The National Multistate Tax Symposium West · 2020-03-17 · • On March 22, 2016, Senate Bill 106...
Transcript of The National Multistate Tax Symposium West · 2020-03-17 · • On March 22, 2016, Senate Bill 106...
The National Multistate Tax Symposium WestMove forward with confidence—State implications of tax reform
April 30–May 2, 2018
Indirect tax planning and compliance - What you can do now (Part 1)Trevor Kwan, Deloitte Tax LLPDwayne Van Wieren, Deloitte Tax LLPMay 2, 2018
3Copyright © 2018 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved.
• Setting the stage – expanding physical presence and economic nexus
• “Click-through” nexus provisions
• Redefining agent or representative
• What it means to assist in making a market
• Information reporting - “use” tax approaches
• State challenges to Quill
• Considerations for no regrets sales tax compliance planning
• Classification, sourcing, and taxability of digital goods
Agenda
4
Setting the Stage – Expanding Physical Presence and Economic Nexus
5Copyright © 2018 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved.
• States have been passing various nexus laws requiring tax collection and filing responsibilities that
arguably push the boundaries of the concept of “physical presence” in a state. Examples include:
o Independent contractor/agency nexus
o “Click-through nexus” and related compensated solicitation/referral arrangements (approximately
twenty-one states currently)
o Affiliate nexus (approximately twenty-five states currently)
o Specific notification and/or reporting requirements exist in a handful of states as well (e.g., CO)
• States are also adopting “economic nexus” standards that challenge Quill’s physical presence nexus
standard
Setting the Stage - Expanding Physical Presence and Economic Nexus
6
“Click-Through” Nexus Provisions
7Copyright © 2018 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved.
• New York State enacted the first “click-through” nexus statute in 2008
• Seller is presumed to have nexus through an independent contractor or representative if the seller enters
into an agreement with a resident where the resident
o For a commission or other consideration
o Directly or indirectly refers potential customers to the seller
o Whether by a link on an Internet website or otherwise
o If the cumulative gross receipts from sales from residents with this type of an agreement exceeds
$10,000 in the preceding 4 quarter period
• Note – The resident independent contractor or representative program is frequently referred to as
“affiliate marketing relationships programs”
“Click-Through” Nexus - Introduction
8Copyright © 2018 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved.
• New York published guidance on rebutting the presumption in TSB-M-08(3.1)S (Jun. 30, 2008). The seller
may rebut the presumption by meeting two conditions
1. Contract condition – The contract prohibits
o “engaging in any solicitation activities…that refer potential customers to the seller including, but not
limited to: distributing flyers, coupons, newsletters and other printed promotional materials, or
electronic equivalents; verbal solicitation (e.g., in-person referrals); initiating telephone calls; and
sending e-mails.
o In addition, if the resident representative is an organization such as a club or a non-profit group, the
contract or agreement must provide that the organization will maintain on its Web site information
alerting its members to the prohibition against each of the solicitation activities described above;
and”
2. Proof of compliance condition – The resident must submit a signed certification stating that the
resident representative has not engaged in any prohibited solicitation activities
“Click-Through” Nexus - Rebutting the Presumption
9Copyright © 2018 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved.
New York
The New York Court of Appeals upheld the affiliate nexus standard in 2013. One of the keys to upholding the
statute was the “safe harbor” provision
Illinois
In 2011, Illinois passed a law similar to New York’s but absent a safe harbor provision. In 2031, the Illinois
Supreme Court struck the law down as in conflict with the federal Internet Tax Freedom Act. Subsequently,
Illinois passed another click-through nexus law that remains on the books.
“Click-Through” Nexus – Specific Provisions
10Copyright © 2018 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved.
To date, over 20 states have adopted “click-through” or “affiliate marketing relationships program” statutes
including the following:
• Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota,
Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee,
Vermont and Washington
Some possible corporate reactions may be to:
• Start collecting taxes
• Don’t start collecting taxes
• Eliminate affiliate marketing relationships programs
• Maintain affiliate marketing relationships but with “safe-harbor” agreements
“Click-Through” Nexus – Additional Provisions
11
Redefining Agent or Representative
12Copyright © 2018 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved.
