Minnesota Taxes in Comparison. © 2011 KPMG LLP, a Delaware limited liability partnership and the U.S. member firm of the KPMG network of independent member.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
A Smart Way to Preserve Your Estate for Future Generations.
Advertisements

Accountancy as a Profession
OLA 1711 T 1008 Your Guide to Gift and Estate Planning for Non-U.S. Citizens.
1. 2 THE INDIVIDUAL TAX FORMULA Corporate vs. individual tax model Filing status for individuals Overview of taxable income Alternative minimum tax Payment.
Property Tax Relief and Reform: Plan Overview Joint Select Committee on Property Tax Relief and Reform June 11, 2007.
Copyright © 2004 by Prentice-Hall. All rights reserved. PowerPoint Slides to Accompany BUSINESS LAW E-Commerce and Digital Law International Law and Ethics.
© 2008 Pearson Addison Wesley. All rights reserved Chapter Seven Costs.
Copyright © 2003 Pearson Education, Inc. Slide 1 Computer Systems Organization & Architecture Chapters 8-12 John D. Carpinelli.
Copyright © 2011, Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Chapter 6 Author: Julia Richards and R. Scott Hawley.
Author: Julia Richards and R. Scott Hawley
Properties Use, share, or modify this drill on mathematic properties. There is too much material for a single class, so you’ll have to select for your.
UNITED NATIONS Shipment Details Report – January 2006.
1 RA I Sub-Regional Training Seminar on CLIMAT&CLIMAT TEMP Reporting Casablanca, Morocco, 20 – 22 December 2005 Status of observing programmes in RA I.
FACTORING ax2 + bx + c Think “unfoil” Work down, Show all steps.
Year 6 mental test 10 second questions
1 Discreteness and the Welfare Cost of Labour Supply Tax Distortions Keshab Bhattarai University of Hull and John Whalley Universities of Warwick and Western.
ZMQS ZMQS
Applicable for Persons Registered under Article 10
DYNASTY TRUST/INCENTIVE TRUST
KaufCAN.com ACA Update Focused on the Employer Mandate Final Regulations Shenandoah University Business Symposium March 25, 2014 John M. Peterson Kaufman.
Solve Multi-step Equations
REVIEW: Arthropod ID. 1. Name the subphylum. 2. Name the subphylum. 3. Name the order.
Table 12.1: Cash Flows to a Cash and Carry Trading Strategy.
Cost Control and the Menu—Determining Selling Prices and Product Mix
EU market situation for eggs and poultry Management Committee 20 October 2011.
EU Market Situation for Eggs and Poultry Management Committee 21 June 2012.
2 |SharePoint Saturday New York City
IP Multicast Information management 2 Groep T Leuven – Information department 2/14 Agenda •Why IP Multicast ? •Multicast fundamentals •Intradomain.
Copyright © 2012, Elsevier Inc. All rights Reserved. 1 Chapter 7 Modeling Structure with Blocks.
Factor P 16 8(8-5ab) 4(d² + 4) 3rs(2r – s) 15cd(1 + 2cd) 8(4a² + 3b²)
Basel-ICU-Journal Challenge18/20/ Basel-ICU-Journal Challenge8/20/2014.
Chapter 7 Review Economics.
1..
CONTROL VISION Set-up. Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 5 Step 4.
LO: Count up to 100 objects by grouping them and counting in 5s 10s and 2s. Mrs Criddle: Westfield Middle School.
CONSERVATION EASEMENTS HOW DO THE NUMBERS WORK? FEDERAL, STATE AND AD VALOREM TAXES HAL HANLIN, ESQ.
1 NY 3 NEW YORK TRAINING 2010 NY NONRESIDENT RETURN IT 203 INSTR NY PUB 80 NY PUB 88.
Perfect Competition.
Model and Relationships 6 M 1 M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M
25 seconds left…...
Subtraction: Adding UP
Equal or Not. Equal or Not
Week 1.
©Brooks/Cole, 2001 Chapter 12 Derived Types-- Enumerated, Structure and Union.
Essential Cell Biology
Intracellular Compartments and Transport
PSSA Preparation.
Essential Cell Biology
McGraw-Hill /Irwin© 2009 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. ACCOUNTING CHANGES AND ERROR CORRECTIONS Chapter 20.
Immunobiology: The Immune System in Health & Disease Sixth Edition
Energy Generation in Mitochondria and Chlorplasts
PIC Investments Performance Update Year ended 30 September 2014 APPENDIX Advisor Use Only.
“CLEAN/Good Government”
3 - 1 Copyright McGraw-Hill/Irwin, 2005 Markets Demand Defined Demand Graphed Changes in Demand Supply Defined Supply Graphed Changes in Supply Equilibrium.
Presentation to EACUBO Tax Update October 16, 2012 Presentation by Donald E. “Dee” Rich, Jr. Partner, KPMG LLP Exempt Organizations Tax Practice
Audit Sampling: A Basic Understanding AGA-Baltimore Johnny Ramsey, Senior Manager KPMG Government Industry Sector September 20, 2012.
1 ©2009 KPMG LLP, a U.S. limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International,
Michael H. Plowgian August 9, 2014 FATCA, Extraterritoriality, and the Path to the OECD- Standard on Automatic Exchange of Information (“AEOI”)
GLOBALHR Executive Workshop Seattle, Washington March 2011 Patrick Riley Partner T A X.
Focused Assessments and Quick Response Audits Developing an Effective Strategy April 14, 2011 TAX.
Real Estate Debt Capital Markets
Presented by: Timothy A. A. Stiles, KPMG LLP ’s Global Grants Program Hanoi, Vietnam 06 February 2007 Presented by: Timothy A. A. Stiles, KPMG LLP ’s Global.
Factors Associated with IT Audits by the Internal Audit Function Discussant Comments October 2, 2009 INFORMATION RISK MANAGEMENT ADVISORY.
Annette Rosta Associate Director Recruiting Diversity & Compliance KPMG Career Center Navigating Career Web Sites February 2012 Annette Rosta Associate.
Trade Compliance Considerations April 13, © 2016 KPMG LLP, a Delaware limited liability partnership and the U.S. member firm of the KPMG network.
Tax Reform Highlights for Higher Education
Rethinking classroom design
Presentation transcript:

