KPMG reports: Connecticut, Michigan, Utah | KPMG | GLOBAL
close
Share with your friends

KPMG reports: Connecticut, Michigan, Utah

KPMG reports: Connecticut, Michigan, Utah

KPMG’s This Week in State Tax—produced weekly by KPMG’s State and Local Tax practice—focuses on recent state and local tax developments.

1000

Related content

  • Connecticut: The Department of Revenue Services issued guidance addressing the state treatment of “global intangible low-taxed income” (GILTI)—pursuant to the new federal tax law enacted December 22, 2017—for state corporate business tax purposes. Because GILTI is treated in a manner similar to Subpart F income for federal tax purposes, Connecticut will treat such income as dividend income and will extend the 100% dividends received deduction (DRD) to GILTI. However, Connecticut requires taxpayers to add back expenses attributable to dividend income (defined to mean 5% of dividend income) so that the addback must equal 5% of the gross amount of GILTI prior to any corresponding federal deduction.

 

  • Michigan: The Michigan Supreme Court addressed whether two financing companies were entitled to tax refunds under Michigan’s bad debt statute for taxes paid on vehicles that had been financed, repossessed, and resold for less the full amount of the outstanding debt. The taxpayers wrote these amounts off as bad debts for federal tax purposes, and filed refund claims with the Michigan tax authorities to recoup the prorated share of Michigan sales tax already paid that was attributable to the bad debts. After the refund claims were denied, the taxpayers appealed and lost at two lower state court levels. The state supreme court affirmed the state’s determinations on improper documentation to support the refund claims, but reversed and remanded on two other issues. First, the state argued, and the lower courts agreed, that no refund would be paid with respect to any portion of a bad debt for which the related property had been repossessed. The state high court overturned these decisions, concluding that a refund would be appropriate for sales tax relating to the portion of the debt remaining after the proceeds of the sale of the repossessed property had been applied to the outstanding debt. Second, the high court rejected the lower courts’ interpretation of a contract between the taxpayer and the predecessor creditor, determining that the taxpayer was the appropriate party to file the refund claim.

 

  • Utah: The governor on July 21, 2018, signed into law two bills that address certain Utah tax aspects of the new federal tax law enacted in December 2017. House Bill 2002 concerns the Utah tax treatment relating to IRC section 965(a), and House Bill 2003 revises Utah’s net operating loss (NOL) provisions to conform to changes made to NOLs at the federal level effective for tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2018. 

 

Read more at KPMG's This Week in State Tax

<p>© 2018 KPMG LLP, a Delaware limited liability partnership and the U.S. member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”) is a Swiss entity.</p> <p>Member firms of the KPMG network of independent firms are affiliated with KPMG International. KPMG International provides no client services. No member firm has any authority to obligate or bind KPMG International or any other member firm vis-à-vis third parties, nor does KPMG International have any such authority to obligate or bind any member firm.<br> </p>

The KPMG logo and name are trademarks of KPMG International. KPMG International is a Swiss cooperative that serves as a coordinating entity for a network of independent member firms. KPMG International provides no audit or other client services. Such services are provided solely by member firms in their respective geographic areas. KPMG International and its member firms are legally distinct and separate entities. They are not and nothing contained herein shall be construed to place these entities in the relationship of parents, subsidiaries, agents, partners, or joint venturers. No member firm has any authority (actual, apparent, implied or otherwise) to obligate or bind KPMG International or any member firm in any manner whatsoever. The information contained in herein is of a general nature and is not intended to address the circumstances of any particular individual or entity. Although we endeavor to provide accurate and timely information, there can be no guarantee that such information is accurate as of the date it is received or that it will continue to be accurate in the future. No one should act on such information without appropriate professional advice after a thorough examination of the particular situation. For more information, contact KPMG's Federal Tax Legislative and Regulatory Services Group at: + 1 202 533 4366, 1801 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20006.

Connect with us

 

Request for proposal

 

Submit