Multistate Tax Commission Multijurisdiction Resale Certificates
In a Board of Equalization audit, taxpayers should keep in mind that any of the evidence other than actual resale certificate, by itself is not the equivalent of a resale certificate timely taken in good faith, and may not relieve the seller of the liability for the tax.
A claimed sale for resale will be allowed in a CDTFA audit if it is supported by a resale certificate that is proper in form and is timely taken in good faith from a person who is engaged in the business of selling tangible personal property and who holds a California seller’s permit. If the purchaser is not required to hold a permit because the purchaser sells only property of a kind the retail sale of which is not taxable, e.g., food products for human consumption, or because the purchaser makes no sales in California, an appropriate notation to that effect will be entered in lieu of a seller’s permit number on the resale certificate under Regulation 1667 governing exemption certificate requirements. A certificate will be considered timely if it is taken at any time before the seller bills the purchaser for the property, or any time within the seller’s normal billing and payment cycle, or any time at or prior to delivery of the property to the purchaser. CDTFA auditors can be stringent when enforcing the resale certificate requirement.
One of the most common targets in a California sales tax audit is sales for resale. Sales for resale is the most common deduction claimed by California taxpayers and one of the most common targets of the Board of Equalization (BOE).
Board of Equalization sales tax auditors are especially careful in examining accounting methods used by taxpayer and use various procedures to verify amounts. Often, California taxpayers will estimate this deduction and will get tripped up in a sales tax audit when the Board of Equalization auditor uses their verification procedures.
A taxpayer who wants to settle must submit a written request, which must include the following information:
Franchise Tax Board Settlements
California EDD offers taxpayers tax settlement program, where EDD and taxpayer can settle a claim for less than the amount owed. EDD can settle if it evaluates costs and risks associated with the litigation of the case and determines that it is better and less expensive for EDD to settle for lower amount than to litigate in court. The Settlements Program allows an employer the opportunity to enter into a settlement agreement to also avoid the cost of prolonged litigation associated with resolving a disputed employment tax matter.
For appeal taxpayer should prepare and file a pre-trial brief or memorandum of points and authorities, in which he or she must describe relevant law and apply it to his or her case in support of appeal. Taxpayer may want to locate and interview helpful witnesses, including workers previously interviewed by EDD, principals of business and management employees.
It is important to note that according to Unemployment Insurance Code (“UIC”) Section 1735, an officer, owner or any person in charge of affairs of any corporation, LLC or LLP, is personally liable for the amount of the contributions, withholdings, penalties, and interest unpaid by business entity, if business entity willfully fails to pay the amount. Assessments become delinquent if not paid before they become final, and subject to a penalty of 10%. UIC Section 1135. Sections 1222 and 1224 provide that assessments become final (and delinquent) after 30 days from an assessment date, or if taxpayer petitions or appeals assessment, within 30 days of an Administrative Law Judge or Appeals Board decision date. Therefore, filing an appeal generally extends time to pay tax.
The success or failure of the Dodd-Frank Act will be ultimately judged by history and the impact that it has with combatting some of the problems that have existed with credit rating agencies both before and after the financial crisis of 2008. Already critics have been quick to condemn the act for the perceived over burden that it places on the credit rating agencies or for what others feel is too little regulation that does too little to prevent the evils of the past four decades. Through the research and analysis involved with paper, however, we have come to several conclusions about how the law can be made more effective or where potential shortcomings exist despite its overall intent to promote fairer dealing and more transparency among the agencies.