KPMG reports - California (demand notices); Illinois (amnesty); Louisiana (amnesty); Mississippi (apportionment) 

July 1:  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 and features a series of short podcasts presented by KPMG tax professionals. Text of the podcasts is also available.

Today’s edition, for July 1, 2013, includes the following topics (listen to the podcasts; to read text, click on the links below).


  • California - The State Board of Equalization upheld the imposition of a 25% “demand penalty” on a taxpayer who had not responded to demand notices from the Franchise Tax Board, concluding the penalty applied to the taxpayer who failed to file an income tax return despite a purported illness and his inability to locate tax records after a move.
  • Illinois - The Illinois Supreme Court held that a taxpayer was subject to post-amnesty (2003 Illinois tax amnesty program) penalties for additional tax owed as a result of a federal audit.
  • Louisiana - A newly enacted tax amnesty law directs the Department of Revenue to develop and implement a three-year, three-part general tax amnesty program.
  • Mississippi - The Mississippi Supreme Court addressed the burden of proof and standard of review in a case concerning the use of alternative apportionment by a service provider earning income from Mississippi customers.



©2013 KPMG LLP, a Delaware limited liability partnership and the U.S. member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative ("KPMG International"), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.


The KPMG logo and name are trademarks of KPMG International.


KPMG International is a Swiss cooperative that serves as a coordinating entity for a network of independent member firms. KPMG International provides no audit or other client services. Such services are provided solely by member firms in their respective geographic areas. KPMG International and its member firms are legally distinct and separate entities. They are not and nothing contained herein shall be construed to place these entities in the relationship of parents, subsidiaries, agents, partners, or joint venturers. No member firm has any authority (actual, apparent, implied or otherwise) to obligate or bind KPMG International or any member firm in any manner whatsoever.


The information contained in 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.


Direct comments, including requests for subscriptions, to us-kpmgwnt@kpmg.com.
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.