Meet the Co-chairs - TIAG
Mercer & Hole
Cohen & Company (Ohio)
Fineman West & Co. LLP
Meet the Co-chairs - TAGLAW
Williams Mullen (VA)
Author: Matt Szydlowski, CPA
On June 21, the Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision in South Dakota vs. Wayfair (“Wayfair”). The fallout of this decision will significantly change the way online vendors handle sales and use (“S&U”) tax for out-of-state consumers going forward. It will, therefore, also affect online consumers. Are you impacted!? Continue reading.
Prior to the Wayfair decision, vendors were subject to the rules that stemmed from a 1992 court case, Quill v. North Dakota (“Quill”). Under Quill, a vendor was only required to collect sales tax if they had a physical presence in the state in which the buyer was located (i.e. they had property or payroll in the state). Many online retailers who sold goods to consumers in other states, but who lacked a physical presence in that state, didn’t have to collect sales tax. It was the responsibility of the consumer (purchaser) to voluntarily pay the required use tax to their state of residence. A majority of consumers did not remit their use tax obligations.
In June 2018, one of the largest acquisitions in the history of E-commerce companies was announced.
U.S. retail giant, Walmart has acquired a 77% stake in Flipkart, the largest e-commerce company in India, for USD 16 Billion. This has made Walmart the majority shareholder in Flipkart, acquiring it's 77% from the existing promoters and other investors including Softbank.
Farmers and rural businesses will have to keep all their VAT records and submit returns online from April 2019. But while Government plans to Make Tax Digital could prove challenging and time-consuming, it also offers a great opportunity to improve budgeting and business management.
“While it’s easy to see digital tax returns as an administrative burden, the new technology actually offers many advantages,” explains Daisy Johnston at accountant Old Mill. “Clients who have already moved their accounting online have benefited from real-time cash flow control, reduced paperwork, and greater opportunities for tax saving measures.”
Government plans to introduce digital self-assessment returns – originally set for 2020 – are likely to be delayed by Brexit. However, the trend is clear – and businesses might do well to embrace the change sooner rather than later, she adds.
Old Mill recommends farmers start preparing now and is holding Making Tax Digital clinics to help clients come to terms with the changes and treat this as an opportunity to improve their businesses. So who does it affect?
Author: James Collacott
The latest Federal Budget was announced last n ight, Tuesday, 8 May 2018 by the Treasurer Mr Scott Morrison. The government is proposing measures which focus on strengthening the economy as well as taking further steps to repair the budget over the medium term.
Whilst there was no substantial tax reform of any variety, it is clear that the government see this as an election Budget given the overhaul to personal income tax rates and brackets over the medium term. This includes removing the current 37% rate band as well as various other simplification measures.
For the first time in almost a decade, superannuation came out relatively unscathed. Some minor wins for the SMSF space and concessions for those wanting to contribute to super after age 65 were the highlights.
It is also clear that the government has a continued focus on the collection of tax and has provided substantial funding to regulators to clamp down on non-compliance and unpaid taxes.
Detailed below is a selection of some of the key Budget announcements which are likely to be of interest to many taxpayers.
One Effect of the Recent Tax Reform on Not-for-Profit Organizations
By Howard J. Kass, CPA, CGMA, AEP®
As often as employers are maligned, there are times where they try to do the right thing for their employees. To be fair, many times, an employer may take an action or incur an expense that benefits its employees, knowing that the employer will benefit by a tax deduction for incurring an expense. In some cases, Congress encourages such behavior by explicitly permitting favorable tax treatment for certain programs.
At the same time the employer received a deduction, these fringe benefits were tax-free to the employee. The result? There was a tax benefit to both the employer and the employee for these fringe benefits.
What was the public-policy reason for allowing this fringe benefit? To make it more affordable for employers to attract employees to work in locations where there was no available free parking.