coming from renewable sources by 2025 . And utilities could still seek to recover the costs related to reaching those goals, officials indicated.

The agreement also proposes changes to dollar amounts that utilities can be awarded by regulators for performance goals, how it treats accounting issues related to storm restoration costs and the early closure of power plants . “States Turn Their Back on Renewable Energy .” 17 Jan . 2013 . Ecowatch .Web . 19 Feb . 2013 .

Conclusion

The recent ATRA federal production tax credit extenders and modifications should continue to promote new development activity in 2013 for renewable energy producers. Further clarification on the new terminology introduced by the federal changes, especially around

the “construction” commencement timeline, should be forthcoming . Many states also continue to enact and refine legislation providing incentives for investments in renewable energy within their borders, while some legislatures debate the cost-benefit of renewable energy incentives programs. Given the significant federal changes that impact 2013 and potentially subsequent years, state legislative activity relative to renewable energy incentives should be closely monitored in the coming months .

http://ecowatch.org/2013/turn-back-on-renewable-energy/


rent? What rent?the twists and turns of the Florida sales tax on realty rentals

James M. ervin, Jr., esq. Holland & Knight Tallahassee, FL Phone: (850) 425-5649 E-mail: jim .ervin@hklaw .com

A s one of only a handful of states that impose sales tax on real property rentals and leases, Florida presents challenges to those unfamiliar

with this “quirk” in the Florida sales tax law . Even more troublesome is determining what amounts constitute taxable “rent” for purposes of the tax . The following material discusses some of the more common areas where the Florida Department of Revenue has, by rule or otherwise, identified payments deemed to be rent even where the parties involved do not necessarily consider the amount paid to be rent .

The tax — In addition to imposing the traditional sales tax on sales and rentals of goods (and on sales of a few selected services), Florida also imposes sales tax on rentals, leases and licenses of real property . See, Section 212 .031, Florida Statutes . There is an exemption from this tax for leases and rentals of property that is “used exclusively as dwelling units” thus creating a tax that is only imposed on commercial leases or realty .1 The tax is imposed on the “total rent or license fee charged .” Although the terms “lease” and “rental” are defined by statute, the definitions only address the types of structures that could be subject to a rental tax and do not define the types of payments considered to be rent for purposes of applying the tax . See, Section 212 .02(10), Florida Statutes. The nearest thing to a definition of rent is found in a Department rule providing that “[t]he tax shall be paid … on all considerations due and payable by the tenant or other person actually occupying, using, or entitled to use the real property to his landlord … for the privilege of use, occupancy, or the right to use any real property for any purpose .” Rule 12A-1 .070(4)(b), Florida Administrative Code (emphasis added) . The highlighted portions of the quoted rule have become the

1 Note that short-term rentals of residential space (e .g ., hotel and motel rooms) are subjected to sales tax under a separate “transient rent-als sales tax” . See, Section 212 .03, Florida Statutes .

de facto (if not de jur) definition of “rent” applied by the Department . That is, any consideration paid for the use or occupancy of realty is considered by the Department to be subject to sales tax as rent .2

Rent by Rule — The Department has, by rule, identified several payments that might be made by a tenant that are considered to be rent for sales tax purposes . Although one might debate the point in some cases, there is at least the benefit of knowing on the front end that sales taxes are due on these payments rather than finding out years later in an audit. The items identified by rule as being rent and subject to sales tax when paid by a tenant are: 1) property taxes due on the leased premises and paid either to the landlord or directly to the taxing authority; 2) common area maintenance charges by to the landlord; 3) utility charges paid to the landlord (except when passed through at cost by the landlord and taxed when purchased by the landlord); 4) insurance paid solely for the protection of the landlord; and, 5) payments required under the lease to be made to a merchant’s association .

Anything called rent — There are a number of situations where a landlord might make other charges to the tenant such as for the provision of services or the use of trademarks in addition to the charge for the rent . It is common in these situations for the terms for and amounts of these charges to be included in the lease agreement and for the charges to be designated as “rent .” The characterization of the charges as rent under the lease agreement is principally for the purpose of applying lease default remedies in the event of a failure to pay . Nevertheless, the Department has historically taken the position in these situations that “if you call it rent, we will tax it as rent .”