• Agent may be generally defined as “one who represents and acts for another under a contract or
otherwise”
• Representative may generally be defined as “a person or thing that represents another”; an agent
• For tax purposes an agent or representative is often defined as an independent person/contractor
performing services on behalf of a principal
• But can it include a subsidiary, parent or other member of an affiliated group?
• Can a unitary relationship be enough?
• Does it have to be related to sales activities? Consider New Jersey 2012 case.
• Does marketplace nexus exist?
Redefining Agent or Representative
13Copyright © 2018 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved.
• Nexus asserted for out-of-state entity based on its corporate relationships with one or more related
parties (affiliates) in the state or on activities those affiliates may perform on behalf of the remote retailer
• Affiliate nexus statutes generally look to the activities performed by an in-state affiliate which help related
entities to establish and maintain a market in that state
• Examples include:
o Use of common logos and trademarks
o In-state distribution centers from which delivery occurs
o In-state affiliate’s promotion of the out-of-state affiliate’s goods or services
Redefining Agent or Representative - Affiliate Nexus Statutes
14Copyright © 2018 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved.
Pursuant to Fla. Stat. Ann. § 212.0596(2)(k), “[e]very dealer ... who makes a mail order sale is subject to
the power of this state to levy and collect the tax imposed ... when:
o The dealer, while not having nexus with this state on any of the bases described in paragraphs
(a)-(j) or paragraph (l), is a corporation that is a member of an affiliated group of
corporations, as defined in s. 1504(a) of the Internal Revenue Code, whose members are includable
under s. 1504(b) of the Internal Revenue Code
o and whose members are eligible to file a consolidated tax return for federal corporate
income tax purposes and any parent or subsidiary corporation in the affiliated group has
nexus with this state on one or more of the bases described in paragraphs (a)-(j) or paragraph (l)”
Redefining Agent or Representative - Affiliate Nexus StatutesExample
15Copyright © 2018 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved.
Arizona Transaction Privilege Tax Ruling 16-3, 09/20/2016
ISSUE:
Is a business with Arizona nexus for Arizona transaction privilege tax (TPT) purposes that operates an online
marketplace through which third-party merchants sell tangible personal property at retail (hereinafter "online
marketplace") a "retailer" making "sales" on behalf of third-party merchants, and therefore responsible for
the retail TPT on sales to Arizona customers?
RULING:
A business that operates an online marketplace and makes online sales on behalf of third-party merchants as
evidenced by the marketplace providing a primary contact point for customer service, processing payments
on behalf of the merchant and providing or controlling the fulfillment process, is a retailer conducting taxable
sales. The gross receipts of that marketplace business derived from the sales of tangible personal property to
Arizona purchasers are subject to retail TPT, provided that the business already has nexus for Arizona TPT
purposes.
Redefining Agent or RepresentativeExample
16
What It Means to Assist in Making a Market
17Copyright © 2018 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved.
Jurisdictions may take an expansive view of what activities create or maintain a marketplace in the state,
including, but not limited to, the following:
• Visiting customers or potential customers in the state
• Performing services in the state, such as installation, repair, or warranty related services
• Accepting returns or allowing pick-up in a physical store located in the state
• Exhibiting at a trade show
• Training customer’s employees
• Referring customers in exchange for consideration
• Delivering products by a non-common carrier
• Procurement related activities
What It Means to Assist in Making a Market
18Copyright © 2018 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved.
Washington’s statute
“out-of-state seller, either directly or by an agent or other representative, performs significant services in
relation to establishment or maintenance of sales into Washington”
Oklahoma’s Compliance Initiative
“conducts any other activities in this state that are significantly associated with the vendor’s ability to
establish and maintain a market in this state for the vendor’s sale”
What It Means to Assist in Making a Market Specific state examples
19
Information Reporting –“Use” Tax Approaches
20Copyright © 2018 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved.
• Passed legislation that was to become effective on March 1, 2012, requiring “non-collecting” retailers to
inform customers (as well as the state) that they may have a use tax obligation for taxable purchases
• The law specified that any out-of-state retailer that does not collect the sales tax on taxable purchases
that have gross revenues in excess of $100,000 in the state:
o To send a transactional notice to the customer that they may be subject to the state’s use tax;
o Send a detailed annual purchase summary to customers that purchase more than $500 of goods
during the year, reminding them of potential use tax obligations; and
o File the annual customer information report with the DOR
• Litigation ensued but the information reporting regime was ultimately upheld as constitutional when the
U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari upon appeal in December 2016.
