Wednesday, March 30, 2011

REMINDER: Washington Amnesty Deadline Fast Approaching!

As a reminder for taxpayers with outstanding tax liabilities with the state of Washington, the deadline to take advantage of Washington's amnesty program is coming up. 

The amnesty program runs until April 30, 2011; however, taxpayers only have until April 18, 2011 to file an application with the Department and file all outstanding tax returns and any amended returns for which they are requesting waivers.

See my earlier post for more info. 

Also, check out Washington's website for all of the details and application.

Monday, March 28, 2011

Minnesota Adopts Most Federal Changes!

Legislation (HF 79, Chapter 8) enacted on March 21, 2011 adopts all of the federal tax provisions enacted between March 18 and December 31, 2010, that affect federal taxable income for tax year 2010, with the following exception:
  • The 50 percent/100 percent federal bonus depreciation and the increased federal section 179 expensing have been adopted, but these provisions are subject to an addback of 80 percent in the first year and five-year recovery, as under current state law.
What this means for your clients:

  • Individuals: The new law eliminates the need for the 2010 Schedule M1NC, Federal Adjustments. The law also eliminates the need to add back the federal educator expenses and college tuition and fees deductions on line 9 of Schedule M1M, Income Additions and Subtractions, for tax year 2010. Affected taxpayers are not required to file an amended return. For information on what taxpayers need to do and a list of revised forms, see “What’s new for individuals for tax year 2010.”
  • Corporations: The new law eliminates the need for corporations to recompute federal taxable income for Minnesota tax purposes for tax year 2010. The law also eliminates the need to add back the federal enhanced charitable contribution deduction for donated computers or to make adjustments for subpart F income. For information on what taxpayers need to do and a list of revised forms, see “What’s new for corporation franchise tax.”
  • Partnerships, S corporations and fiduciaries: The new law eliminates the need for the entity to recompute the federal return and to pass through the difference for Minnesota tax purposes for tax year 2010. For information on what taxpayers need to do and a list of revised forms, see “What’s new for partnerships for 2010,” and “What’s new for S corporations for 2010.”
What preparers need to do:

Use the most current forms, which are available on Minnesota’s website at http://taxes.state.mn.us/pages/current_forms.aspx

Software developers have been notified of the above changes. Verify that the software you use has been updated. Beginning March 29, 2011, the department will no longer accept any electronically filed Form M1 that reports an amount on Schedule M1M, line 9, and/or with Schedule M1NC.

Legislation repeals refund delays imposed on businesses

The legislation enacted March 21, 2011 (Chapter 8), also repeals the refund delay imposed on businesses by the 2010 legislature. Beginning immediately, the department is releasing $97 million in business tax refunds.

For additional information, see the press release at http://taxes.state.mn.us/publications/Pages/business_tax_refunds_released.aspx

Refunds for e-filed returns

Generally, refunds for electronically filed returns are processed very quickly. However, some returns take longer to process. If your client does not receive their refund or a letter within 45 days after the return is accepted electronically, contact the department.

Friday, March 25, 2011

"Qualified Purchasers" Face April 15th Deadline for Use Tax!

California recently issued a reminder about the April 15th deadline for registering and filing use tax returns if you are a "qualified purchaser."  This requirement began last year.  Check out my post from March 2010 for the background.

Definition of Qualified Purchaser

A qualified purchaser is a business that receives at least $100,000 in gross receipts per year from business operations, is not required to hold a seller's permit with BOE, is not a holder of a use tax direct payment permit, is not required to be registered with the BOE, and is not otherwise registered with the BOE to report use tax.

Required to Pay Use Tax Even if Registration Not Required

Businesses that do not meet the $100,000 gross receipts threshold are still required to report and pay use tax, but are not required to register with the BOE for that purpose. Persons that have multiple businesses with the same ownership must register if the aggregate gross receipts of those businesses meet or exceed the $100,000 threshold.
 
Who Does this Impact?
 
This requirement mostly impacts service providers such as law firms, medical offices, accountants, and other professionals operating in California who have not had any reason in the past to register with the California Board of Equalization for sales or use tax. Despite not being required to register or report, service providers have always had an obligation to file and pay use tax on purchases.
 
Check out California's website for more info.

Wednesday, March 23, 2011

Texas Says: Three-Factor Formula NOT ALLOWED!

