New Jersey labor auditors are investigating Uber Technologies Inc. and Lyft Inc. to see if the rideshare companies are wrongly classifying drivers as independent contractors and should be on the hook for employment taxes, according to documents obtained by Bloomberg Law.

The Internal Revenue Service has announced that preparer tax identification number (PTIN) applications and renewals are now being processed. That’s good news for tax professionals who are gearing up for next season—but there could be some changes on the horizon.

Arguments in a lawsuit challenging New York City's property tax system are focused on whether courts are the right place for the dispute.

The Arizona Department of Revenue Oct. 1 published a newsletter on transaction privilege sales and use tax updates. The publication includes: 1) rules for the filing and payment of tax for remote sellers and marketplace facilitators in the October reporting period, beginning Nov. 1; 2) preparations required for 2020 annual tax license renewals, including updated business locations, names, and mailing addresses; 3) tax rate changes for the town of Fountain Hills and Clarkdale, effective Nov. 1; 4) reminders on tax filing frequency and due dates; and 5) information on online lodging marketplaces, live chat, economic nexus, cyber security awareness, and credit or debit card tax payments. [Ariz. Dep't of Revenue, TPT Newsletter, 10/01/19]

The Alabama Tax Tribunal Oct. 11 affirmed the Department of Revenue's sales and use tax assessments. Taxpayer claimed that Alabama law exempted from tax the gross proceeds of sales of products of the farm, grove, or garden when such sales are made by the producer. The main issue was whether Taxpayer operated as a merchant of the pine straw, or as a farmer or producer. The tribunal found Taxpayer: 1) acquired access to land owned by others, where the pine trees were already growing, for the sole purpose of obtaining pine straw to sell; 2) used measures to increase the amount of straw that the Taxpayer could gather and sell; 3) operated more as a merchant than as a farmer or producer; and 4) failed to prove the right to an exemption. Therefore, the tribunal affirmed the assessment. [Ala. Tax Trib., Admin. Law Judge Ruling Docket No. S. 17-1074-JP, 10/11/19]

The Arkansas Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) Oct. 14 found that Taxpayer was obligated to pay sales and use tax on a purchased motor vehicle and affirmed an assessment issued by the Department of Finance and Administration (DFA). The DFA determined that Taxpayer didn't register the vehicle and didn't pay the tax, so it mailed her a billing statement. Taxpayer argued that the vehicle was returned to the seller. Upon review, the OHA found that: 1) Taxpayer didn't establish that a rescinded sale occurred; 2) the DFA properly assessed the late payment penalty; 3) the DFA met the burden of showing that a sale of tangible personal property occurred; and 4) Taxpayer failed to demonstrate a defense to the enforcement of the tax law. Accordingly, the OHA sustained the tax assessment, penalty, and interest. [Ark. Dep't of Fin. & Admin., Docket No. 20-152, 10/14/19]

The Arkansas Office of Hearing and Appeals (OHA) Oct. 14 sustained the Department of Finance and Administration's (DFA) motor vehicle sales and use tax assessment. The DFA issued an assessment, which Taxpayers protested. Taxpayers claimed a trade-in deduction but the DFA was unable to allow it without the associated Vehicle Identification Number (VIN). Taxpayers contended that all relevant information was provided within the protest. The OHA found that: 1) Taxpayers failed to provide the VIN; 2) the DFA's assertion that the number was necessary to claim the deduction was persuasive; 3) Taxpayers didn't prove entitlement to the deduction by a preponderance of the evidence; 4) Taxpayers failed to demonstrate a defense to the tax law enforcement; and 5) the penalty and interest after adjustment required under the state law were properly assessed. Accordingly, the OHA sustained the DFA's assessment. [Ark. Dep't of Fin. & Admin., Docket No. 20-157, 10/14/19]

The Arkansas Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) Oct. 15 found that Taxpayers weren't entitled to the trade-in credit and sustained the Department of Finance and Administration's (DFA) sales and use tax assessment. Taxpayers purchased a vehicle, registered it online, and claimed a trade-in credit for a vehicle sold to the dealer. The DFA conducted a review and issued a gross receipts tax assessment as the vehicle invoice didn't reflect a dealer trade-in. Taxpayers protested the assessment. The OHA found that Taxpayers: 1) entered the VIN number of the vehicle sold as the VIN number of the vehicle purchased during the online registration; and 2) didn't present any evidence to prove that they were entitled to a tax credit on their purchase of the vehicle. Therefore, the DFA correctly assessed the gross receipts tax. Accordingly, the OHA sustained the proposed assessment. [Ark. Dep't of Fin. & Admin., Docket No. 20-153, 10/15/19]

The Arkansas Office of Hearing and Appeals (OHA) Oct. 14 sustained the Department of Finance and Administration's (DFA) motor vehicle sales tax assessment. Taxpayer purchased a vehicle and a temporary tag was issued to her. The DFA found that Taxpayer didn't register or pay the tax, so it issued a notice of proposed assessment including late payment penalty and interest. Taxpayer protested the assessment contending that she returned the vehicle and didn't know that she had to pay the tax even after returning it. The OHA found that: 1) Taxpayer took ownership and possession of the vehicle; 2) the ownership and possession triggered the tax liability; 3) Taxpayer didn't establish that a rescinded sale occurred; 4) repossession of the vehicle, voluntary or involuntary, didn't extinguish tax liability; and 5) the penalty and interest were properly assessed. Accordingly, the OHA sustained the DFA's assessment. [Ark. Dep't of Fin. & Admin., Opinion No. 20-179, 10/14/19]

The Arkansas Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) Oct. 14 sustained the Department of Finance and Administration's (DFA) gross receipts and alcoholic beverage tax assessments, for excise and sales and use tax purposes. Taxpayer owned and operated a retail liquor store that sold a variety of wine, liquor, and beer. The DFA conducted an audit and assessed taxes and interest. Taxpayer argued that the DFA used wrong percentage and didn't take inventory into consideration. Upon review, the OHA found that: 1) Taxpayer failed to establish the accuracy of its tax returns; 2) Taxpayer failed to maintain sufficient specified documentation to refute the assessments; 3) the DFA made the assessments based upon the best information and documentation available; and 4) the DFA correctly applied the tax law while making the assessments. Accordingly, the OHA sustained the DFA's tax assessments. [Ark. Dep't of Fin. & Admin., Docket Nos. 19-505, 19-506, 10/14/19]