This issue was litigated in the case of USCardio Vascular, Inc. v. Florida Department of Revenue, 993 So2d 81 (Fla . 1st DCA 2008) . In this case, the landlord leased offices to a group of physicians and also provided a variety of business services including, primarily, leased staff . Although the charges for the various services were provided for separately from the lease charge, they were expressly included in the lease definition of “base rent”. The landlord did not collect sales tax on these charges and, true to form, the Department assessed sales tax on these untaxed amounts . The trial court judge sustained the assessment but the appellate court reversed . The appellate court held that, by statute, the sales tax could

2 The tax, if due, is to be collected by the landlord from the tenant and remitted by the landlord to the Department . Section 212 .031(2)(a), Florida Statutes .


SALeS AND USe tAX



only be imposed on rent and that “a poor choice of words” by the parties could not operate to transform charges for non-taxable services into charges for taxable rent . Although some issues remain in the area regarding differentiation between taxable rent and non-taxable services in a leasehold situation, it should now be clear that mere labeling in a lease agreement cannot control the taxability of the charges .3

Related party payments — A very difficult situation arises where related parties are involved and there is no lease agreement at all . It is not unusual among related parties for one entity to own realty and for another related entity to use the realty . In such a situation, there is typically no lease agreement due largely to the fact that the parties do not view it as a lease arrangement . A common recurring example is where the entity using the realty pays the real estate taxes due on the real estate that is owned by another entity . In this situation, the Department will deem the payment of property taxes to be a taxable payment of rent despite the lack of a lease agreement between the parties . And, to make matters even worse, the Department is affirmatively searching in many cases to find these types of situations. The Department regularly reviews business listings in certain areas and then compares the listing for the address with the local property tax records to determine if the property is owned by someone other than the listed business -- if so, the Department will contact the business to determine if any property taxes or other obligations of the owner (such as debt service payments on behalf of the owner) have been paid by the entity using the property . If any such payments have been made, the Department will assess sales tax on these amounts, typically covering the 3-year period preceding the contact .

Leasehold improvements — In recent years, the Department has been asserting that leasehold improvement expenditures required of a tenant under the terms of a lease are subject to sales tax as rent . The potential tax consequences of this position are obviously substantial . It is quite common for a ground lease to require that the tenant build improvements costing many thousands and even millions of dollars . Adding a 6% or higher sales tax to the construction costs yields a substantial unexpected liability . As a condition of the lease agreement, the Department views the expenditure as a payment required for the use and occupancy of the realty and, therefore, taxable rent . The actual parties to the lease simply view it as a build-out expense producing

3 Nevertheless, it would be prudent for lessors and lessees to have separate agreements for rental charges and service charges when the lessor will be providing services to the lessee .

an asset of no real value to the landlord as the economic useful life of the improvement will have likely expired by the end of the lease term .

This issue has also been the subject of recent litigation and, once again, the courts determined that the amounts at issue were not taxable rent . In Department of Revenue v. Ruehl No. 925, LLC, 76 So2nd 389 (Fla . 1st DCA 2011), both the trial court and appellate courts determined that the leasehold improvement expenditure required of the tenant was not subject to sales tax as rent .4 As stated by the appellate court, there was “no evidence that the parties to the leases intended for the costs of the leasehold improvements to be part of the total rent charged .”

Department rulemaking — In late 2011, the Department of Revenue initiated rulemaking to address the issues raised and decided in the USCardio and Ruehl decisions . However, after holding three rule workshops on the issue (the latest of which was held on September 6, 2012), the Department has taken no further action . The proposed rule remains pending at this time with no future action having been scheduled .

* * * * * *

Lesson learned — In some of the situations involved above, there are certainly arguments to be made to challenge the Department’s position concerning the application of the sales tax . The more important lesson here, however, is that simple structure changes can often avoid the issue altogether . In other words, awareness and proper structuring are probably less expensive (and less stressful) ways of avoiding a sales tax liability in situations where the true object and substance of a transaction is not a rental or lease . It may mean making a special effort to revise a national lease form to fit a Florida transaction but this effort on the front-end should yield dividends down the road .

4 In a prior appellate decision concerning the taxability of tenant leasehold expenditures, the court held that the expenditures were sub-ject to sales tax . Department of Revenue v. Seminole Clubs, LLC, 745 So .2d 473 (Fla . 5th DCA 1999) . It is very important to note, however, that the tenant in the Seminole Club case received a credit against its rent liability for the leasehold expenditures made by the tenant . No such credit was allowed to the tenant under the lease at issue in the Ruehl case .