Texas issues letter ruling (201007003L) to specifically address and disallow the use of the Multistate Tax Compact three-factor apportionment formula.

According to the letter, for Texas Franchise Tax purposes, only the single-factor apportionment formula based on gross receipts is allowed. 

Taxpayers and accounting firms were attempting to take the position that the provision in Texas Tax Code Chapter 141, related to the Multistate Tax Compact (MTC), allowed taxpayers to elect to use the MTC's three-factor apportionment formula.

If you or your client has used the three-factor formula (property, payroll and sales) in a previously filed return, you may need assistance in resolving the matter.

Monday, March 21, 2011

Ohio's "Use Tax Education Program" in Effect! (Amnesty??)

The Ohio Department of Taxation (DOT) started its "Use Tax Education Program," or UTEP in 2011.  Very simply, the goal of the program is get businesses who are required to pay use tax to Ohio, to do so. 

According to Ohio's website, the Ohio DOT has a goal of contacting and working with an estimated 380,000 small and mid-sized businesses in Ohio with potential use tax liabilities.

UTEP Advantages

Taxpayers who are contacted and take advantage of the UTEP will obtain a "limited look-back period and no penalty."  Initially, businesses that should be registered for use tax but are not will be notified by UTEP that they should register. These businesses will be able to register and begin remitting use tax on future purchases.

UTEP will also allow a business to enter into an agreement to clear up past unpaid use tax liability. In general terms, through UTEP a business will agree to:

  • Register and remit use tax prospectively;
  • And pay use tax plus applicable interest on untaxed purchases for the last four years or less, depending on when the business started.

Note: By law, the business could owe use tax for up to 10 years. The Department’s general practice is to audit for the last seven years.  The Department agrees, in the absence of fraud, to waive the use tax liability for all years beyond the look back period; and the Department agrees not to apply the 15% penalty applicable for the unpaid use tax.

Voluntary Disclosure Agreement Program (VDA)

According to the Ohio DOT, the Department will accept a request for a voluntary disclosure agreement prior to the contact through UTEP. 

Under the regular Ohio VDA program, a taxpayer could limit the look-back period to only three years instead of four years under UTEP.

Once the Department has contacted a business through UTEP, the business will be required to conduct an agreement under the terms allowed by UTEP.

Friday, March 18, 2011

South Dakota Imposes Notification Requirements on Out of State Companies!

On March 11, 2011, the Governor of South Dakota followed in Colorado's and Oklahoma's footsteps by signing legislation (SB 146) imposing notice requirements for retailers that DO NOT HAVE NEXUS in South Dakota which are selling tangible personal property, services, or products transferred electronically for use in South Dakota.

De Minimis Retailers Exempt

According to the legislation, "de minimis retailers" are exempt from the notice requirements.  A "de minimis retailer" is any noncollecting retailer that made total gross sales in South Dakota in the prior calendar year of less than one hundred thousand dollars and reasonably expects South Dakota sales in the current calendar year will be less than one hundred thousand dollars;

What is a "Noncollecting Retailer"?

A "noncollecting retailer" is any retailer, not currently registered to collect and remit South Dakota sales and use tax, who makes sales of tangible personal property, services, and products transferred electronically from a place of business outside of South Dakota to be shipped to South Dakota for use, storage, or consumption and who is not required to collect South Dakota sales or use taxes;

"South Dakota Purchaser"A "South Dakota purchaser" is any purchaser that purchases tangible personal property, services, or products transferred electronically to be shipped or transferred to South Dakota.
 
Notice Requirements
 
According to the legislation, each noncollecting retailer shall give notice that South Dakota use tax is due on nonexempt purchases of tangible personal property, services, or products transferred electronically and shall be paid by the South Dakota purchaser. The notice shall be readily visible and contain the information as follows:
  1. The noncollecting retailer is not required, and does not collect South Dakota sales or use tax;
  2. The purchase is subject to state use tax unless it is specifically exempt from taxation;
  3. The purchase is not exempt merely because the purchase is made over the Internet, by catalog, or by other remote means;
  4. The state requires each South Dakota purchaser to report any purchase that was not taxed and pay tax on the purchase. The tax may be reported and paid on the South Dakota use tax form; and
  5. The use tax form and corresponding instructions are available on the South Dakota Department of Revenue and Regulation website.
Notice On A Website

The notice requirement on a website shall occur on a page necessary to facilitate the applicable transaction. The notice shall be sufficient if the noncollecting retailer provides a prominent linking notice that reads as follows: "See important South Dakota sales and use tax information regarding the tax you may owe directly to the state of South Dakota." The prominent linking notice shall direct the purchaser to the principal notice information required.