Information reporting“Use” tax approaches
21Copyright © 2018 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved.
Colorado –
• Upon lifting of the Colorado state court injunction, the state is free to move forward with the enforcement
of these requirements
• There is a $10 penalty imposed for each failure by the retailer to comply with the specified requirements
Vermont –
• similar requirements to the CO regime were enacted and became effective on “the earlier of July 1, 2017
or beginning on the first day of the first quarter after the sales and use tax reporting requirements
challenged in Direct Marketing Assoc. v. Brohl … are implemented by the State of Colorado.” There is a $5
per failure penalty upon the original sale, and a $10 per failure penalty for not filing the annual notice.
Louisiana and Oklahoma –
• These states have also enacted similar use tax reporting provisions, but do not currently impose any
failure penalty for not complying.
Information reporting “Use” tax approaches
22Copyright © 2018 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved.
• In Direct Marketing Assoc’n v. Brohl, 135 S. Ct. 1124, 1131 (2015), Justice Kennedy made statements in
his concurrence indicating Quill is ripe for reconsideration and could possibly be overturned:
o “Given…changes in technology and consumer sophistication, it is unwise to delay any longer a
reconsideration of the Court’s holding in Quill. A case questionable even when decided, Quill now
harms States to a degree far greater than could have been anticipated earlier.”
o “The instant case does not raise this issue in a manner appropriate for the Court to address it. It does
provide, however, the means to note the importance of reconsidering doubtful authority. The legal
system should find an appropriate case for this court to reexamine Quill and Bellas Hess.”
Kennedy ConcurrenceDirect Marketing Ass’n v. Brohl
23
State Challenges to Quill
24Copyright © 2018 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved.
South Dakota -
• On March 22, 2016, Senate Bill 106 (S.B. 106) was signed into law. S.B. 106 amends Codified Laws 10-
45 and 10-52, effective May 1, 2016, to require the collection of South Dakota sales tax on sales into
South Dakota if, in the previous or current calendar year:
1. The seller’s sales into South Dakota exceed $100,000, or
2. The seller had two hundred or more separate transactions into South Dakota.
• S.B. 106 provided the authority for South Dakota to bring a declaratory judgement action in order to
expedite the determination as the validity of this nexus standard under state and federal law. S.B. 106
also provided an injunction provision to enjoin enforcement of the law pending the declaratory judgment
action.
State Challenges to Quill
25Copyright © 2018 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved.
South Dakota -
• April 2016: State and online retailers filed declaratory judgments in Circuit Court.
• March 2017: Circuit Court struck down remote sales tax law; DOR appealed, setting the stage for review by
the state supreme court.
• September 2017: South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the Circuit Court ruling, holding that this law was
unconstitutional in violation of the physical presence requirement under Quill.
• October 2017: South Dakota filed cert with the U.S. Supreme Court specifically asking whether the Court
should “abrogate Quill’s sales-tax-only physical-presence requirement.”
• The parties’ briefs and multiple amicus curiae briefs have been filed.
• On January 12, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear this case.
• Oral arguments before the Court were held on April 17, 2018; a decision is anticipated in late June 2018.
• An injunction is currently in place that prevents the state from enforcing the law while constitutionality is
challenged.
Economic Nexus
26
Considerations for “No Regrets Tax Planning”
27Copyright © 2018 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved.
Tax Planning Considerations:
• Understanding your current nexus footprint
• Analysis of your compliance burden
• Systems issues
• Notices and audit defense
No Regrets Tax Planning
28
Classification
29Copyright © 2018 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved.
• ~45 States and D.C. impose sales and use tax (SUT) on sales of tangible personal property (TPP) unless
specifically exempt, but many states only tax specifically enumerated services.
• Historically, very few states enacted broad-based SUTs applicable to most services.
• Recently, there have been numerous (yet often unsuccessful) attempts by states to broaden the tax base
to include more services.
• States are starting to issue guidance on whether mere access to computer hardware and access-only
software are subject to SUT.