Income tax topics March 18-19, 2013

h Drill Down on Sales Factor

h RAR Reporting for State Tax Issues

h Tax Planning to Optimize (and Even Minimize) Income Tax Liability in Multiple States

h Why “Transparency” is a Buzz Word that Matters

h State and Local Tax Issues Involved in Mergers and Acquisitions and Restructuring

h Nonresident Partners, Shareholders or Members Creating Nexus

h Credits and Incentives - Buying and Selling Transferable Tax Credits

h State and Local Income Tax Update

h Special Industry Apportionment Formulas and Related Litigation

h The Potential Impact of MTC and its Pending Proposals on Industry

h Forced Combinations/Consolidations

h The Ethics of Negotiations for Tax Practitioners: Are There Any?

ABA/IPT Advanced Tax SeminarsMarch 18 - 22, 2013 ~ The Ritz-Carlton ~ New Orleans, LA

Brochure Registration Hotel Reservations

Sales/Use tax topicsMarch 19-20, 2013

h The Ethics of Negotiations for Tax Practitioners: Are There Any?

h On the Fence? A Systematic Approach to Analyzing Sales/Use Tax Aspects of Proposed Transactions

h Sales and Use Tax Refund Roadblocks

h Between a Rock and a Hard Place: Third-Party Enforcement Actions in Sales and Use Tax Matters

h The Sham and Substance of Sales Tax Transactions – Things Aren’t Always What They Seem

h The Annual Big Easy Brawl: The Panelists Go Head-to-Head “Discussing” Current State and Local Tax Issues

h Annual National Multi-State Sales/Use Tax Update

h Current Sales and Use Tax Developments and Updates from the Soft Nougat of the USA – the Midwestern States

h Planes, Trains, Trucks and Boats: If It Moves, Tax It

h You Asked for It

h Sales Tax Automation – How Far Can We Go?

h A War on Words - Interpreting and Attacking Definitional Limitations, Exclusions, Exemptions and Administrative Interpretations

h Tax Boxers Inc . Brings Its Sales and Use Tax Issues to ABA/IPT

Bringing together business tax professionals

Property tax topicsMarch 21-22, 2013

h Portfolio Sales: Can They Be Used to Determine Value?

h Overview of the Cost Approach, Focusing on Physical Depreciation

h Property Tax Considerations in Constructing or Purchasing a Facility

h Pollution Control Issues

h Multi-State Property Tax Update and Roundtable Discussion

h Determining the Existence of and Segregating Intangibles for Valuation Purposes

h Personal Property Tax Nuts and Bolts

h The Elusive Cap Rate: Finding and Supporting Cap Rates in Uncertain Times

h Ethical Dilemmas in the Tax World


Sales tax School II:theory and Practice for the

experienced Sales & Use tax ProfessionalApril 21 - 26, 2013

Marriott Kingsgate Conference Center University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, ohio

Brochure registration Hotel reservation

This intermediate level, five-day school guides students through a review and analysis of many different but es-sential sales and use tax principles and concepts: re-search, accounting, auditing and other technical skills . Emphasis is placed on small discussion groups and prac-tical applications . The program and registration materials for this year’s school will soon be posted to IPT’s web site Early registration is encouraged for this popular school .

The school is composed of 16 general sessions, shown below in the order in which they are presented, followed by breakout sessions which expand on the material .

• Ethics• Constitutional Issues• Advanced Topics in Retailing• Advanced Topics in Leasing• Advanced Audit Management• Taxpayer Remedies• Statistical and Block Sampling• Mergers & Acquisitions• Tax Planning• Taxation of Computer Software & Services • Advanced Topics in Telecommunications• Advanced Topics in Manufacturing• Advanced Topics in Construction Contracting• Advanced Topics in Oil and Gas• Taxation of Electronic Commerce• Managing the Sales Tax Function

Brochure registration Hotel reservation

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 .

Tools of the Profession

CoDe oF etHICS: CANoN 9

IT IS UNETHICAL to solicit a tax assignment by assuring a specific result or to solicit, assign, accept or perform a tax assignment that is conditioned upon producing a preconceived opinion or conclusion .


