NYC Tax Law Library: A Community Resource

Kalish Law LLC has compiled the NYC Tax Law Library as a complimentary public service for the benefit of the legal and tax community. This resource is a curated compilation of links to publicly available materials, including statutes, regulations, and recent tribunal decisions, organized to facilitate easier access for practitioners, advisors, and taxpayers.

Help Us Keep This Resource Current

We rely on the collaboration of the tax community to maintain the integrity and accuracy of this library. If you have suggestions for improvements, notice a broken link, or identify a more recent version of a document, please email us at jarrett@kalishtaxlaw.com. Your feedback is essential to keeping this resource as helpful and accurate as possible for all users.

Corporation Taxes

  • Overview, forms and instructions (Banking Corporation Tax)

  • Overview, forms and instructions (Business Corporation Tax)

  • Overview, forms and instructions (General Corporation Tax)

  • Statutes (Banking, Business, and General Corporation Tax)

  • Regulations (Banking Corporation Tax)

  • Proposed Regulations (Business Corporation Tax)

  • Regulations (General Corporation Tax)

  • Statements of Audit Procedures (Banking Corporation Tax)

  • Statements of Audit Procedures (General Corporation Tax)

  • Redacted Letter Rulings (Banking Corporation Tax)

  • Redacted Letter Rulings (General Corporation Tax)

  • Recent Tribunal Decisions (Banking and General Corporation Tax):

    The “Recent Tribunal Decisions” section of the NYC Tax Law Library solely contains recent published decisions from the Appeals Division of the NYC Tax Appeals Tribunal. The NYC Tax Law Library does not contain any such decisions from prior to 2003 and does not contain any determinations from the ALJ Division of the NYC Tax Appeals Tribunal. The NYC Tax Law Library also does not contain any NYS Court Decisions, even in instances where Appeals Division decisions that are included in the library were the subject of further appellate review in the New York State courts. The summaries of the decisions included below are the same as those that are publicly provided by the NYC Tax Appeals Tribunal and are not the work product of Kalish Law LLC.

    GOLDMAN SACHS PETERSHILL FUND OFFSHORE HOLDINGS (DELAWARE) CORP. TAT(E)16-9(GC) - DECISION (March 12, 2021)

    UNDER GCT RULES 19 RCNY §11- 06(a) PETITIONER, A NON-DOMICILLIARY CORPORATION, HAD NEXUS TO THE CITY BY REASON OF ITS OWNERSHIP OF AN INTEREST IN AN LLC WHICH PERFORMED 100% OF ITS BUSINESS ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE CITY AND WAS TAXED AS A PARTNERSHIP FOR PURPOSES OF BOTH THE FEDERAL INCOME TAX AND THE GCT; PETITIONER WAS TAXABLE ON BOTH ITS SHARE OF THE PARTNERSHIP'S INCOME AND THE CAPITAL GAIN, THE VALUE OF WHICH WAS DERIVED ENTIRELY FROM THE PARTNERSHIP'S ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE CITY AND WHICH WAS ENTIRELY ALLOCABLE TO THE CITY, CONSISTENT WITH THE DUE PROCESS AND THE COMMERCE CLAUSES OF THE U.S CONSTITUTION.

    ARK RESTAURANTS CORP. TAT(E)16-18(GC) (March 21, 2019)

    THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY DETERMINATION WAS PROPERLY GRANTED BY THE CALJ. PETITIONER NEVER ASSERTED ALL OF THE FACTUAL ELEMENTS NECESSARY TO SUPPORT A CLAIM OF UNLAWFUL SELECTIVE ENFORCEMENT AND OFFERED NO EVIDENTIARY SUPPORT FOR ITS CLAIM, AND THERE ARE NO TRIABLE ISSUES OF FACT IN THIS CASE. IN DETERMINING ITS ENTIRE NET INCOME FOR GCT PURPOSES, PETITIONER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO A DEDUCTION FOR EXCESS FICA TAXES PAID FOR EACH OF THE TAX YEARS BECAUSE IT CLAIMED A CREDIT FOR EXCESS FICA TAXES PAID FOR FEDERAL PURPOSES UNDER IRC §45B FOR EACH OF THE TAX YEARS.

