first_imgThe IRS has requested comments on a proposed revision to the template used in drafting Advance Pricing Agreements (APAs). The template will be used for APAs requested under Rev. Proc. 2015-41, I.R.B. 2015-35, 263. Moreover, the template contains certain modifications to conform to Rev. Proc. 2015-41. The proposed template is longer than previous templates because it is more comprehensive. The template will also assist taxpayers by providing an APA drafting roadmap.Proposed RevisionsThe revision is intended to: (1) enable quicker and more accurate drafting of APAs; (2) provide additional guidance to taxpayers in preparing the proposed draft APA that is required as part of an APA Request; (3) help Advance Pricing and Mutual Agreement Program’s (APMA’s) review of draft APAs; and (3) aid the Mutual Agreement process for bilateral and multilateral APAs. In order to achieve these goals, the template provides menus of options for selection. These options include a variety of situations, to minimize the need for custom drafting and negotiation over the text of the APA.Further, the template also includes: (1) a large table of defined terms; (2) more detail on certain topics such as financial statements, conforming adjustments and the early termination of an APA; and (3) certain select options that will require special justification by a taxpayer that proposes to use them. Moreover, Appendix A of the template, that addresses covered issues, covered methods, income reporting and conforming adjustments and Appendix B, which addresses critical assumptions, are written to be easily adapted for use in a competent authority Mutual Agreement if a treaty partner is willing to use them.In addition, Microsoft Word and Adobe PDF files for both the template and the filled-in example can be requested by sending an email to lbi.ttpo.apma.feedback@irs.gov . The subject line should read “request.”Comments RequestedComments should be submitted by October 31, 2017, and sent to lbi.ttpo.apma.feedback@irs.gov with the subject line “comments.” Narrative form rather than markup should be used. Particular page references to the template or example are required to follow the pagination of the Adobe PDF files.Need to know more about APAs? CCH CPELink has lots of international tax classes Login to read more tax news on CCH® AnswerConnect or CCH® Intelliconnect®.Not a subscriber? Sign up for a free trial or contact us for a representative.last_img read more

first_imgThe Senate Finance Committee (SFC) began a markup of its tax reform proposal on November 13, starting a committee debate that is expected to last most of the week. Senate Republicans released a Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) description of the Chairman’s Mark of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Bill last week .Markup Kicks OffThe first day consisted largely of members’ opening statements on the GOP proposal. As expected, Republicans praised the measure while Democrats criticized it.“What started out as a promise of a significant middle class tax cut has become a multi-trillion dollar bait and switch. A massive handout to multinational corporations and a bonanza for tax cheats and powerful political donors,” SFC ranking member Ron Wyden, D-Ore., said. In particular, Wyden criticized the GOP proposal for increasing taxes on the middle class. Additionally, Wyden condemned the GOP’s choice to craft a partisan bill rather than work with Democrats.Bipartisan IdeasIn his opening remarks, SFC Chairman Orrin G. Hatch, R-Tex., stated that many of the tax reform provisions in the bill were proposals that Democrats supported in the past. He also pointed to a number of areas on which Republicans and Democrats agree. These areas include keeping deductions for mortgage interest and charitable contributions, as well as popular retirement savings programs such as 401(k)s and Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs).However, Hatch also remarked that it was “the Democrats’ own preconditions that kept them from engaging on tax reform. There was an open seat at the negotiating table; they collectively chose not to sit in it,” Hatch added. He made direct reference to an August 1 letter from 45 Senate Democrats listing “prerequisites to any bipartisan tax reform effort.”Changes to ComeHatch noted that the Chairman’s Mark, as originally introduced, would not pass Senate reconciliation requirements. Thus, the current tax reform proposals could not be permanent. “We are, of course, aware of this problem and are working to ensure that the reduce rates and additional reforms designed to bring investment back to the United States and create more American jobs remain in place past the 10-year budget window,” Hatch said.To that end, a modified Chairman’s Mark is expected to be released on November 14, according to SFC staff. Generally, modifications include amendments that were filed and other changes. As of the afternoon on November 13, 355 amendments had been filed. A full discussion of the GOP proposal is scheduled for November 14. JCT and committee staff will be present. While debate and votes on amendments could come as early as Tuesday, they are expected to begin November 15. The “goal” is to have the bill approved by the committee by the end of the week, SFC staff told reporters.By Jessica Jeane, Wolters Kluwer News StaffWant to know more? Join Wolters Kluwer Principal Analyst Mark Luscombe on Nov. 29 for Tax Legislation Update: Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, a 2-CPE webinar from CCH® CPElink. Mark will present a complete discussion of the proposed legislation and its impact on taxpayers.Login to read more tax news on CCH® AnswerConnect or CCH® Intelliconnect®.Not a subscriber? Sign up for a free trial or contact us for a representative.last_img read more