Notice in a Catalog

The notice requirement in a catalog shall be part of the order form. The notice shall be sufficient if the noncollecting retailer provides a prominent reference to a supplemental page that reads as follows: "See important South Dakota sales and use tax information regarding the tax you may owe directly to the state of South Dakota on page __." The notice on the order form shall direct the purchaser to the page that includes the principal notice required.

For any catalog or phone purchases, the complete notice shall be placed on the purchase order, bill, receipt, sales slip, order form, or packing statement.

Notice on Internet Purchases

For any internet purchase, the invoice notice shall occur on the electronic order confirmation. The notice shall be sufficient if the noncollecting retailer provides a prominent linking notice that reads as follows: "See important South Dakota sales and use tax information regarding the tax you may owe directly to the state of South Dakota." The invoice notice link shall direct the purchaser to the principal notice required. 

If the noncollecting retailer does not issue an electronic order confirmation, the complete notice shall be placed on the purchase order, bill, receipt, sales slip, order form, or packing statement.

For any internet purchases, notice on the check-out page fulfills both the website and invoice notice requirements simultaneously, the notice shall be sufficient if the noncollecting retailer provides a prominent linking notice that reads as follows: "See important South Dakota sales and use tax information regarding the tax you may owe directly to the state of South Dakota." The check-out page notice link shall direct the purchaser to the principal notice required.

Combining Notice Requirements with Other States Requirements

If a retailer is required to provide a similar notice for another state in addition to South Dakota, the retailer may provide a consolidated notice so long as the notice includes the information required by South Dakota, specifically references South Dakota, and meets the placement requirements.

Summary

These notice requirements take effect July 1, 2011.  Note:  Colorado's notification requirements are currently "on-hold" due to a preliminary injunction.  Yet, that didn't stop South Dakota from passing this legislation.  Hmmmm???

Wednesday, March 16, 2011

Amazon.com Legislation: And the Winner Is????

Since February 1, 2011, Amazon.com nexus or "click-through" nexus legislation has spread like an epidemic across the country.  Amazon.com has become the target for almost all states to help close the budget gaps. 

As I stated on Monday, Illinois is the recent state to enact it, joining the ranks of New York, North Carolina and Rhode Island.

South Dakota just enacted two bills:  (1) remote seller notice requirements and (2) affiliate nexus requirements.  I will provide details later.

Currently, Texas, California, Maine, Massachusetts, Tennessee, Minnesota, Arkansas, Hawaii, and Vermont have either proposed Amazon.com nexus legislation or some other type of remote seller notification or affiliate nexus legislation. 

I expect this trend to continue.  The target:  Amazon.  The fallout:  small business affiliates and customers.  The Winner:  ??????

Will the states actually collect more sales tax?  Will the states' laws actually meet the constitutional "substantial nexus" standard?  Should Amazon just collect the sales tax?  Should the states back-off?  Is there any additional planning that can be done to stop this legislation from spreading?  Will the federal government step in?  Should sales tax be collected on any online sales?  Does it really hurt "brick and mortar" retailers? 

Monday, March 14, 2011

Amazon Drops Illinois Affiliates!

In response to the passage of the Amazon.com nexus law or click-through nexus law in Illinois last week, Amazon.com has dropped its Illinois affiliates.

For all of the details, check out the article by AccountingToday.

Illinois Governor Signs Amazon.com Nexus Bill Into Law!

On March 10, 2011, the Governor of Illinois approved P.A. 96-1544 which enacts a click-through use tax nexus law or Amazon.com nexus law similar to New York, North Carolina and Rhode Island.