    GERSON LEHRMAN GROUP, INC. TAT(E)08-79(GC) (December 28, 2017)

    PETITIONER'S RECEIPTS REPRESENT A FLAT PAYMENT FOR A SUBSCRIPTION SERVICE THAT IS THE PRODUCT OF THE EFFORTS OF PETITIONER'S EMPLOYEES (INCLUDING ITS SALESPEOPLE) AS WELL AS INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS. HAVING FOUND THAT THE METHODOLOGIES FOR CALCULATING PETITIONER'S RECEIPTS FACTOR, ADVANCED BY RESPONDENT AND PETITIONER, AS WELL AS THE METHODOLOGY ADOPTED BY THE ALJ, TO BE INCORRECT, THE TRIBUNAL CALCULATED A RECEIPTS FACTOR FOR EACH OF THE TAX YEARS. THE MATTER IS REMANDED TO THE ALJ DIVISION FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS FOR THE PURPOSE OF CALCULATING PETITIONER'S GCT LIABILITY FOR THE TAX YEARS USING THE RECALCULATED RECEIPTS FACTOR TO DETERMINE ANY DEFICIENCIES OR OVERPAYMENTS.

    1018 MORRIS PARK AVENUE REALTY INC. TAT(E)14-4(GC) (August 7, 2017)

    THE NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE CORRECTLY ASSERTED A GCT DEFICIENCY BASED ON PETITIONER'S FAILURE TO INCLUDE THE ENTIRE GAIN FROM PETITIONER'S INSTALLMENT SALE OF PROPERTY IN NOVEMBER 2009 IN ITS GCT RETURN FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING . PETITIONER FILED A GCT RETURN FOR THE YEAR ENDING  INDICATING THAT IT HAD CEASED OPERATIONS AND THAT IT WAS A FINAL RETURN AND FAILED TO ESTABLISH THAT IT WAS DOING BUSINESS IN NEW YORK CITY AFTER .

    PLASMANET, INC. TAT(E)12-17(GC) (January 20, 2017)

    UNDER ADMINISTRATIVE CODE § 11-602.8(f), THE NET OPERATING LOSS DEDUCTION ALLOWED FOR GCT PURPOSES IS THE SAME AS THE FEDERAL NET OPERATING LOSS DEDUCTION ALLOWED UNDER IRC § 172, WITH CERTAIN ADJUSTMENTS. THE "SAME SOURCE YEAR RULE" APPLIES IN THIS CASE AND REQUIRES THAT THE NET OPERATING LOSSES COMPRISING PETITIONER'S NET OPERATING LOSS DEDUCTION FOR GCT PURPOSES FOR 2008 AND 2009 MUST HAVE ARISEN IN THE SAME TAX YEARS AS THE LOSSES COMPRISING THE FEDERAL NET OPERATING LOSS DEDUCTIONS FOR 2008 AND 2009. IN ADDITION, PETITIONER'S CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTIONS IN THE YEARS 2006 THROUGH 2009 MUST BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN CALCULATING THE AMOUNT OF NET OPERATING LOSS CARRYOVERS FOR FEDERAL INCOME TAX AND GCT PURPOSES.

    AETNA, INC. TAT(E)12-3(GC) AND TAT(E)12-4(GC) (June 3, 2016)

    PETITIONER, A HOLDING COMPANY, IS REQUIRED TO INCLUDE ITS SUBSIDIARIES THAT ARE HEALTH MAINTENANCE ORGANIZATIONS (HMOs) IN ITS COMBINED GCT RETURNS FOR THE TAX YEARS. SUCH HMOs, THEREFORE, ARE NOT "INSURANCE CORPORATIONS" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE GCT ENABLING LEGISLATION AND ARE NOT EXEMPT FROM THE GCT. PETITIONER'S REFUND CLAIMS WERE DENIED.

    ASTORIA FINANCIAL CORPORATION & AFFILIATES TAT(E)10-35(BT)ET AL. (May 19, 2016)

    PETITIONER DID NOT HAVE TO INCLUDE FIDATA SERVICE CORP. (FIDATA) A CONNECTICUT PASSIVE INVESTMENT COMPANY IN ITS COMBINED NEW YORK CITY BANKING CORPORATION TAX RETURN FOR EACH OF THE TAX YEARS ENDING,  AND . PETITIONER REBUTTED THE PRESUMPTION OF DISTORTION BY ESTABLISHING THAT PRICES PAID BY FIDATA IN THE INTERCORPORATE TRANSACTIONS BETWEEN FIDATA AND PETITIONER WERE ARM'S LENGTH PRICES. IN ADDITION, THE RECORD DOES NOT SUPPORT A FINDING THAT THERE WAS "ANY AGREEMENT, UNDERSTANDING OR ARRANGEMENT" BETWEEN FIDATA AND PETITIONER THAT RESULTED IN THE IMPROPER REFLECTION OF THE "ACTIVITY, BUSINESS, INCOME OR ASSETS OF" PETITIONER REQIURING THE INCLUSION OF FIDATA IN THE COMBINED RETURNS UNDER NEW YORK CITY ADMINISTRATIVE CODE § 11-646(g).

