US Supreme Court lets Equifax tax ruling stand
Headline Legal News
The U.S. Supreme Court said Monday that it won't hear an appeal from credit bureau Equifax Inc. involving what it considered an adverse tax ruling in Mississippi.
The appeal was a reaction to a 2013 Mississippi Supreme Court decision that Equifax had to prove that it didn't earn any taxable income in the state. The state Department of Revenue examined Equifax's income and allocated some to Mississippi, ruling it owed taxes and penalties.
The Mississippi court upheld the Revenue Department's calculation of the company's taxes based on revenue earned in Mississippi, thus increasing its tax liability from zero to over $700,000, according to court documents.
The Council on State Taxation, Georgia Chamber of Commerce and The Institute for Professionals had filed "friend of the court" briefs in the case.
Lawmakers responded during the 2014 session by passing a law to change how the state collects taxes.
A key part of the law could make it harder for the state to rule that multistate corporations are paying too little in taxes to Mississippi. It says the Department of Revenue would have to present clear and convincing proof before it could reallocate how a company splits its income among states, and only do so in "limited and unique, nonrecurring circumstances."
The Department of Revenue estimates all changes in the law, including a phase-in of lower interest rates for overdue taxes, will cost Mississippi $100 million a year.
Related listings
-
Court rejects appeal of gay jury selection case
Headline Legal News 06/25/2014A federal appeals court on Tuesday refused to reconsider its ruling granting heightened legal protections to gays and lesbians, prompting three dissenting judges to warn of far-reaching implications in same-sex marriage cases in the Western United St...
-
Court: No blanket exemption for police dashcams
Headline Legal News 06/13/2014The state Supreme Court has ruled that state dashboard cameras can't be withheld from public disclosure unless they relate to pending litigation. Five of the high court's members said Thursday that the Seattle Police Department wrongly used a state s...
-
High court won't hear California's prison appeal
Headline Legal News 06/10/2014The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday let stand a lower court ruling that California bears responsibility for nearly 2,000 disabled parolees housed in county jails. The decision could leave state taxpayers liable for problems at some of the jails, said Je...
What Is Meant by ‘No-Fault’ Workers’ Compensation in Illinois?
If you were injured in a work-related accident and have been researching workers’ compensation, you may have seen it described as a “no-fault” system. One of the most important things to understand about the workers’ compensation system in Illinois is that it is based on a “no-fault” system. What does this mean, exactly?
Most employers in Illinois are required by law to have workers’ compensation insurance. And the workers' compensation in Illinois is a “no-fault” system, which means that any worker who has been hurt on the job is entitled to workers' compensation benefits. If you have been hurt on the job, you are entitled to workers’ compensation benefits no matter whose fault the accident was.
A no-fault insurance system, such as workers’ comp, works by paying claims regardless of who is to blame for an accident. This provides an important layer of protection for injured workers, sparing them from having to through additional litigation and the through the additional burden of proving who was at fault before receiving benefits.
In Illinois, even though you don’t have to prove that your injury was your employer’s fault, you do have to prove that your injury happened at work or as a result of work. If you would like help to file your workers' compensation claim, Krol, Bongiorno, & Given’s experienced workers' comp lawyers are here to help. With over 60 years of combined legal experience, the KBG law firm is a leader in the field of workers’ compensation law and we have earned the reputation as aggressive advocates for injured workers before the IWCC.