Retailer Use Tax

According to the bill, beginning July 1, 2011, a retailer will be considered a "retailer maintaining a place of business" in Illinois under either of the following:
  1. a retailer having a contract with a person located in Illinois under which the person, for a commission or other consideration based upon the sale of tangible personal property by the retailer, directly or indirectly refers potential customers to the retailer by a link on the person's Internet website; OR
  2. a retailer having a contract with a person located in Illinois under which the retailer sells the same or substantially similar line of products as the person located in Illinois and does so using an identical or substantially similar name, trade name, or trademark as the person located in Illinois; and the retailer provides a commission or other consideration to the person located in Illinois based upon the sale of tangible personal property by the retailer.
For either of these nexus provision to apply, the cumulative gross receipts from sales of tangible personal property by the retailer to customers who are referred to the retailer by all persons in Illinois under such contracts exceed $10,000 during the preceding 4 quarterly periods ending on the last day of March, June, September, and December.

Serviceman Use Tax

Beginning July 1, 2011, a serviceman is considered "a serviceman maintaining a place of business" in Illinois for service use tax purposes if:
  1. the serviceman has a contract with a person located in Illinois under which the person, for a commission or other consideration based on the sale of service by the serviceman, directly or indirectly refers potential customers to the serviceman by a link on the person's Internet website; OR
  2. the serviceman has a contract with a person located in Illinois under which the serviceman sells the same or substantially similar line of services as the person located in Illinois and does so using an identical or substantially similar name, trade name, or trademark as the person located in Illinois; and the serviceman provides a commission or other consideration to the person located in Illinois based upon the sale of services by the serviceman.
For either of these nexus provisions apply, the cumulative gross receipts from sales of service by the serviceman to customers who are referred to the serviceman by all persons in Illinois under such contracts exceed $10,000 during the preceding 4 quarterly periods ending on the last day of March, June, September, and December.

Friday, March 11, 2011

Website Access Fees and Ad Revenue: Sourcing and Servers???

A recent Texas letter ruling talks about how to source revenues from website access fees, and fees received from companies paying to advertise on the taxpayer's website.  The ruling addresses sourcing of the revenues for purposes of the Texas Margin Tax (Franchise Tax).

THE FACTS

The letter ruling (201102989L) addresses the sourcing issue for a taxpayer that operates an internally-developed, Internet, social-networking website.  The company has two principal streams of revenue: website access fees (generally paid by each user on a monthly basis) and online advertising revenue.

Internet users are able to access the company's website from any computer in the world. The Company's website is hosted on computer servers located in two different states.  The servers in both states are simultaneously online, mirror each other and contain copies of the Company's website.

Users of the Company's website do not know which server facility they are connecting through when they access the website. The Company's servers dynamically balance the number of connections to each server facility so that at any given time fifty percent of users are connected to the servers in one state and fifty percent are connected to the servers in the other state.  When the server facilities are both working at optimal levels. Each server facility is designed with redundancy in mind to take greater or lesser volume as necessary.

Upon connection to the Company's website, all users are directed to a registration page to register. Registered users can utilize the basic functionality of the Company's website for no charge (a free account).

The free account grants a user limited access to the website’s content. In order to gain additional access to the website, a registered user is required to establish a fee-based account. The fee-based account provides a user with full access to the website. Full access allows a user to (1) search the website’s database, (2) publish information, (3) communicate with other users, and (4) utilize and interact with the website’s programs. Fee-based users generally pay a flat fee on a monthly basis. This represents approximately ninety-five percent of the Company's annual revenue.

The Company also generates click-through revenue from third-party advertisers whose online advertisements are hosted on the computer servers located in both states.

ACCESS FEES

In regards to the access fees, the ruling states that the membership fee is paid by the website users for access to the benefits the website provides. The gross receipts are based, not on usage of the website or solely being able to enter the website, but on access to specific benefits, much like any other membership.

Franchise tax rule 3.591(e)(17), Margin: Apportionment, states:  “Membership or enrollment fees paid for access to benefits should be considered gross receipts from the sale of an intangible asset and are apportioned to the legal domicile of the payor.”

The gross receipts from the membership fees paid for website access to benefits are, therefore, sourced to the location of payor.

ONLINE CLICK-THROUGH ADVERTISING FEES

In regards to the advertising fees, the ruling states receipts from online click-through advertising are treated as commissions.  Commissions are treated as revenue from the performance of a service.

Franchise tax rule 3.591(e)(26) provides that “Receipts from a service are apportioned to the location where the service is performed. If services are performed both inside and outside Texas, then such receipts are Texas receipts on the basis of the fair value of the services that are rendered in Texas.” Gross receipts from click-through advertising are apportioned to the location of service, which is the location of “the server that provides the link to the customer to purchase the item from the seller,” from STAR letter 200305904L.

