Sorry for interrupting, but there is something we need to tell you...

We have updated our Cookie Policy to reflect changes in the law on cookies used on websites in Europe. This website uses cookies to maximize your experience and help us to understand how we can improve it. To find out more click here.

Cookies are text files containing small amounts of data which are downloaded to your computer, or other device, when you visit a website. Cookies allow us to recognize your computer and improve your experience on our website. Some cookies are also necessary for the technical operation of our website. Please read our Cookie Policy which provides important information about the cookies we use, how we use them and how they can be deleted. Please remember that deleting cookies may affect your experience of our website.

Show less.

Accept and hide this message
Pillsbury Pillsbury Pillsbury
Email Page Print Friendly Version Text Size Subscribe
    Best Lawyers Graphic - Vesely 2016


    Jeffrey M. Vesely

    Jeffrey M. Vesely

    T: +1.415.983.1075 F: +1.415.983.1200
    Four Things You Should Know About the Supreme Court’s Decision in Direct Marketing
    Authors: Jeffrey M. Vesely, Kerne H.O. Matsubara, Michael J. Cataldo, Paul T. Casas
    On March 3, 2015, the United States Supreme Court overturned the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision in Direct Marketing Association v. Brohl. The Supreme Court held that the Tax Injunction Act (“TIA”), which bars federal courts from restraining the assessment, levy, or collection of state taxes, did not divest the federal district court of jurisdiction to decide whether Colorado’s use tax reporting provisions violate the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution.
    United States Supreme Court to Review Ruling in Direct Marketing
    Authors: Jeffrey M. Vesely, Michael J. Cataldo, Paul T. Casas
    On July 1, 2014, the United States Supreme Court agreed to review the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Direct Marketing Association v. Brohl.1 The Court of Appeals held that federal courts lack jurisdiction under the Tax Injunction Act (“TIA”) to address Direct Marketing Association’s (“DMA”) challenge to Colorado’s use tax notice and reporting provisions.

    California Tax Board Provides Guidance on the Broadened Definition of ‘Retailer Engaged in Business in This State’
    Authors: Annie H. Huang, Jeffrey M. Vesely, Paul T. Casas
    On May 30, 2012, the State Board of Equalization (“SBE”), approved pro-posed amendments to the California Code of Regulations, Title 18, section 1684 (“Proposed Regulation”). The Proposed Regulation attempts to provide guidance as to the meaning of the broadened statutory definition of “retailers engaged in business in this state.” The statutory definition now includes retailers who are members of “commonly controlled groups,” as well as retailers who enter into agreements with “a person or persons in this state” who meet certain minimum thresholds.
    Tax Provisions of the 2010-2011 California Budget
    Authors: Michael J. Cataldo, Annie H. Huang, Kerne H.O. Matsubara, Jeffrey M. Vesely
    California has enacted a budget for the 2010-2011 fiscal year. The income and franchise tax provisions of the budget provided in Senate Bill ("SB") 858, expected to be signed by the Governor, extend the suspension of net operating loss deductions, relax the 20-percent corporate understatement penalty, and remove recently enacted market-based sourcing rules for taxpayers that do not elect the single sales factor method of apportionment.

    New Jersey Tax Court Decides in Favor of Taxpayer in First Interest Addback Case
    Authors: Jeffrey M. Vesely, Annie H. Huang
    On August 31, 2010, the New Jersey Tax Court issued a memorandum decision in Beneficial New Jersey, Inc. v. Director, Division of Taxation,1 concluding that the taxpayer satisfied one of the enumerated exceptions to the interest addback statute under N.J.S.A. 54:10A-4(k)(2)(I), and was thus entitled to its interest expense deductions.

    Pillsbury Pillsbury Pillsbury