KPMG reports: Michigan, Ohio, Washington State

KPMG reports: Michigan, Ohio, Washington State

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.


Related content

  • Michigan: A state appellate court denied a claim for refund of sales tax on finding that the taxpayer—a bank that had offered private-label credit cards to customers of various merchants—had not presented sufficient evidence to prove that sales tax had been actually paid to the state by the merchants. The bank had obtained from the merchants the percentage of the merchants’ gross sales subject to sales tax, and then applied that percentage to the taxpayer’s written-off accounts as bad debts (thus an estimate of the tax that might have been paid on the bad debts). The court agreed with the state’s tax authority that the taxpayer had not presented sufficient evidence to support its claim that sales tax had actually been paid on these defaults. Read a February 2020 report

  • Ohio: The state’s highest court, the Ohio Supreme Court, held that the taxpayer—an interstate natural gas pipeline subject to the state’s public utility excise tax—was liable for the excise tax on receipts derived from the transportation of gas that entered a pipeline in Ohio and exited the pipeline at delivery points in Ohio. Under Ohio law, a public utility is subject to an annual excise tax for the privilege of doing business in the state. The tax base equals the amount of all gross receipts actually received from all sources of business in Ohio, but there is an exclusion for receipts derived wholly from interstate business. The high court rejected the taxpayer’s claim that these sales were involved in interstate commerce and that they were eligible for the interstate business exclusion. Read a February 2020 report

  • Washington State: A state appellate court held that a Utah nonprofit corporation (the sole member of which was the University of Utah, a component unit of the state) was subject to Washington’s business and occupation (B&O) tax. The entity, a laboratory of the university’s medical school, was found to be a “person” subject to B&O, despite its connection to the university. The court noted that the lab employed staff who were not university employees and although the taxpayer’s income accrued to the university, it did not receive funding from the state and it paid lawsuit settlements and judgements from its own funds. Read a February 2020 report

The KPMG name and logo are trademarks used under license by the independent member firms of the KPMG global organization. KPMG International Limited is a private English company limited by guarantee and does not provide services to clients. 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. The information contained 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


Want to do business with KPMG?


loading image Request for proposal