|
TAX EXAMPLE |
ISSUE |
|
SOLUTION |
|
Accounting Systems

The capabilities
of tax accounting systems used by construction management firms,
general contractors, or large subcontractors to handle project
requirements may be limited. |
Client A had sustained multiple changes in
sales/use tax accounting for a $50 MM project. The systems had lost
the ability to track and secure an expected refund of
$325 M.
Client B had undergone explosive growth in
its business. The tax accounting systems were inadequate to record,
bill, and recover sales/use tax payments. |
|
CRW downloaded 22,000 transactions subject
to tax, analyzed the data, restated the tax accounting for the
project, identified additional exemptions and applied for refunds of
$1.2 MM. Client A received refunds totaling $950 M
.
CRW loaded all material taxable
transactions into a database, restated the tax accounting for 4
projects exceeding $75MM, and provided reports which facilitated the
recovery of more than $500 M in taxes.
|
|
Manufacturing Operations

Manufacturing
operations are complex. Sales/Use tax laws and regulations are also
complex. The compounded complexity creates tax payment errors,
particularly for clients with multi-state operations. |
Client C had similar operations in 5
states, with most of the plants being sited in North Carolina. A
plant in Georgia had undergone expansion projects of more than $110
MM. The client felt that there were potential tax recoveries of $80
to $100 M.
The client engaged CRW to evaluate and pursue cost recovery options. |
|
CRW evaluated the capital spending and
operations costs which had occured at the plant within the statute
of limitations.
Several categories of operations purchases were found to be exempt
in Georgia despite being specifically taxable in North Carolina.
CRW submitted a refund claim, resulting in recovery of more than
$365 M for the client. |
|
Equipment Exemptions

Most states
exempt manufacturing equipment, yet there is a body of law and
regulation in each state that limits the exemptions, usually to
equipment "used directly" in manufacturing. |
Manufacturer D had applied for exemptions
for all of the major systems in its new $100 MM facility. The state
Department of Revenue ruled several of the systems to be taxable on
the basis that the equipment was not used directly in manufacturing.
The capital projects auditor researched the tax issue further. |
|
The case law, regulations, and available
rulings related to the type of manufacturing were reviewed.
The specifications, functionality, and location of the equipment
were reviewed.
The auditor found previously undiscovered exemptions and revised
applications for existing ones. A revised application for exemption
was submitted and approved, savings more than $1.1 MM
|
|
Construction Contracts

Were there
avoidable buried taxes in your construction contracts? |
Manufacturer E had secured exemptions for
all of the major systems and equipment for its new $85 MM facility.
The manufacturing process equipment that "E" purchased directly was
exempted. However, contractors were supplying additional exempt
equipment and systems for which no tax planning had been performed.
Contractors had paid the taxes and buried them in the lump sum price
of the construction contracts. |
|
Working with the owner, general
contractor, and mechanical, electrical, and HVAC subcontractors, CRW
was able to secure refunds of $172 M. Substantial refunds are
available on nearly every sizable manufacturing project and on some
building projects in states which allow refunds of building
materials used in government projects. |
|
Design Changes

Design changes
can produce increased exemptions, IF THERE IS SOMEONE TO
RECOGNIZE THEM!Process changes can also change taxability. |
Manufacturer F was a heavy user of river
process water. Incoming water supply piping was determined to be
taxable up to the initial point of treatment. An engineering change
subsequently was approved which moved the injection of treatment
chemicals 1 mile closer to the river. |
|
The project auditor noted the change a
successfully pursued a refund claim of approximately $12,000. |