• Although few states tax computer and data processing services, per se, some jurisdictions are attempting
to classify access-only and/or hosting services as leases of TPP.
ClassificationWhat is a Service / Software?
30Copyright © 2018 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved.
Depending upon the state, a cloud computing transaction may be deemed to fall into one of the following
categories:
• Software (canned v. custom)
• Data processing or data storage service
• Information service (general v. proprietary)
• Computer service
• Digital automated service – service transferred electronically that uses one or more software applications
• Digital equivalent to traditional tangible personal property (i.e., digital goods)
Treatment of Cloud Related Items – Product or Service?
31Copyright © 2018 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved.
Taxability of cloud computing varies by state.
Not taxable because:
• The customer does not have physical possession of the item; therefore, it is not a sale or lease of
software or TPP.
• The vendor’s server is not in the state.
• The product is not canned or prewritten software and is not an enumerated taxable service.
Taxable because:
• The customer has “constructive possession” of the item; therefore, it represents a taxable sale or lease of
software despite no physical transfer of the item.
• The server is a single-tenant server; therefore, it is a taxable lease of TPP despite no physical possession.
• It is within the meaning of an enumerated taxable service.
• Customer receives benefit of a taxable service such as data processing or information service in the state.
Cloud/Software/Data Processing Services
32Copyright © 2018 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved.
Web Collaboration Services
Colorado PLR 16-014 (August 1, 2016)
• Web collaboration services provided to consumers in Colorado by means of servers located outside
Colorado are not subject to sales tax because these services are considered as interstate services.
• The Colorado DOR noted that the web collaboration services were comprised of all the necessary
elements of a telephone service but were not subject to tax because each transaction between a
participant and its telecommunication provider was an out-of-state call bridging service that was
connected through a server located outside the state and therefore was an interstate call.
Kansas Private Letter Ruling No. P-2013-001 (July 3, 2013)
• Sales tax applied to telecommunications and ancillary service charges for video and conferencing
services invoiced to customers whose primary place of use was within Kansas even when a different
and unrelated in-state provider links the customer to the public switched telephone network or to the
World Wide Web.
33Copyright © 2018 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved.
Cloud Computing
Illinois
ST 16-0033 GIL 08/17/2016 SaaS or COMPUTER SOFTWARE
A provider of software as a service is acting as a serviceman. If the provider does not transfer any
TPP to the customer, then the transaction generally would not be subject to Retailers’ Occupation
Tax, Use Tax, Service Occupation Tax, or Service Use Tax. If the provider transfers to the
customer an API, applet, desktop agent, or a remote access agent to enable the
customer to access the provider’s network and services, it appears the subscriber is
receiving computer software that is subject to tax. See 86 Ill. Adm. Code Parts 130 and 140.
34
Taxability
35Copyright © 2018 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved.
FL Technical Assistance Advisement, No. 16A-014, August 8, 2016
Taxpayer is a third-party retailer of software licenses but also customizes the software it sells to customers.
Taxpayer also purchases cloud-computing services as an integral part of its software solution and for resell.
Subscribers could only access software and cloud-computing solutions electronically.
Questions Posed:
o Is the sale of software and cloud-computing services taxable? – NO
o Is the sale of customized software delivered electronically and accessed over the internet taxable? –
NO
o Is the sale of cloud-computing services taxable? - NO
The DOR further clarified that any canned software sold via tangible medium would be subject to tax.
Cloud Computing
36Copyright © 2018 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved.
SUT Information Release ST 1999-04, September 23, 2016
Internet access and online services (IAPs and OSPs)
• Addition of “digital advertising services” to professional services
• “providing access…data…for the purpose of electronically displaying…promotional advertisements to
potential customers…”
• Effective date is December 1, 2016
Advertising is not taxable but information service is major component
Mixed use
Business versus consumer
True object test
Cloud ComputingOhio
37Copyright © 2018 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved.
Cloud ComputingMichigan
• Michigan Court of Appeals decision involving several SaaS type products:
o 1st Category –The product code that enabled the vendor system to operate did not satisfy
requirement that taxable “prewritten computer software” must be delivered in any manner. The
court held that no proof existed that the code was electronically delivered or that taxpayer
exercised ownership over the vendor code.
o 2nd Category – Some prewritten computer software was electronically delivered to taxpayer. While
this was sufficient for an ownership-type right when delivered to a “local client” or “desktop agent,”
the court held that such software was incidental to the vendors “rendering professional service”
under the “Catalina” test
• The Michigan Department of Treasury has opted not to appeal and has since established a refund
process consistent with the holding in this decision.
