Situation
A prominent bank located in the Northeast had just acquired 14 new banks. We met with the head of the tax department because they were concerned that there was a problem with their new tax rates in NJ and PA. They contacted the state on several occasions but never heard back.
Action
The US Department of Labor states if you have been through a merger, acquisition or restructuring in the last 3 years, there is a 50% chance you have been assigned the wrong rate and you are probably overpaying taxes.
Most of the due diligence is done prior to any of these occurrences. Once the papers are signed the last thing you hear is that the papers will be sent off to the state to have the transaction recorded. Who is holding the state responsible for having recorded this transaction properly?
There are 5 different taxes we look at in this scenario:
- State Unemployment
- Federal Unemployment
- Social Security
- State Taxes
- Local Taxes
During our analysis we reconstructed these purchases, reviewing the former rates of each bank and how the state recorded the transaction. Each bank can be looked at as having a checking account with the state. What was done with the money in their account? If these banks had already begun paying into their tax accounts for a given year, did the state recognize the payments made?
After reconstructing the transaction, we found that the client was due a refund of over $5,000,000 between the 2 states. We spoke with both states, verified our findings and both NJ and PA issued refunds.