This school is a thorough, five-day program that examines in-depth the more complex problems those responsible for state income taxes face, including nexus and entity concerns, separate and consolidated/combined return is-sues, apportionment complexities, reorganizations and mergers, tax planning nuances, FIN 48 and more .

topics Include:• State of the States• Constitutional Quiver: Core Theory for All Challenges• Nonbusiness Income: Recent Cases & Remaining Questions• StateTaxIssuesforForeignAffiliates• CaseStudy-IssuesforForeignAffiliates• Passthroughs – Advanced Issues• Case Study - Passthroughs• Unitary Business: Core Theory & Recent Applications• Case Study: Differences Between Unitary & Nonbusiness• Complex Problems in Combined Reporting and Advanced

Return Mechanics• Case Study: Combined Reporting• Advanced Problems in Mergers & Acquisitions• Case Study - Mergers & Acquisitions• Tax Planning• Case Study - Tax Planning• Evaluating Risk in Nexus and PL 86-272 Issues• Advanced Issues In Using and Accounting for Net Operating

Losses• SALT Tax Provisions and Accruals• IFRS: What the Future Holds for SALT• Thorny Issues with “Other” Business Taxes: Margin Tax, Fran-

chise Tax, B&O, Etc.• Apportionment - Current Issues with Factors: Market vs. COP,

Joyce vs. Finnigan, Gross vs. Net, MTC Compact• Apportionment - Weighing Constitutional Issues• Apportionment - Seeking Alternative Relief• Case Study - Apportionment • Related Party Transactions: Transfer Pricing, 311(b),

Distributions, Etc.• Case Study - Related Party Transactions• Coordinating Federal and State RARs and Compliance• Taxpayer Remedies: The How To’s of Tax Controversies• Ethics

ADVANCeD StAte INCoMe tAX SCHooLGeorgia Tech Hotel & Conference CenterAtlanta, Georgia, June 2 - 7, 2013

This school is focused on teaching fundamental state in-come tax concepts and practice. 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 . The curriculum includes a thorough review of basic income tax concepts, such as apportionment, nexus, and the unitary business principle while also providing an introduction to more advanced issues and featuring spe-cific 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. The students will benefit from the in-sight and diversity of experiences of the school faculty, which consists of tax professionals from public and pri-vate companies, and top accounting and law firms.

topics Include:• State of the States• Pass Through and Disregarded Entities• Jurisdiction to Tax, Part 1: Federal Constitutional Limitations• Jurisdiction to Tax, Part II: Nexus and P.L. 86-272• Case Study - Nexus and P.L. 86-272• Determination of Income Tax Base• What is a Unitary Business?• Income Subject to Allocation• Common Issues in Mergers and Acquisitions• Fundamentals of Formulary Apportionment• Income Tax Filing and Compliance• Case Study - Allocation and Apportionment• Tax Return Basics• Handling an Income Tax Audit• Tax Provisions 101• Case Study - Tax Provisions• Researching and Documenting Findings• Ethics

BASIC StAte INCoMe tAX SCHooLGeorgia Tech Hotel & Conference CenterAtlanta, Georgia, June 2 - 7, 2013

Don’t miss this opportunity! registration will be available soon at ipt.org.


In 2013, Florida reaches a significant milestone, the 500th anniversary of Juan Ponce de León’s arrival on Florida’s east coast. Navigate your way to Florida and explore the many benefits of attending IPT’s 37th Annual Conference in Orlando. You’ll discover innovating sessions you won’t find anywhere else.

IPT37th ANNUALCONFERENCE

Institute for Professionals in Taxation®

37th Annual ConferenceRenaissance Orlando at SeaWorld®

Orlando, Florida, June 23-26, 2013

Click here to make your hotel reservation.

Program details available soon at ipt.org


Photo by Hindrik Sijens

Institute for Professionals in Taxation®

State Business Income TaxationState 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.


Property tax Calendar ~April 2013

This information is provided by International Appraisal Company (IAC) and is provided for quick reference/reminder purposes only . IPT and IAC make no guar-antee to completeness or accuracy and are not re-sponsible for errors or omissions or for any results from the use of this information . We strongly suggest confirmation of all information with local taxing juris-dictions .

Appeals DueAZ* DE* HI* IA* KY* NC* ND* OK* SD* VA*

GA 4/1 (or 30 days after notice)

KS 4/1

MN 4/30 Tax Court (Prior Year)

NJ 4/1

NY Corning, Nassau County

ND Townships - 1st Monday; Cities - 2nd Monday

DC By 4/1

VA Alexandria

Personal Property Filing Dates

4/1AZCAFLGALAMEMS

4/15COMDTX

4/20**AK*VT

4/30SC*VA*WA

Assessment Dates:ME 4/1 VT 4/1

* Dates vary, check jurisdiction ** Date falls on weekend, should be next business day,

Check Jurisdiction . Confirm all information with local taxing jurisdictions.