Since the Company's servers are located in two states and the servers balance the number of connections between them, fifty percent of the click-through advertising revenue is apportioned to each state.

SUMMARY

In this era where online commerce and social media websites are commonplace, companies need to know how to source revenue related to website access fees and ad revenue.  For Texas purposes, a company needs to know the location of each payor and the location of its servers. 

If you would like assistance in determining how to source your revenue in Texas or any other state, please contact me.

Wednesday, March 9, 2011

BEWARE: California's New "Doing Business" Standards In Effect!

California has adopted a new "doing business" standard beginning 1/1/2011 which will impact taxpayers, including corporations, pass-through entities and their owners.  Owners of pass-through entities that did not have nexus before, may have nexus starting in 2011.  Companies that are protected by P.L. 86-272, may be liable for the minimum tax. 

New Law

For taxable years beginning on or after 1/1/2011, a taxpayer is doing business in California if it actively engages in any transaction for the purpose of financial or pecuniary gain or profit in California or if any of the following conditions are satisfied:

  • The taxpayer is organized or commercially domiciled in California.
  • Sales, as defined in subdivision (e) or (f) of R&TC 25120, of the taxpayer in California, including sales by the taxpayer’s agents and independent contractors, exceed the lesser of $500,000 or 25 percent of the taxpayer's total sales. For purposes of R&TC Section 23101, sales in this state shall be determined using the rules for assigning sales under R&TC 25135, R&TC 25136(b) and the regulations thereunder, as modified by regulations under Section 25137.
  • Real and tangible personal property of the taxpayer in California exceed the lesser of $50,000 or 25 percent of the taxpayer's total real and tangible personal property.
  • The amount paid in California by the taxpayer for compensation, as defined in subdivision (c) of R&TC 25120, exceeds the lesser of $50,000 or 25 percent of the total compensation paid by the taxpayer.
For the conditions above, the sales, property, and payroll of the taxpayer include the taxpayer's pro rata or distributive share of pass-through entities. "Pass-through entities" means a partnership, an LLC treated as a partnership, or an "S" corporation.

Who does the new law affect?

The new law affects out-of-state corporations and pass-through entities (partnerships, S corporations, LLCs treated as partnership) and their partners/shareholders/members that have property, payroll or sales in this state. Currently, they may not be considered to be doing business in this state, but may be considered doing business starting in tax year 2011 if they meet any of the thresholds listed above.

An out-of-state taxpayer that has less than the threshold amounts of property, payroll and sales in California may still be considered doing business in this state if the taxpayer actively engages in any transaction for the purpose of financial or pecuniary gain or profit in California.

In determining their property, payroll and sales in this state, the taxpayer must also include their pro rata share of amounts from partnerships, LLCs (treated as partnership) and S corporations. Partnerships and LLCs are considered doing business in this state if it has general partners or members in this state. Likewise, partners and members are considered doing business in this state if the partnership or LLC is doing business in this state.

BOTTOM LINE

More companies, pass-through entities, and owners of pass-through entities will have nexus and filing obligations in California.  Even if the taxpayer is protected by P.L. 86-272, the taxpayer may still owe California's minimum tax.  Also, owners of multiple pass-through entities will have to combine their prorata share of each pass-through entity's property, payroll and sales.  Therefore, more owners may exceed the filing threshold and have filing obligations.

California's site provides more information and examples regarding how the nexus thresholds can be exceeded and how these new rules impact owners of pass-through entities.

General Information on New Rules for Doing Business in California.

Monday, March 7, 2011

Texas Says Certain Litigation Support Services Are Taxable

A recent Texas Comptroller Decision (103099) has held that charges for document coding, eDiscovery, web hosting, and image services (e.g., file conversion, creating CDs, and electronic numbering) are data processing services and subject to sales tax.

FACTS

The taxpayer in the case was headquartered in Arizona and operated a litigation support and technology office in Texas.  Among other things, the taxpayer provided customers such as law firms, corporations, and government agencies with secure repository hosting services. The web hosting services gave customers a convenient way to securely access, share, and manage documents and information online. 