    THE MCGRAW-HILL COMPANIES, INC. TAT (E)10-19 (GC) ET AL. (October 28, 2015)

    THE NYC DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE DID NOT VIOLATE PETITIONER'S FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS IN DISALLOWING PETITIONER'S USE OF AN AUDIENCE METHOD TO ALLOCATE ITS RECEIPTS FROM GENERATING CREDIT RATINGS. PETITIONER ALSO DID NOT ESTABLISH THAT ITS RECEIPTS FROM GENERATING CREDIT RATINGS SHOULD BE ALLOCATED AS "OTHER BUSINESS RECEIPTS" UNDER ADMINISTRATIVE CODE §11-604.3(a)(2)(D). FINALLY, PETITIONER DID NOT PROVE THAT THE TRIBUNAL SHOULD EXERCISE THE COMMISSIONER'S DISCRETION UNDER ADMINISTRATIVE CODE §11-604.9 TO PERMIT IT TO USE THE LOCATION OF VISITORS TO ITS FREE WEBSITE TO ALLOCATE PETITIONER'S RECEIPTS FROM GENERATING CREDIT RATINGS.\

    BANKERS TRUST CORPORATION TAT (E) 04-36 (BT) (April 8, 2010)

    PETITIONERS DID NOT PROVE THAT BANKERS TRUST COMPANY WAS THE ACTUAL BENEFICIAL OWNER OF THE VOTING STOCK OF TWO INDIRECT SUBSIDIARIES DURING THE TAX YEARS FOR PURPOSES OF THE NEW YORK CITY BANKING CORPORATION TAX AND, THUS, PETITIONERS WERE NOT ENTITLED TO A DEDUCTION FOR 17% OF THE INTEREST INCOME PAID BY THE TWO INDIRECT SUBSIDIARIES TO BANKERS TRUST COMPANY IN THE TAX YEARS.

    AMERICAN BANKNOTE CORPORATION TAT (E) 03-31 (GC) (November 14, 2008)

    PETITIONERS (THE "HOLDING COMPANIES" AND THE "OPERATING COMPANIES") SHOULD HAVE BEEN PERMITTED TO FILE A COMBINED GCT RETURN FOR THE TAX YEARS. THE MERGER WAS ESSENTIAL TO THE FUTURE OF THE BUSINESS AND RESULTED IN SUBSTANTIAL ECONOMIES OF SCALE FOR ALL PARTICIPANTS. ON THIS RECORD, THE CORPORATE STRUCTURE AND THE REPLACEMENT OF PRE-MERGER DEBT, BOTH REQUIRED BY A THIRD PARTY LENDER, SUPPORT THE FINDINGS THAT THE HOLDING COMPANIES WERE PART OF THE UNITARY BUSINESS CONDUCTED BY THE OPERATING COMPANIES AND SEPARATE GCT FILING WOULD RESULT IN A DISTORTION.

    NATIONAL BULK CARRIERS, INC. AND AFFILIATES TAT (E) 04-33 (GC) (November 30, 2007)

    UNDER THE CAPITAL METHOD OF COMPUTING ITS GCT LIABILITY, PETITIONER SHOULD INCLUDE IN ITS BUSINESS CAPITAL A RATABLE PORTION OF THE REAL PROPERTY OWNED BY PARTNERSHIPS IN WHICH PETITIONER OWNED INTERESTS. THAT PORTION OF PETITIONER'S BUSINESS CAPITAL SHOULD BE VALUED USING THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF PETITIONER'S RATABLE SHARE OF THE PARTNERSHIPS' REAL PROPERTY.

    CREDIT INDUSTRIEL ET COMMERCIAL TAT (E) 02-19 (BT) (June 30, 2006)

    IN COMPUTING ITS BANK TAX LIABILITY FOR THE TAX YEAR 1994, PETITIONER ELECTED TO USE THE FORMULA ALLOCATION MODIFICATION WITH RESPECT TO THE INTERNATIONAL BANKING FACILITY ("IBF") ESTABLISHED BY PETITIONER'S BRANCH IN NEW YORK CITY. THUS, PETITIONER INCLUDED IN ITS ENTIRE NET INCOME THE INCOME OR LOSS OF THE IBF BUT TREATED CERTAIN PAYROLL, RECEIPTS AND DEPOSITS AS DERIVED FROM OUTSIDE NEW YORK CITY FOR PURPOSES OF CALCULATING THE ALLOCATION FACTORS. PETITIONER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO EXCLUDE FROM THE NUMERATOR OF ITS DEPOSITS FACTOR ALL OF THE DEPOSITS INCLUDED ON THE BOOKS OF THE IBF BECAUSE CERTAIN DEPOSITS FROM FOREIGN PERSONS RECORDED IN THE ACCOUNTS OF THE IBF WERE NOT PROPERLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE PRODUCTION OF ELIGIBLE GROSS INCOME.