Monthly Archives: February 2011

San Jose, CA — February 28, 2011 — Clifton Douglas announced today its publication of its article “Act 2 for Business Tax Incentives” in the renowned Journal of Accountancy (March 2011 Issue). The article focuses on the interplay between two … Continue reading →

In an earlier article, we made the case that “dual character” property—property that qualifies both as qualified leasehold improvements and as qualified restaurant property or qualified retail improvement property—may be eligible for the 100% bonus depreciation allowance under Code Sec. … Continue reading →

On February 22, 2011, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie delivered a budget address advocating $200 million in tax reductions. The governor proposes adopting a single sales factor allocation formula, doubling the state research and development credit from 50% to 100%, … Continue reading →

On February 17, 2011, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed legislation that provides various tax incentives designed to improve the state’s economic competitiveness including a phased-in reduction in the corporate income tax rate, increases in certain tax credits and acceleration of … Continue reading →

In a much anticipated decision, the San Francisco Superior Court, on February 17, held that, for California corporate income (franchise) tax purposes, Microsoft could not reduce its business income apportionable to California under the standard UDITPA formula by: (1) sourcing … Continue reading →

On February 17, the House Ways and Means Committee by a vote of 21-15 approved. H.R. 705, the Comprehensive 1099 Taxpayer Protection and Repayment of Exchange Subsidy Overpayment Act of 2011. Upon passage of H.R. 705, the text of a … Continue reading →

by Peter G. Pupke, Esq. (RIA) On February 17, 2011, Michigan Governor Rick Snyder presented his proposed Fiscal Year 2012 executive budget and a projected Fiscal Year 2013 budget, which contains a number of tax changes, including replacement of the … Continue reading →

The publication states that before an examination commences, the auditor assigned to a case must decide whether a desk (i.e., correspondence audit) or field audit will be conducted. The auditor will determine if the examination will be a desk or … Continue reading →