Minnesota Taxes in Comparison

© 2011 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, a Swiss entity (“KPMG International”). All rights reserved. KPMG and the KPMG logo are registered trademarks of KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity CHI 1 Notwithstanding anything to the contrary set forth herein, you (and your employees, representatives, or other agents) may disclose to any and all persons, without limitation of any kind, the tax treatment and tax structure of any transaction, and all materials of any kind (including opinions or other tax analyses) that are provided to you by KPMG LLP related to such tax treatment and tax structure, effective immediately upon commencement of discussions with KPMG LLP. The information contained herein is of a general nature and based on authorities that are subject to change. Applicability of the information to specific situations should be determined through consultation with your tax adviser. ANY TAX ADVICE IN THIS COMMUNICATION IS NOT INTENDED OR WRITTEN BY KPMG TO BE USED, AND CANNOT BE USED, BY A CLIENT OR ANY OTHER PERSON OR ENTITY FOR THE PURPOSE OF (I) AVOIDING PENALTIES THAT MAY BE IMPOSED ON ANY TAXPAYER OR (II) PROMOTING, MARKETING, OR RECOMMENDING TO ANOTHER PARTY ANY MATTERS ADDRESSED HEREIN.

© 2011 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, a Swiss entity (“KPMG International”). All rights reserved. KPMG and the KPMG logo are registered trademarks of KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity CHI State –Local Tax Mix: Minnesota v. U.S. 2 Relatively less reliance on property tax 29 percent vs. 33 percent Relatively less reliance on general sales taxes 19 percent vs. 23 percent Relatively greater reliance on personal income taxes 29 percent vs. 21 percent

© 2011 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, a Swiss entity (“KPMG International”). All rights reserved. KPMG and the KPMG logo are registered trademarks of KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity CHI State-Local Tax Mix: Minnesota vs. Great Lake States 3 Relatively less reliance on property taxes 30 percent vs. roughly 40 percent in Illinois, Michigan and Wisconsin; Minnesota has least reliance in the region Relatively less reliance on general sales taxes 19 percent vs. 25 percent in Indiana, Iowa, and Michigan; Wisconsin and Illinois about equal to Minnesota Relatively greater reliance on personal income taxes 29 percent vs. 17 percent in Illinois and Michigan; Minnesota is highest with Indiana, Iowa and Wisconsin at about 25 percent

© 2011 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, a Swiss entity (“KPMG International”). All rights reserved. KPMG and the KPMG logo are registered trademarks of KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity CHI Minnesota vs. U.S. 4 State taxes only – Compared to the U.S. Sales tax reliance – 26 percent vs. 31 percent Personal income tax reliance 40 percent vs. 35 percent Local taxes only – Compared to the U.S. Property tax reliance – 93 percent vs. 74 percent Sales tax reliance – 2 percent vs. 11 percent State taxes only – Compared to the Great Lakes Property taxes – 4 percent; only Michigan also has state property tax General sales tax – 25 percent is lowest in the region; 40 percent in Indiana and Michigan Personal income taxes – 41 percent (highest along with Wisconsin) Local taxes – Compared to the Great Lakes Minnesota is the highest; Illinois, Iowa and Wisconsin share sales

© 2011 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, a Swiss entity (“KPMG International”). All rights reserved. KPMG and the KPMG logo are registered trademarks of KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity CHI Tax Burdens: 1977 – 2009 [Taxes as Percent of Personal Income] 5 State – Local Taxes 1977 – 2002 – Minnesota generally exceeds U.S. average and other states in the region (except Wisconsin) by considerable margin 2005 – 2009 – Minnesota runs steady at about 10.8 percent of personal income; effectively equal to U.S. average and near the middle of Great Lakes States State Taxes Only Minnesota at roughly 8.0 percent of personal income consistently above U.S. average (6.0 percent) and at highest among states in the region