first_imgMaryland enacted legislation creating income, sales, and property tax incentives for qualified taxpayers that bring large-scale projects to the state. The legislation creates the Promoting ext-Raordinary Innovation in Maryland’s Economy (PRIME) Program. Taxpayers enrolled into the program are eligible for program benefits for up to 10 consecutive years.The legislation is designed to lure Amazon’s second headquarters project to Maryland. However, any other taxpayer with a qualifying project can apply for enrollment in the program.Tax Incentives Under PRIME ProgramTo qualify for enrollment in the PRIME Program, a taxpayer must:be a Fortune 100 company; andestablish an eligible project.Before establishing a project, notice of the taxpayer’s intent and an application for enrollment must be submitted.Eligible Project Under PRIMETo establish an eligible project, a taxpayer must show that it is committed to spending at least $500 million on the project. It must also submit a project plan that, over a 17-year period, commits to:filling at least 40,000 qualified jobs at the project facility with an average compensation of at least $100,000; andspending a total of $4.5 billion.Certificates of EligibilityQualified taxpayers will receive a certificate that certifies the eligibility of the project enrolled in the program. The certificate will be updated as needed to reflect increases in the number of qualified jobs. In addition, the certificate providesthe duration of the certification; andadditional information needed for the taxpayer to receive a program benefit.Income Tax Credit for PRIME TaxpayersTaxpayers enrolled in the PRIME Program can claim a refundable income tax credit equal to 5.75% of the wages paid for qualified jobs. The credit can be claimed for 10 tax years for each job.To be eligible for the credit, the taxpayer must:pay employees in qualified jobs an average salary of at least $100,000; andfill the required number of qualified jobs within 17 years of enrolling in the program.Sales and Use Tax Exemption for PRIME PurchasesPersonal property and services purchased by the taxpayer under the program are exempt from Maryland sales and use tax.The Comptroller must issue exemption certificates to qualified taxpayers. The exemption certificates must:be renewed annually; andmay not be renewed for more than 10 consecutive years.Property Tax Credit for PRIME PropertyAnother benefit of the program is a state and local property tax credit of 50% of the increase in assessment on qualified property. Taxpayers may begin taking the credit in tax years after June 30, 2018.Qualified property is real property where an eligible project is located.Taxpayers can claim the credit for up to 10 consecutive years, as long as the property is still qualified.Revocation and Recapture of Tax BenefitsProgram benefits will end if the number of qualified jobs goes below the number claimed in the first year. In addition, the taxpayer’s certification may be revoked, in whole or in part, if:the taxpayer made false representations; orthe expenditures and hiring of employees by the taxpayer are significantly below the estimates in the project plan.If the taxpayer’s certification is revoked, program benefits received by the taxpayer may be recaptured.Duration of ProgramGenerally, the PRIME Program applies to tax years beginning after 2017. However, the program will end if no taxpayers are certified by the end of 2021.Ch. 350 (S.B. 877), Laws 2018, effective June 1, 2018, applicable as notedLogin to read more tax news on CCH® AnswerConnect or CCH® Intelliconnect®.Not a subscriber? Sign up for a free trial or contact us for a representative.last_img read more

first_imgThe Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court threw out the 2018 ballot initiative to:– impose an additional personal income tax rate of 4% on millionaires; and– earmark those revenues for certain public spending.A majority of the court ruled that the attorney general’s ballot certification did not satisfy the related subjects requirement under the Massachusetts constitution.What did the ballot initiative specifically propose?The ballot petition contained 3 provisions on 3 distinct subjects. It presented those subjects as a single ballot question. The petition proposed to amend the flat tax rate mandated by the Massachusetts constitution to impose the additional income tax rate on residents with income exceeding $1 million. The petition then proposed to prioritize spending by earmarking revenues from the new tax for:– quality public education and affordable public colleges and universities; and– the repair and maintenance of roads, bridges and public transportation.Why did the ballot initiative fail to satisfy constitutional requirements?According to the court, the petition did not articulate a mutually dependent or common purpose between the spending proposals and the tax. It agreed with the attorney general that the subjects of education and transportation involve areas of public concern that can be characterized as socially beneficial and serve the common good. The court also agreed that education and transportation make up part of the many keys to inclusive growth. Nonetheless, the attorney general’s ability to articulate a “conceptual or abstract bond” between the petition’s diverse proposals did not satisfy the related subjects requirement. A common purpose, the court said, cannot be so overbroad as to render the related subjects limitation meaningless.The court admitted there is no single bright-line test for determining whether an initiative meets the related subjects requirement. However, its examination of the diverse subjects of the millionaire’s tax petition disclosed no operational relatedness among its parts. Therefore, it was unable to find a common purpose or unified public policy that the voters fairly could vote up or down as a whole. There was no relation between the earmarked revenue proposals themselves beyond the broadest conceptual level of public good. In addition, these proposals were entirely separate from graduated income tax proposal. A reasonable voter could not fairly accept or reject the petition as a unified statement of public policy. Including it on the ballot, the court said, would place a reasonable voter in the untenable position of casting a single vote on 2 or more dissimilar subjects. Consequently, the ballot petition for the millionaire’s tax did not meet the relatedness requirement set forth in the Massachusetts constitution.Anderson v. Massachusetts Attorney General, Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, No. SJC-12422, June 18, 2018, ¶401-653Login to read more tax news on CCH® AnswerConnect or CCH® Intelliconnect®.Not a subscriber? Sign up for a free trial or contact us for a representative.last_img read more

first_imgProsecutors upgraded charges for the 19-year-old accused of killing a 13-year-old in east Columbia.Cameron White is now accused of second degree murder.Court documents say he admitted to shooting Dajion Harris at about midnight Sunday on Rice Road. White also apparently said he and Harris were getting high when Harris showed White some guns. White allegedly said Harris then asked White to shoot him.last_img