TTARA will host luncheons in Houston, Dallas and San Antonio to provide an update on budget and tax issues . Don’t miss these informative sessions that will also provide an opportunity for you to network with friends and colleagues . TTARA anticipates of-fering legal and accounting continuing education credits as well . The registration fee for each lun-cheon is $65 .00 . register Here

Houston-Area LuncheonDate: March 18, 2013time: 11:30am - 1:000pmLocation: Westin Galleria, 5060 West Alabama, Houston, TX 77056

Dallas-Area LuncheonDate: April 8, 2013time: 11:30am - 1:00pmLocation: Westin Galleria,13340 Dallas Pkwy ., Dallas, TX 75240

San Antonio-Area LuncheonDate: April 11, 2013time: 11:30am - 1:000pmLocation: Crowne Plaza Riverwalk, 111 East Pecan Street, San Antonio, TX 78205

TTARA


CMi CandidateConneCtion

Notice regarding Changes in 2013 CMI Property tax oral exam The format of the CMI Property Tax oral exam will change in 2013 . Rather than the existing question and answer format, the new oral exam will focus on a case study in which candidates will be asked to make a brief presentation based upon a provided set of facts and market data .

Planning to take the CMI exam in 2013?Applications are now being accepted for the 2013 CMI 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 our website .

2013 Annual Conference exams — orlando, FloridaThe exams held in conjunction with the Annual Conference in Orlando, Florida are scheduled for June 21 - 23, 2013 .

Applications must be submitted 90 days prior to the examination date .

The deadline for submitting applications for the June 2013 Exam is March 21, 2013 .

Candidates are required to complete and submit verification of any needed final requirements no later than May 6, 2013 .

Candidates must notify the IPT office of their intention to sit for the examination no later than May 21, 2013 .

2013 Sales tax Symposium exam — Monterey, CaliforniaThe exams held in conjunction with the Sales Tax Symposium in Monterey, California, are scheduled for September 27 -28, 2013 .


The deadline for submitting applications for the September 2013 Exam is June 28, 2013 .

Candidates are required to complete and submit verification of any needed final requirements no later than August 13, 2013 .

Candidates must notify the IPT office of their intention to sit for the examination no later than August 28, 2013 .

2013 Income tax Symposium exam — Indian Wells, CaliforniaThe exams held in conjunction with the Income Tax Symposium in Indian Wells, California are scheduled for November 2 - 3, 2013 .


The deadline for submitting applications for the November 2013 Exam is August 2, 2013 .

Candidates are required to complete and submit verification of any needed final requirements no later than September 17, 2013 .

Candidates must notify the IPT office of their intention to sit for the examination no later than October 2, 2013 .

2013 Property tax Symposium exam — Indian Wells, CaliforniaThe exams held in conjunction with the Property Tax Symposium in Indian Wells, California are scheduled for November 2 - 3, 2013 .


The deadline for submitting applications for the November 2013 Exam is August 2, 2013 .

Candidates are required to complete and submit verification of any needed final requirements no later than September 17, 2013 .

Candidates must notify the IPT office of their intention to sit for the examination no later than October 2, 2013 .

Please review the CMI Income Tax Applicant, CMI Property Tax Applicant, or CMI Sales Tax Applicant pages for a complete overview of the application process and eligibility requirements .

More information on all of these announcements can be found on IPT’s website at www .ipt .org . If you have questions about the CMI Professional Designation that are not answered on our website, please contact Emily Archer at earcher@ipt .org .



CMiCorner

IMPortANt CMI ANNoUNCeMeNtSIPt Program requirement All CMIs must attend at least 12 hours at one IPT program in their respective discipline during each five-year term. Please note that attendance at the Credit & Incentives Symposium and Value Added Tax Symposium will not fulfill this requirement. However, you will still receive general CE credit for your attendance at either of the two aforementioned symposia . Please contact the IPT office if you have questions regarding this announcement .

reminder: New online Continuing education tracking System for CMIsYou will 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 new process will allow 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 .