© 2011 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, a Swiss entity (“KPMG International”). All rights reserved. KPMG and the KPMG logo are registered trademarks of KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity CHI Structural Characteristics 6 Corporate Income Tax Tax rate is relatively higher: 9.8 percent vs. 6.0 – 8.0 percent (roughly) Personal Income Tax Tax rate is generally higher 7.5+ percent (equivalent to Wisconsin), compared to flat rates in Indiana and Illinois. Phase-out of exemptions and deductions has substantial effect General Sales Tax Rate is near the upper end of the region Base with food and clothing exempt is relatively more narrow Tax relatively large number of services – most of which are classified as services Likely tax manufacturing equipment and utilities a bit more as well as other business inputs

© 2011 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, a Swiss entity (“KPMG International”). All rights reserved. KPMG and the KPMG logo are registered trademarks of KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity CHI State-Local Tax Mix: Minnesota and U.S. Percentage Distribution of State and Local Taxes Source: Bureau of the Census

© 2011 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, a Swiss entity (“KPMG International”). All rights reserved. KPMG and the KPMG logo are registered trademarks of KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity CHI State – Local Tax Mix: Upper Midwest Percentage Distribution of State and Local Taxes in Selected States – 2009 Source: Bureau of the Census

© 2011 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, a Swiss entity (“KPMG International”). All rights reserved. KPMG and the KPMG logo are registered trademarks of KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity CHI State Tax Mix: U.S. and Minnesota Percentage Distribution of State Taxes Source: Bureau of the Census

© 2011 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, a Swiss entity (“KPMG International”). All rights reserved. KPMG and the KPMG logo are registered trademarks of KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity CHI Local Tax Mix: U.S. and Minnesota Percentage Distribution of Local Taxes – Minnesota Source: Bureau of the Census

© 2011 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, a Swiss entity (“KPMG International”). All rights reserved. KPMG and the KPMG logo are registered trademarks of KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity CHI State Tax Mix: Upper Midwest Percentage Distribution of State Taxes in Selected States – Source: Bureau of the Census

© 2011 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, a Swiss entity (“KPMG International”). All rights reserved. KPMG and the KPMG logo are registered trademarks of KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity CHI State-Local Tax Burden Over Time State-Local Taxes as Percent of Personal Income – Various Years 12 Source: Bureau of the Census

© 2011 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, a Swiss entity (“KPMG International”). All rights reserved. KPMG and the KPMG logo are registered trademarks of KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity CHI State Tax Burden Over Time StateTaxes as Percent of Personal Income – Various Years 13 Source: Bureau of the Census

© 2011 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, a Swiss entity (“KPMG International”). All rights reserved. KPMG and the KPMG logo are registered trademarks of KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity CHI Corporate Income Tax Features 14 MinnesotaIllinoisIndianaIowaMichiganWisconsin Rates 9.8%9.5% 8.5% (8.0% on 7/1/12) %6.0%7.9% Combined Reporting Required Yes No (DoR Authority) NoYes NOL Carryback -0- NOL Carry Forward (Suspende d to 2014) Sales Factor 93% (100% in 2014) 100% Sourcing Services Market COPMarket Source RIA Checkpoint

© 2011 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, a Swiss entity (“KPMG International”). All rights reserved. KPMG and the KPMG logo are registered trademarks of KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity CHI Personal Income Tax Characteristics 15 MinnesotaIllinoisIndianaIowaMichiganWisconsin Rates 5.35% % 5%3.4% 0.36% % (Fed Tax Deduct) 4.35% 4.6%- 7.75% Starting point Federal Taxable Federal AGI Personal Exempt Same as Fed. with addback $2,000 $1,000 / $1,500 (depend. child) $40 Credit$3,700$700 Standard Deduction Same as Fed. with addback N/A $4,460 (MFJ) N/AVariable Source: RIA Checkpoint

© 2011 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, a Swiss entity (“KPMG International”). All rights reserved. KPMG and the KPMG logo are registered trademarks of KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity CHI Sales Tax Characteristics 16 Minnes ota IllinoisIndianaIowaMichiganWisconsin Rate (State) 6.875%6.25%7%6% 5% Food Exempt Yes Taxed at 1% Yes Mfct. M&E Equipment No (Some refunds) Yes Mfct. Utilities Exempt No. of Services Taxed (FTA) Local Sales Taxes 23 entities (1% max) 320 entities (2.75% max) entities (1% max) entities (0.5% max) SST Member YesNoYes

© 2011 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, a Swiss entity (“KPMG International”). All rights reserved. KPMG and the KPMG logo are registered trademarks of KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity CHI 17 Presenter Harley Duncan Washington National Tax Managing Director