38Copyright © 2018 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved.
• A Texas Court of Appeals upheld a sales tax refund to a provider of online banking bill pay services, ruling
that a lower court correctly concluded the services do not fit within the State Comptroller’s definition of
taxable data processing services.
• The State’s Comptroller of public accounts had argued that the provider should have collected sales tax
on services it provided to banks enabling users to pay their bills online.
• A three-judge panel in the Court unanimously held the transactions on which the provider had been
required to pay taxes did not consist of statutorily taxable services such as word processing, data entry,
business accounting data production or other computerized data storage and manipulation.
Cloud ComputingTexas
39Copyright © 2018 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved.
Cloud ComputingChicago
• Chicago has taken the position that the Personal Property Lease Transaction Tax (“Transaction Tax”)
applies to non-possessory computer leases as well as to software transactions that qualified as exempt
under Illinois law
o “Nonpossessory computer lease” means “a lease or rental wherein use but not possession of the
personal property is transferred and includes, but is not limited to, leased time on or use of ...
Computers, computer software ... or data processing equipment”
• Transaction Tax Ruling #12 (7/1/2015, effective 1/1/2016) provides examples of taxable transactions
o Effective January 1, 2016:
A reduced Transaction Tax rate of 5.25% (rather than 9%) will apply to cloud products such as
PaaS, IaaS, and SaaS
A qualifying “small new business” will be exempt from the Transaction Tax on its sales or purchases
of nonpossessory computer leases
40Copyright © 2018 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved.
Pennsylvania
• Effective August 1, 2016, sales and use tax is imposed on downloaded videos; photographs; books; any
otherwise taxable printed matter; applications (commonly known as apps); games; music; any other
audio, including satellite radio service; canned software; and any other otherwise taxable tangible
personal property electronically or digitally delivered, streamed, or accessed. These items are taxable as
tangible personal property and are considered tangible personal property whether they are electronically
or digitally delivered, streamed, or accessed and whether they are purchased singly, by subscription, or in
any other manner, including maintenance, updates, and support. 72 P.S. § 7201.
New Jersey
• For sales and use tax purposes, “tangible personal property” includes prewritten computer software
delivered electronically.
Digital Goods
41
Sourcing
42Copyright © 2018 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved.
• Certain states source the rental of TPP at the location of the property (or the location where the property
is first used).
• This standard may be difficult to apply in a cloud computing situation, because oftentimes the locations of
servers and/or users of the software are either indeterminable or unknown.
• Some states tax electronically transmitted computer software, ASP and hosting services as the rentals of
TPP.
Query: Does constructive receipt of software equal an actual physical presence for nexus
purposes?
Sourcing
43Copyright © 2018 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved.
Inconsistencies across the states may lead to interesting and frustrating situations with respect to the
taxability, as well as the proper sales tax sourcing of a transaction (e.g., location of a server v. location
where service is performed v. location where benefit is derived).
• Example: Assume a service provider sells Software as a Service (Saas)
◦ Service provider is located in State A (service is performed in State A)
◦ Customer is located in State B (benefit is derived in State B)
Questions:
1. What are the tax implications if State A taxes the transaction based on where the service is performed
and State B taxes the transaction based on where the benefit is received?
2. What are the tax implications if State A taxes the transaction based on the location where benefit is
received and State B taxes the transaction based on where the service is performed?
Sourcing
44Copyright © 2018 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved.
From a seller’s perspective, the concepts of destination and benefit may be difficult to apply to digital items
• Seller may have no idea where the receipt of the items takes place or where the items are used
From a purchaser’s perspective, location of use may not always be known.
• Is “use” at the server location or user location?
• States vary
• Trend toward user location
• Be aware of states that include software or digital products in their definition of TPP—they may take a
more traditional view of where these items should be sourced.
Digitals goods used concurrently in multiple jurisdictions (“MPU Transactions”)
• Should tax be paid to the state where the purchase is initially made?
