Current Articles

Oregon Enacts Legislation in Response to Federal Tax Reform   

Scott Schiefelbein is a managing director in Deloitte Tax LLP’s Washington National Tax Multistate practice.
In this article, the author provides an overview of two bills enacted by the Oregon Legislature and signed by Governor Kate Brown that respond to federal tax reform legislation, as well as some related taxpayer considerations.

This article does not constitute tax, legal, or other advice from Deloitte, which assumes no responsibility regarding assessing or advising the reader about tax, legal, or other consequences arising from the reader’s particular situation.

Copyright 2018 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved.

Introduction – Federal Tax Reform Legislation Imposes Changes on Oregon Taxes

On December 22, 2017, President Trump signed the federal tax reform bill[1] (P.L. 115-97, or “the Act”), which is the most comprehensive tax reform legislation passed in over thirty years.  The Act lowers tax rates on individuals, C corporations, passthrough entities[2] and estates as well as moving the United States toward a territorial-style system for taxing foreign-source income of domestic multinational corporations.  To offset these costs, a number of deductions, credits and incentives were reduced or eliminated. Continue reading Oregon Enacts Legislation in Response to Federal Tax Reform   

Substitutes for Return & Non-Dischargeability

Substitutes for Return & Non-Dischargeability:
The Ninth Circuit Adds Substitute for Return Assessments to Tax Evasion and Fraudulent Returns as Reasons for Non-dischargeable Tax Obligations.

By Christopher N. Coyle[1]

            The Internal Revenue Service’s 2010 policy that substitute for return (“SFR”) assessments can never be dischargeable in bankruptcy has firmly taken hold in the Ninth Circuit with the recent decision In re Smith.[2]  With this Ninth Circuit decision, the IRS has succeeded in having most or all SFR assessments join the other “never dischargeable” income taxes: fraudulent return liabilities and willful attempts to evade liabilities.  The difference in this new category is that the affected taxpayers merely failed to file their returns, but otherwise committed no wrongs.  This article will discuss the Smith decision along with the effects of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005’s (“BAPCPA”) hanging paragraph and concludes in joining Professor Timothy M. Todd in advocating for a legislative or judicial solution to this “draconian and unduly punitive” result.[3] Continue reading Substitutes for Return & Non-Dischargeability