The taxpayer was to handle document management and discovery processes for the litigation. It was to create and manage a depository and online website to manage documents and e-mails submitted during the investigation and discovery process. The document depository established a uniform method of identifying and producing documents for use in all company related proceedings, which minimized duplication efforts and ensured the continued existence of the data and documents.The depository was physically located in Texas.

The taxpayer's pricing schedule detailed specific charges for services such as document preparation, scanning, production services, coding, eDiscovery, data integration, copying, and trial services. The rates for each service was either on a per page, per item, or per hour basis. 

Litigation parties provided hard copy documents, and electronic documents stored on CDs and DVDs.

The taxpayer entered information about each document into a litigation support program that enabled parties to search documents by the Bates number, author, recipient, document title, date, etc. In addition to the coding, the taxpayer provided eDiscovery services in which it did file conversions, meta-data capture, and full text extraction. The taxpayer created indices that listed every document housed at the depository, and included information regarding documents being withheld for privileges.

Prior to the audit at issue, the taxpayer did not consider its sales transactions taxable unless a tangible item was transferred to its customer.

After allowing a 20% statutory exemption, the Comptroller’s auditor scheduled charges for document coding, eDiscovery, image servicing, web hosting, reprographics, web repository, and trial services as taxable data processing services.

The taxpayer concedes that some elements of data processing are present in its services, and it does not contest some of the data processing assessments in the audit. For example, the taxpayer concedes charges for certain image and reprographics services are appropriately scheduled at 80% taxable (e.g., Bates labeling and document preparation).

LAW

TEX. TAX CODE Section 151.0101 defines taxable services to include data processing services, which are defined at TEX. TAX CODE Section 151.0035 to include: word processing, data entry, data retrieval, data search, information compilation, payroll and business accounting data production, and computerized data and information storage or manipulation.

Data processing services include the processing of information for the purpose of compiling and producing records of transactions, maintaining information, and entering and retrieving information. See 34 TEX. ADMIN. CODE Section 3.330(a)(1).

A seller of data processing services is required to collect sales tax on the total charge for data processing services or accept a properly completed resale, exemption, or direct pay permit certificate. See 34 TEX. ADMIN. CODE Section 3.330(b)(1).

CONCLUSION

If your company is a litigation support firm or other firm that performs activities in Texas that may be considered "data processing services," then you will want to review how you are currently treating them and take corrective action if necessary.  For assistance in conducting this review, please contact me.

Thursday, March 3, 2011

Amazon's State Tax Planning: Follow-Up Commentary

In a recent post, I asked whether Amazon's state tax planning was aggressive or tax avoidance or tax evasion.  In all honesty, without knowing all of the details, I can't tell you what category their tax planning falls into.  However, I would gather to say that their state tax planning is probably not tax avoidance or tax evasion.  It is most likely just utilizing the state tax laws to their benefit.  Not illegal, not evasion. 

With that said, when I first read the articles in the media about Amazon's fights in Texas and their decision to relocate their distribution center, etc.  I thought - are we in the 1990s?  The 1990s were the "hay day" of state and local tax.  Restructuring, isolation of activities in different entities, etc. were utilized by taxpayers all across the country to minimize state and local taxes.  In most cases, it was legal and acceptable under state tax law to establish these entities and restructure in a way to minimize your tax.

However, at the end of the 1990s, the states began to attack these "restructurings" or structures by applying economic substance and business purpose doctrines, requiring or adopting combined reporting, or enacting new laws that required companies to eliminate inter-company transactions. 

Today, companies still create "special purpose" entities such as purchasing companies, sales companies, distribution companies, etc. similar to what Amazon has appeared to create (as I do not know for sure what the facts are in Amazon's case).  However, it has become more difficult to obtain the state tax benefits that these "special purpose" entities may provide.  Therefore, it is not a surprise to me that Amazon is being attacked in Texas. 

Summary

Whether right or wrong, the states and the media appear to be attacking Amazon and using them as a "punching bag" or "guinea pig" to attempt to impose sales tax collection responsibilities on Internet retailers.  Will Amazon or the states win?  Will laws change?

Stay tuned.

Wednesday, March 2, 2011

Minnesota Budget Improves?? Governor Dayton Removes Surcharge!

Minnesota's budget improved (a little), therefore, Governor Mark Dayton decided to remove the surcharge from his original budget proposal.

In addition, the Governor has asked the Legislature to repeal the delay of paying refunds to corporations.