• The state (or states) where the software is eventually used?
Sourcing
45Copyright © 2018 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved.
What states are doing about MPU transactions:
• Many states not only permit allocation or apportionment of the sale/use tax base, but require it.
• State statutes and regulations often do not provide a specific answer/approach, but instead provide for a
“range” of acceptable answers
• Auditors may look for an approach that assigns sales to locations where the service is being “received”
Practice Tips
• When allocating or apportioning the sales/use tax base, develop a sensible and uniform approach.
• Uniform does not necessarily mean that all transactions are equal, but rather that a particular type of
transaction should be allocated in the same manner to each state (unless a particular state has a different
sourcing regime).
Sourcing Multiple Points of Use (MPU) Transactions
46Copyright © 2018 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved.
Washington (Wash. Admin. Code 458-20-15502(11))
• A business claiming an MPU exemption must report and pay use tax on that portion of the digital code,
prewritten software, or remote access software used in Washington.
• The taxable amount is determined by the number of users in Washington compared to users everywhere.
• Generally, digital products and remote access software are used in Washington when the buyer first accesses,
downloads, possesses, opens, stores, enjoys, or receives the benefit of the service in Washington.
Minnesota (Miss. Stat. § 297A.668, Subd. 6a)
• Business purchaser that has not received a direct pay permit may use an exemption certificate indicating
multiple points of use if:
o Purchaser knows at the time of its purchase of a digital good, computer software delivered electronically,
or a service that the good or service will be concurrently available for use in more than one taxing
jurisdiction
o Purchaser delivers to the seller the exemption certificate at the time of purchase
Sourcing Multiple Points of Use (MPU) Transactions
47Copyright © 2018 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved.
Colorado (Colo. Rev. Stat. § 39-26-102(15)(c)(IV))
• Software sourced based on multiple points of use
• Purchaser must provide written statement to retailer attesting to license fees associated with points
in and out of Colorado
• Written statement relieves retailer of liability associated with the proration
Massachusetts (Mass. TIR 13-10, 7/25/2013)
• Computer/Software services sourced based on multiple points of use
Sourcing Multiple Points of Use (MPU) Transactions
48Copyright © 2018 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved.
Texas (Tex. Admin. Code 3.330(f)(3))
• A multi-state customer purchasing data processing services for the benefit of both in-state and out-
of-state locations is responsible for issuing to the data processing service provider an exemption
certificate asserting a multi-state benefit, and for reporting and paying the tax on that portion of the
data processing charge which will benefit the Texas location.
• A data processing service provider that accepts such a certificate in good faith is relieved of
responsibility for collecting and remitting tax on transactions to which the certificate relates
Sourcing Multiple Points of Use (MPU) Transactions
49
Leading Practices
50Copyright © 2018 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved.
• Embed the in-house Tax Department in the Procurement process to facilitate sales tax planning
• Leverage some initiatives of Industry groups/trade associations
• Provide feedback to taxing authorities, as appropriate
• Ask for help!
• Request a Private Letter Ruling
Some Leading Practices
51
Questions?
52Copyright © 2018 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved.
Contact information
Dwayne Van Wieren
Deloitte Tax LLP
Trevor Kwan
Deloitte Tax LLP
53Copyright © 2018 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved.
This presentation contains general information only and Deloitte is not, by means of this presentation, rendering accounting, business, financial, investment, legal, tax, or other professional advice or services. This presentation is not a substitute for such professional advice or services, nor should it be used as a basis for any decision or action that may affect your business. Before making any decision or taking any action that may affect your business, you should consult a qualified professional advisor.
Deloitte shall not be responsible for any loss sustained by any person who relies on this presentation.
About DeloitteDeloitte refers to one or more of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited, a UK private company limited by guarantee (“DTTL”), its network of member firms, and their related entities. DTTL and each of its member firms are legally separate and independent entities. DTTL (also referred to as “Deloitte Global”) does not provide services to clients. In the United States, Deloitte refers to one or more of the US member firms of DTTL, their related entities that operate using the “Deloitte” name in the United States and their respective affiliates. Certain services may not be available to attest clients under the rules and regulations of public accounting. Please see www.deloitte.com/about to learn more about our global network of member firms.
Copyright © 2018 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved.