October 19, 2014

Bank Holding Companies, It Is Time To Update Your Tax Sharing Agreements

It is time to update tax allocation agreements between bank holding companies and affiliated entities, say the federal regulators.  According to guidance issued this summer, examiners will be looking for updated tax allocation agreements beginning this fall. 
photo by Phillip via on flickr/Foter
Bank holding companies usually own all of the outstanding stock of their depository institutions, which means that the holding companies and their banks are deemed to be "affiliated groups" within the meaning of Section 1504 of the Internal Revenue Code. Accordingly, they often choose to file consolidated federal income tax returns, and in some states, they are required to file consolidated state income tax returns. To address the allocation of the tax liability and the timing of contributions, bank holding companies and their banks are required* to enter into tax allocation agreements.

In 1998, the federal financial institution regulatory agencies jointly issued an Interagency Policy Statement on Income Tax Allocation in a Holding Company Structure ("Interagency Statement") to provide guidance to insured depository institutions and their holding companies and other affiliates regarding the payment of taxes on a consolidated basis. 

In 2014, an addendum to the Interagency Statement became effective.  The addendum was intended to clarify the agencies' existing positions and to add new requirements in light of the FDIC's recent disputes with holding companies of failed banks for which it acted as receiver.  According to the amended guidance, a tax allocation agreement should explicitly address the following issues:
  • Calculation of Tax Allocation.  A subsidiary depository institution must compute its income taxes (both current and deferred) on a separate entity basis, regardless of whether the actual returns will be consolidated.  This is done both for purposes of preparing regulatory reports and to ensure the insured depository institution does not pay more than its own share of the tax liability. Certain adjustments that arise in a consolidated return, such as the application of graduated tax rates, may be made to the separate entity calculation as long as they are done consistently and fairly.
  • Current Taxes Only.  A bank should not pay its deferred tax liabilities or to its holding company, because the deferred tax account is not a tax liability required to be paid in the current reporting period. The regulators frown on this.
  • Timing of Payments to the Holding Company.  Tax payments from a bank to a holding company should never exceed the amount the bank's current tax expense calculated on a separate entity basis, nor should they be made before the bank would have been obligated to pay as a separate entity. The regulators consider any advance payments to be extensions of credit from the bank to the holding company (which are restricted by the Federal Reserve Act and regulations).
  • Tax Refunds from the Holding Company.  A bank incurring a loss for tax purposes should record a current income tax benefit and receive a refund--within a reasonable timeframe--from its holding company in an amount no less than the amount the bank would have been entitled to receive as a separate entity.  If the refund is not passed along to the bank within a reasonable period, regulators may consider it either an extension of credit or a dividend.  If, however, on a separate entity basis, the bank would not be entitled to a current refund because it has no carryback benefits available, its holding company can still use the bank's tax loss to reduce the consolidated group's current tax liability. In this situation, the holding company may reimburse the bank for the use of the tax loss.
  • Agency Relationship.  Because of recent litigation by the FDIC-R over tax assets, regulators emphasize that one of the most important provisions in a tax allocation agreement is the clear statement of an agency relationship between the bank and holding company.  The agreement should clearly state that a holding company that receives a tax refund from a taxing authority holds the funds as an agent for the subsidiary(ies). 
  • Board Approval.  All tax sharing agreements should be approved by the boards of directors of each holding company and insured depository institution in the consolidated group.
The agencies' addendum states that the agencies expect tax sharing agreements to be updated by October 31, 2014 (although it is not a true deadline).  Therefore, bank holding companies should update their tax sharing agreements and obtain board approvals promptly, if they have not already done so.












October 8, 2014

To Register Your Arbitration Clauses with AAA or Not to Register? That Is the Question!

art by Todd Berman / flickr
Does your organization have consumer contracts that include an arbitration clause?  Does the clause reference the American Arbitration Association?

You may already know that the American Arbitration Association ("AAA") recently announced that it would require registration of all consumer arbitration clauses incorporating its rules, apparently in response to pressure from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which recently conducted a study of consumer arbitration clauses.  The requirement became effective in September.

Consumer Contracts

The AAA's new registration requirement applies to any arbitration clause in a consumer contract that invokes the AAA’s Consumer Rules or refers to the AAA. The rule change does not affect commercial contracts. As always, the distinction between consumer and commercial is a test of fact, regardless of the language of the document. If a consumer signs a document that purports to be an agreement for use with commercial customers and references the commercial arbitration rules, the consumer may nonetheless invoke the AAA Consumer Rules when bringing a claim.

Public Information

Registered arbitration provisions become publicly-accessible information. According to the AAA, “[b]y accessing the Registry, parties will be able to search businesses by name to determine if the AAA has reviewed their consumer arbitration clause and will administer their consumer arbitrations.” Moreover, according to the AAA, “the Registry will include online access to the arbitration clause reviewed by the AAA and may also include other documents related to the arbitration clause.” 

The Registry is available on the AAA website, and a password is not required to search it and view clauses that have been submitted.
As of the date of this post, only a small number of arbitration provisions appear to be registered, and some clauses are not visible.  It is unclear to me whether this is simply because the website is new and still being populated.

Effect of Registration

 
Rule 12 of the amended Consumer Rules states that beginning on September 1st, a business that “provides for or intends to provide for” AAA administration in a consumer contract “should notify the AAA of the existence of such a consumer contract or of its intention to do so at least 30 days before the planned effective date of the contract” and provide a copy of the arbitration clause to the AAA.  Rule 12 further states that the AAA will review the clause for material compliance with the Due Process Protocol and the amended Consumer Rules (including consumer fee limits). The Rule and the AAA website call for registration of existing clauses rather than just newly-adopted clauses.  (See, for example, Rule 55(viii).) The AAA may determine that additional, related provisions or documents are necessary in order to properly evaluate the clause, and may request them and post them on the Registry.

For arbitration clauses submitted to the AAA during 2014, the registration fee is $650, which will maintain the clause on the Registry through 2015. An annual fee of $500 is imposed thereafter.

Each arbitration provision used will require a separate registration and registration fee. The AAA's Rule states that "[a]ny different arbitration agreements submitted by the same business or its subsidiaries must be submitted for review and are subject to the current review fee." Therefore, it might make sense to use only one clause, or some other limited number of standard clauses, throughout your organization.

Effect of Not Registering

If a business has not registered its consumer clause prior to the filing of a consumer case, the AAA will require that the business register its clause at that time, and will "conduct an expedited review.” The expedited review costs an additional $250. The primary risk associated with not registering the clause in advance is the chance that the AAA will determine that it does not comply with the AAA Due Process Protocols or fee limitations, and therefore decline to arbitrate.


Updating Requirement

If an arbitration provision is updated or revised, it will require a subsequent registration with the AAA.
Rule 55 purports to require re-registration and an additional $500 fee for "[a]ny subsequent changes, additions, deletions, or amendments." Despite the strict language of the Rule, it is unclear to me whether the AAA would take the position that a minor, non-substantive change would trigger the re-registration requirement; one would hope that a non-substantive change would not require an additional filing and $500 fee.

Conclusions and Additional Considerations

Based upon the new Rules and the analysis above, you might conclude that it is most cost-effective, and administratively useful, to standardize an arbitration clause (or a limited number of clauses) across the organization, whether or not you intend to register the clause in advance of a dispute. In making these determinations, you may want to consider the risk of the AAA rejecting the clause, the frequency with which your organization has historically been subject to arbitration demands, the benefits and burdens of standardizing an arbitration clause(s) across your organization, and (for heavily-regulated entities like banks) the risk of criticism for failing to register in advance, among other factors.

An Important Decision from the North Carolina Surpreme Court

image by Silver Season
In February, I wrote about an important case for lenders in North Carolina. The North Carolina Supreme Court has issued a highly-anticipated opinion that is important for lenders in North Carolina to understand.

Under North Carolina law, real estate can be held by married couples in a form known as "tenancy by the entireties," which means that the property cannot be reached by creditors of only one spouse. Therefore, lenders often obtain guarantees from the spouses of borrowers (or the spouses of individuals who own borrowing entities) to ensure that real estate assets (that might be necessary to satisfy a debt if the borrower or guarantor does not pay as agreed) will be availalbe as a source of repayment. Without spousal guarantees, lenders would often be unable to rely upon many real estate assets when underwriting a loan. Accordingly, the ability to obtain a guaranty of a spouse sometimes means the difference between a lender being able to make a loan and being forced to decline a loan application. 

The Equal Credit Opportunity Act ("ECOA") and its implementing regulation, Regulation B ("Reg B") were intended to prohibit gender-based discrimination in lending. Its original intent was to prevent married women who were qualified borrowers from being refused credit because they did not have their husbands' approval. (This was apparently a problem in the early 1970s!) Over time, the ECOA was amended and interpreted to generally prohibit, among other things, requiring a spousal guarantee absent a showing both that the borrowing spouse is not independently creditworthy enough for the loan and that the guaranteeing or supporting spouse was not selected only on the basis of his or her status as a spouse. Put simply, if an individual seeks a loan from a lender, the lender cannot automatically require that the borrower have his or her spouse co-sign or guarantee the loan. The ECOA provides for the assertion of a claim against the lender if the ECOA is violated.

In August of last year, a panel of the North Carolina Court of Appeals had opined that a violation of the ECOA not only gave a spouse the right to assert a claim against the lender, it also allowed the spouse to escape the guaranty entirely. (RL REGI North Carolina, LLC v. Lighthouse Cove, LLC, COA12–1279.)

The case at issue involved a lending arrangement where most of the assets were held by the owner of the borrowing entity, while the borrowing entity itself had comparatively few assets. The lender required not only the borrower's owner to provide a guarantee, but also the owner's spouse. The borrower defaulted. A forbearance agreement was entered into in which both the owner and the spouse acknowledged the validity of the debt and waived any and all claims against the lender. The borrower defaulted again later. The lender sought to recover against both the owner and the spouse pursuant to the guarantees. The spouse asserted the ECOA as a defense and both the trial court and the Court of Appeals agreed that the guarantee was unenforceable against the spouse.



The North Carolina Supreme Court then agreed to hear the appeal of the creditor. Because of the harmful precedent that would be established if the Court of Appeals' ruling was upheld, one of my colleagues and I filed an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief on behalf of the North Carolina Bankers Association in support of the creditor, asking the Court to reverse the Court of Appeals' decision. We argued both the creditor's position (i.e., that the ECOA cannot be asserted as a defense and that, in any regard, the borrowers had waived any such claim or defense) and policy arguments supporting the creditor's position. In an unanimous opinion authored by Justice Newby, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals. The Court did not address the affirmative defense issue, instead finding that the spouse-guarantor waived any potential defense by signing an agreement containing a broad waiver clause. The Supreme Court thereby left for another day the issue of whether the ECOA can be asserted as a defense to a guarantee. You can read the full opinion here.

As a result of this decision, lenders are well-advised to seek broad waivers (such as those covering "any and all claims, defenses, or causes of action") in forbearance agreements and loan modification agreements.

   

September 15, 2014

Panel Discussion: Data Security, Breach Response, and Emergency Management



 
I was honored to be asked by The Infusion Group to participate in a panel discussion on business security issues with some top thought leaders in North Carolina for the Innovate Work Summit Digital Series. Topics included data security, risk management, breach response, and emergency management. I enjoyed hearing the insights of these three smart, accomplished people. Please feel free to view the video on YouTube and share it with others who might be interested.

 

September 9, 2014

Social Media: Maximizing the Rewards while Minimizing the Risks

(This article was published in the Carolina Banker magazine by the North Carolina Bankers Association in the Fall 2014 issue.)


Social Media for Financial Institutions: Maximizing the Rewards while Minimizing the Risks



By now almost everyone knows that social media has tremendous potential for businesses of all kinds to connect with important constituent groups.  The average American spends 37 minutes per day on social media.  Facebook alone has more than 1.2 billion users, and a quarter of them log in more than five times per day.  Twitter has twice as many users as the United States has citizens.  In addition to marketing products and services to customers and prospects, banks now use social media to obtain feedback and market intelligence, recruit and engage employees, and enhance shareholder relationships.  These attractive opportunities do not come without risk; fortunately, however, these can be mitigated by an effective social media compliance and risk management program. 

Regulatory Attention

A few months ago, the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council ("FFIEC"), which includes representatives from federal and state regulators, issued guidance for banks regarding the legal, operational and reputational risks associated with social media.  Soon, examiners will likely expect banks to have written risk assessments and social media policies and procedures.

The FFIEC guidance addressed many — but not all — of the outstanding banking law questions about social media.  Most of the regulations the guidance discusses involves the nature and placement of consumer disclosures, recordkeeping, and other straightforward issues.  The guidance also raised more complex issues, however, such as the risk of disparate impact, an anti-discrimination legal theory favored by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.  Not all of the outstanding questions were addressed by the guidance, however, so good, practical judgment will be needed to apply existing regulations in a new environment.  For example, customer privacy issues can arise in social media that require banks to respond to customer communications differently than other businesses might.

Importantly, the guidance states that even banks that do not have any official social media accounts should still consider the risks posed by social media, document the risk assessment, and adopt any policy needed to address identified risks.  Risks faced by banks that do not have an official social media account include reputational risks of negative comments and complaints by customers, as well as risks posed by employees' use of social media.  The regulators have made clear that a bank may be held responsible for an employee's social media use if it appears the employee is acting on behalf of the bank and the bank has not taken adequate steps to address the risk.  (How certain are you that none of your bank's employees are talking about the bank's products and services on their own social media accounts?)

Reputation Management

A widespread concerns among bankers about social media is the potentially damaging effects of publicly-aired customer complaints.  This is a real risk, but it is important to note that it is present whether or not a bank has a social media presence.  Disgruntled customers can — and do — air grievances on social media and customer review websites whether or not you have a Facebook page or Twitter profile.  If your bank has a presence on social media, however, you may have a better opportunity to identify and address those grievances. 

Both legal and practical considerations in determining whether, and how, to respond to a public complaint.  Well-crafted social media policies and procedures, coupled with a well-trained and savvy team, can effectively handle most public complaints, and may achieve net-positive outcomes.  When the commenter can be identified, the recommended approach is usually to simply ask the customer to remove the offending post.  If a commenter refuses to remove a false, misleading, or abusive comment voluntarily, you may resort to dealing with platform provider (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, Google, Yelp, etc.).  Each platform has terms and conditions that establish unique criteria for removing posts.  Understanding these criteria can help you draft a request to the platform that is more likely to result in the removal of an offending comment.  A letter sent from a knowledgeable lawyer on behalf of the bank is often helpful.

Spoofing

Social media presents opportunities for others to impersonate or "spoof" the bank.  However, this can happen whether or not a bank is active on social media, and in fact, by being active in social media, a bank can actually reduce the likelihood and effectiveness of these nefarious efforts.  Fortunately, most social media platforms are generally quick to shut down fraudulent accounts.

Promotions

Social media and promotional contests seem to go together like peanut butter and jelly.  They can be useful tools to encourage social sharing of your bank's content.  As with any promotional contest, various state and federal laws must be observed, and liability and reputational risks must be mitigated.  Also, some social media platforms restrict certain types of promotions.  It may be worthwhile to consult a knowledgeable lawyer before beginning any contest or drawing.

Developing a Policy, Procedures, and Implementation Team

The size and complexity of a social media program should be commensurate with the degree of the bank's involvement in social media.  For example, a bank that uses only one platform (e.g. Facebook) should have a more focused program.  A bank using several media (e.g., Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, Yelp, Google +, and YouTube) should have more comprehensive procedures.

The FFIEC advises that a social media program should be designed with participation from specialists in compliance, technology, information security, legal issues, human resources, and marketing.  Ideally, a team will be small, with individuals whose expertise spans more than one of these categories.  After a program is crafted, it can be implemented by a smaller team or an individual, with support from specialists as necessary. 

A recent survey revealed that banks in the southeastern United States  have the lowest rates of social media participation in the nation.  In some other regions of the country, banks are more than three times as likely to have a social media presence.  Given the size of the potential audiences and the high level of user engagement, it seems likely that more banks in our region will implement or expand social media strategies soon.  Though all risks cannot be eliminated, a well-crafted plan can manage the risks while maximizing the rewards. 


September 7, 2014

Moving to the Triangle

 
 
The time has come.  For several years, I've worked with clients from across the state and beyond, travelling all over North Carolina.  New Bern has been a wonderful place to call home.  My family loves the small-town, coastal lifestyle.  In recent years, however, I have found myself travelling more and more, which has generally resulted in less family time.  We have concluded that it is time to move to the Triangle so that I can be closer to more of my clients and generally spend a little less time travelling.  Ward and Smith, P.A. has been very supportive of this decision.
 
We will be living in Raleigh by the end of this month.  I look forward to getting involved in the community and making some new friends.  We also look forward to seeing many of our Triangle-area friends on a more regular basis.
 
I intend to be back in New Bern regularly to see clients and friends, just as I already spend time the other cities in which Ward and Smith has offices.

I will maintain a presence in the New Bern office, but my primary office address will be:

Ward and Smith, P.A.
5430 Wade Park Boulevard
Wade II, Suite 400
(Post Office Box 33009, Zip 27636-3009)
Raleigh, NC 27607
P: 919.277.9100
F: 919.277.9177 

The office is located directly across Edwards Mill Road from the PNC Arena.


August 16, 2014

Boards of Directors and Information Security Risks

Directors should take an active role in managing data security risks rather than leaving it up to management and IT staff, according to recent remarks by SEC Commissioner Luis Aguilar.

Commissioner Aguilar recently delivered a speech at the New York Stock Exchange in which he emphasized that cybersecurity has become a “top concern” and pleaded with corporate directors to “take seriously their obligation to make sure that companies are appropriately addressing those risks.”

The Commissioner reported that U.S. companies experienced a 42% increase from 2011 to 2012 in the number of successful cyber-attacks. He also pointed out a number of recent high-profile incidents, including the following:
  • The October 2013 cyber-attack on the software company Adobe in which data from more than 38 million customer accounts was breached;
  • The December 2013 cyber-attack on Target, in which the payment card data of approximately 40 million Target customers and the personal data of up to 70 million Target customers was breached;
  • The January 2014 cyber-attack on Snapchat, a mobile messaging service, in which a reported 4.6 million user names and phone numbers were leaked;
  • The multiple cyber-attacks against several large U.S. banks, in which their public websites have been shut down for hours at a time; and
  • The numerous cyber-attacks on securities exchanges. (According to a 2012 global survey of 46 securities exchanges, 53% reported experiencing a cyber-attack in the previous year.)
Commissioner Aguilar said that cybersecurity has become a "top concern" of American companies over a relatively short period of time. That's good news. But, according to the Commissioner, directors themselves should be involved in addressing cybersecurity risks.

The essence of Commissioner Aguilar's comments related to the board’s role in corporate governance and overseeing risk management. He pointed out that since the financial crisis, there has been an increased focus on how boards address risk management. While acknowledging that primary responsibility for risk management has historically belonged to management, he emphasized that boards are responsible for ensuring that the corporation has established appropriate risk management programs and for overseeing how management implements those programs. Not surprisingly, he mentioned the SEC's 2009 rule change which calls for the public disclosure of the board's role in risk management (usually in a proxy statement).

In addition to the SEC's rule changes, proxy advisory firms appear to be applying pressure to boards to focus on data security risks. A prominent proxy advisory firm has recommended that shareholders vote against the election of most of Target's directors because of their alleged “failure…to ensure appropriate management of [the] risks” resulting in Target’s December 2013 breach.

The result of these influences is encouraging: Boards have begun to assume greater responsibility for overseeing the risk management efforts of their companies, according to evidence cited by the Commissioner. For example, according to a survey of 2013 proxy statements filed by S&P 200 companies, the full boards have almost universally assumed responsibility for the risk oversight of their respective companies.

The Commissioner concluded by expressing his view that "board oversight of cyber-risk management is critical to ensuring that companies are taking adequate steps to prevent, and prepare for, the harms that can result from such attacks. There is no substitution for proper preparation, deliberation, and engagement on cybersecurity issues."

You can read the Commissioner's full remarks here.



(c) Matt Cordell 2013

July 30, 2014

Is Bank Regulatory Relief Gaining Momentum?

Banks have been pleading with Congress for regulatory relief for as long as I can recall.  (For example, before the ink on the Dodd-Frank Act was dry, bankers were warning of the harmful effects of the cumulative regulatory burdens attributable to the Act.)  It appears bankers' advocacy efforts may now be closer to achieving results.
The House Financial Services Committee approved three regulatory reform bills this week.
  • The "Community Bank Mortgage Servicing Asset Capital Requirements Study Act of 2014," H.R. 4042, would delay the implementation of the Basel III rules that relate to capital requirements for mortgage servicing assets until a study is completed. 
  • The the "Access to Affordable Mortgages Act of 2014,'' H.R. 5148, would amend the Truth in Lending Act to exempt from certain appraisal standards certain "high-risk" mortgages of $250,000 or less if the loan stays on the balance sheet of the lender for three years. The act also would exempt certain individuals from penalties for failure to make reports regarding certain appraisers.
  • The "Regulation D Study Act," H.R. 3240, would require the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to study the impact of the Fed’s reserve requirements on depository institutions and consumers.
Other bills introduced in Congress would provide further relief if they can get the momentum to pass:
  • The "Portfolio Lending and Mortgage Access Act," H.R. 2673,  would amend the Truth in Lending Act by deeming any residential mortgage to be a "qualified mortgage" for as long as it remains on a bank's balance sheet.
  • The "Community Institution Mortgage Relief Act of 2014," H.R. 4521, would expand the CFPB’s small servicers exception to include servicers of 20,000 mortgage loans or fewer.  It would also exclude loans secured by a first lien on a dwelling that are held by creditors with assets of $10 billion or less.
  • The "Financial Regulatory Clarity Act of 2014," H.R. 4466, would require the federal banking agencies to consider whether any new regulation proposed is inconsistent with, or duplicative of, existing regulations. 
Whether any of these bills will make it to the Senate, much less the President's desk, is difficult to predict.

July 21, 2014

New N.C. Statute Gives Lenders More Options When Developers Default


Lenders now have a bit more to think about when making a loan to a developer of a planned community. 
 
A few days ago, the General Assembly enacted, and the Governor signed into law, important amendments to the Planned Community Act regarding the transfer of the declarant's rights and the liability of the declarant's successor in interest.  The legislation is House Bill 330 / Session Law 2014-57 (titled "An Act Amending the North Carolina Planned Community Act regarding the Transfer of Special Declarant Rights"). 
 
By way of reminder, a "declarant" is almost always a developer of a planned community or condominium who creates restrictions on the use of the property which are described in a "declaration."  That developer has the opportunity to reserve certain rights to itself as the "declarant." Although there is no requirement that a developer reserve declarant rights for itself, it is common to do so, and it would be very unusual for a planned community or condominium developer to not to name itself the declarant.  (For more information on declarants, see this article by my law partner Sam Franck.)
 
So, what happens when a lender must forclose on a developer who is a declarant of a planned community?  Does the lender become the declarant?
 
The new Act says (basically) that unless the deed of trust provides otherwise, a creditor who acquires property through foreclosure acquires all "special declarant rights" related to the property, if the creditor files in the county records an "instrument" that "requests" those rights.  (The deed of trust is not required to state that special declarant rights will be transferred, but the judgment or instrument that conveys the titled must.)  The definition of "special declarant rights" in GS 47F-1-102(28) is as follows:   
"Special declarant rights" means rights reserved for the benefit of a declarant including, without limitation, any right (i) to complete improvements indicated on plats and plans filed with the declaration; (ii) to exercise any development right; (iii) to maintain sales offices, management offices, signs advertising the planned community, and models; (iv) to use easements through the common elements for the purpose of making improvements within the planned community or within real estate which may be added to the planned community; (v) to make the planned community part of a larger planned community or group of planned communities; (vi) to make the planned community subject to a master association; or (vii) to appoint or remove any officer or executive board member of the association or any master association during any period of declarant control."
As I read the Act, the creditor is free to assume some--but not all--of the special declarant rights, if it wishes.  Furthermore, the Act says that a creditor can state in the recorded instrument that it intends only to hold special declarant rights to transfer them to a third party, in which case the creditor cannot exercise any special declarant rights, but will avoid the liabilities or obligations of the declarant. 
 