5 . An email will be sent to the email address on file with IPT.

to submit non-IPt Continuing education:6 . Sign In at www .ipt .org . 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 .

9 . You will receive a message that the form was submitted .

For questions on the CMI designation or your current standing, please contact Emily Archer, Certification Officer at earcher@ipt .org .

For questions specifically relating to challenging a school exam, please contact Helen Johnson at hjohnson@ipt .org .




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

Property tax Advisor (Houston, texas) – To apply and see all the responsibilities and requirements, go to http://bit .ly/ShellPropertyTaxAdvisor . The Shell Group offers an outstanding benefits package. No phone inquiries will be accepted . Date Posted: 2/20/2013 (IPT1112)

tax Manager (Wichita, Kansas) – Tax Specialty: Sales/Use Tax (Indirect Tax Management) & VAT . Koch . Please visit www .kbslp .com to learn more about our company and to apply to this career opportunity! Link to Apply: https://kochcareers .taleo .net/careersection/jobdetail .ftl?job=013674&lang=en&sns_id=mailto# .T8-Q7ZkcOy8 .mailto . Date Posted: 2/20/2013 (IPT1111)

tax Analyst (Wichita, Kansas) – Tax Specialty: Indirect Tax - sales/use, VAT, property tax, etc . Koch . To learn more about our company and this position, please visit www .kbslp .com . Link to Apply: https://kochcareers .taleo .net/careersection/jobdetail .ftl?job=013379&lang=en&sns_id=mailto# .T8-Q7ZkcOy8 .mailto . Date Posted: 2/20/2013 (IPT1110) Senior Analyst, Global Indirect tax – American Eagle Outfitters. Send resume to PedonA@AE .com . Date Posted: 2/14/2013 (IPT1109B)

Sr. tax Accountant, Property (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania) – Alcoa . To apply, https://sjobs .brassring .com/1033/ASP/TG/cim_jobdetail .asp?partnerid=16&siteid=56&AReq=10873BRDate Posted: 2/14/2013 (IPT1109A)

Analyst Manager (Phoenix, Arizona) – Ryan . Apply, https://careers .ryan .com/viewjob .html?optlink-view=view-25515&ERFormID=newjoblist&ERFormCode=any . Date Posted: 2/14/2013 (IPT1108)

C a r e e r s Please visit the Career opportunities page on the IPt website for complete position descriptions and requirements.

Property tax Professional (Fort Wayne, Indiana) – Baden Tax Management, LLC . Please e-mail your resume along with a cover letter to tchurchward@badentax .com . Date Posted: 2/12/2013 (IPT1107)

Sales tax Analyst (Miami, Florida) – Mastec North America . Send resume to chris .slader@mastec .com . Date Posted: 2/11/2013 (IPT1106)

Sr. tax Accountant Income tax Battle (Creek, Michigan) – Link to apply: http://www .kelloggscareers .com/en_US/professional-career .html . Date Posted: 2/5/2013 (IPT1105)

Tax Exemption Certificate Coordinator (Houston, texas) –Send resume to CynthiaX .Perez-c@airliquide .com, Date Posted: 2/5/2013 (IPT1104)

Senior tax Analyst (Nashville, tennessee) – Nissan North America, Inc . Send resume and salary requirements to: hailey .kirk@nissan-usa .com. Date Posted: 2/5/2013 (IPT1103)

Sales tax Accountant III – Audit Lead (york, Pennsylvania) - Specialty: Transaction Tax, North America . Link to apply: http://www .dentsply .com/en/careers/your-opportunity/ Listed under finance – Sr. Sale Tax Accountant . Email to send resume: melanie .little@dentsply .com . Date Posted: 2/5/2013 (IPT1102)

Property tax Manager (Chicago, Illinois) – Ryan . Apply Online . Date Posted: 2/5/2013 (IPT1101)

Senior tax Accountant (Alpharetta, Georgia) – Applicants should apply online at http://www .colpipe .com/co_main .asp .Date Posted: 1/31/2013 (IPT1100)








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 Appraisal for Ad Valorem taxation of Communications, energy and transportation Properties 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 - 3, 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

The Institute’s programs are accepted by most organizations for continuing education purposes . Check with the administrator of your designation/certification.

Do you need CEC/CLE/CPE credit? (MAI, CPA, CMI, CAE, etc .)

tax report - institute for professionals in taxation home · in light of these differences, and...

Documents