The Act answers a number of questions but will require creditors to give some consideration when the deed of trust is drafted and when the creditor decides to exercise its rights by foreclosure, deed on lieu, or in a bankruptcy proceeding.

The upshot is that lenders now have more control as to which, if any, of the declarant's rights they want to inherit when a developer goes under.
 
You can read the full Act for yourself here.

Img content: runner310            
 

July 4, 2014

New Tax Changes in North Carolina

July means the start of a new fiscal year for the State of North Carolina, which means some new changes to the tax code become effective.  Below are brief descriptions of some of the key changes:

Elimination of Back to School (August) Sales Tax Holiday.

N.C. General Statutes Section 105-164.13C provided an exemption for certain items of tangible personal property sold between the first Friday in August and the following Sunday.  It included clothing, footwear, and school supplies of $100 or less per item; school instructional materials of $300 or less per item; sports and recreation equipment of $50 or less per item, computers of $3,500 or less per item; and computer supplies of $250 or less per item will be exempt.  Clothing accessories, jewelry, cosmetics, protective equipment, wallets, furniture, items used in a trade or business, and rentals were never covered by the exemption to begin with.  The elimination of this exemption is expected to yield $14.7 million during  fiscal year 2014-2015.  
 
Elimination of Energy Star Products Tax Holiday
 
N.C.G.S. 105-164.13D provided an exemption from sales and use tax from the first Friday in November through the following Sunday for Energy Star products.  An "Energy Star qualified product" is "a product that meets the energy efficient guidelines set by the [EPA] and the United States Department of Energy and is authorized to carry the Energy Star label."  Items purchased for use in a trade or business and rentals were not covered by the exemption.  This sales tax holiday was enacted in 2008, and eliminating it is expected to bring $1.6 million in FY14-15 . 
 
Elimination of Sales Tax Exemption for Bakery Thrift Stores

A bakery thrift store is a retail outlet of a bakery that sells at wholesale over 90% of the items it makes and sells at the retail outlet day-old bread returned to it by retailers.  The exemption from sales tax was enacted in 2007, and its repeal is expected to result in $3.9 million in revenue in FY14-15.
 
Cap on Sales Tax Refund for Nonprofit Entities

Nonprofits will begin paying sales tax on purchases that exceed $666 million in a fiscal year.   In other words, the exemption is now capped at $45 million annually.   
 
Income Requirement for Farm Equipment Emption 

Farm equipment will continue to be exempt from sales tax, but only if the farm has a certificate showing annual gross income from farming operations of $10,000.   More than 40,000 farm exemption certificates are currently outstanding.  North Carolina has more than 52,000 farms, according to the 2007 USDA Census of Agriculture.  There are a number of issues that remain to be addressed in connection with this change.  The change in this exemption is expected to result in $16.5 million in revenue for FY14-15. 
 
Sales Tax on Energy

State sales tax will now be due on electricity and piped natural gas at the combined general rate.  The combined general rate is the State's general rate of tax plus the sum of the rates of the local sales taxes authorized for all counties. The current combined general rate is 7%.  A number of other taxes on electricy and natural gas are repealed in connection with this change, including the following:
  • Franchise taxes on electric power, water, and public sewerage companies (G.S. 105-116). 
  • Distribution of electric power company franchise tax to cities (G.S. 105-116.1). 
  • The 3% sales tax discount for municipalities that sell electricity (G.S. 105-164.21A). 
  • Payments in lieu of franchise taxes required of electric cities and joint power agencies (G.S. 159B-27(b) through (e)).