Blogs Archives

Louisiana Department of Revenue Issues Guidance on Separate Reporting of Sales and Occupancy Taxes for Accommodations Intermediaries

October 30, 20252 minute read

On October 24, 2025, the Louisiana Department of Revenue (“LDR”) issued a new Revenue Information Bulletin (RIB) providing detailed guidance on how state sales tax and occupancy taxes must be reported on accommodations involving intermediaries, including online travel platforms and short-term rental facilitators like Airbnb, when these entities engage in separate reporting that is effective November 1st. The guidance addresses practical compliance issues arising under Act 82 of the 2025 Regular Session, which amended Louisiana’s marketplace facilitator law to expressly include accommodations intermediaries. This change required accommodations intermediaries to collect, report, and remit state and local sales and use taxes to the Louisiana Sales and Use Tax Commission for Remote Sellers (“Commission”).

Beginning January 1, 2026, accommodations intermediaries must also remit all hotel and motel occupancy taxes to the Commission. However, because the Commission’s system currently cannot allocate state sales tax revenues to dedicated tourism funds, state sales tax on room rentals must continue to be reported to the LDR until system updates are complete.

Since Act 82 was implemented, many accommodations intermediaries have been retaining and remitting state sales taxes themselves while forwarding occupancy taxes collected from customers to the property owner for filing and payment. LDR notes in the RIB that it does not endorse this separate reporting method but provided instructions for taxpayers who are using this practice during the transition period.

The rules bifurcate properties in Orleans and Jefferson Parish with 10 or more rooms from properties with fewer than 10 rooms, which do not owe domed stadium and NOEHA taxes. Properties with more than 10 rooms will have to file amended returns for the first nine months of the year to properly classify the tax amounts on the updated forms. After November 1, 2025, taxes must be reported on the designated lines of Form R-1029DSE. The RIB provides additional reporting guidance for properties with fewer than 10 rooms applicable to the entirety of 2025.

The RIB goes on to provide guidance to accommodations intermediaries reporting state sales tax without domed stadium and NOEHA taxes. Again, returns for the first nine months of the year will have to be amended after November 1, 2025. Finally, the RIB reminds taxpayers that questions about local occupancy taxes not administered by LDR, including those levied by parishes, municipalities, or tourism districts, should be directed to the appropriate local collector or the Uniform Local Sales Tax Board. For additional information regarding this topic, please contact Liskow attorneys Bob Angelico, Caroline Lafourcade, and Kevin Naccari, and visit the firm’s Tax Practice page.

Unpacking Louisiana’s FastSites Program

October 29, 20252 minute read

On October 16, 2025, Louisiana Economic Development (LED) announced the launch of the state’s FastSites Program, “a new initiative designed to support land development and existing infrastructure into project-ready sites that position Louisiana to attract new opportunities and strengthen the state’s long-term competitiveness.”

FastSites is open to local or regional economic development groups, cities and towns, non-profits, redevelopment authorities, and other public groups (e.g., parishes or districts). Privately-owned sites are eligible for funding if the landowner agrees to promote the site for economic development and meets certain Louisiana state requirements.

FastSites funds may be used for physical improvements or infrastructure investment on the site, including but not limited to, utility extensions, rail access, road access, remediation, wetland mitigation, demolition, expansion, or land acquisition. FastSites funds may not be used for consultant, legal, or finance fees; site marketing; movable equipment (e.g., trailers); basic site maintenance (e.g., mowing); projects not meant for economic development; or costs paid before the project was approved.

LED will select projects to fund based on an evaluation process that considers the following factors:

Demonstrated market demand in priority sectors
Performance Measures
Return on Investment
Impact on Distressed Communities
Public benefit and economic impact
Site potential

Other factors may include:

Strategic location
Site quality and future growth potential
Due diligence completed
Total development cost
Private sector involvement or partnerships

FastSites offers award amounts that range from $1 million to $25 million. FastSites fund recipients will enter into a Cooperative Endeavor Agreement with the state outlining a return back to the fund, with options including loan repayment, future lease payment, a per use fee, etc. Applicants must match part of the funding, and the amount will depend on the project type and range from 50% to 80%.

The application period for the inaugural round of funding opens October 30 and closes December 15. The first round of FastSites funding will be announced in early 2026. For more information on this and other state economic development initiatives, contact Liskow attorneys Neil Abramson, Greg Johnson, Caroline Lafourcade, Clare Bienvenu, and Colin North, and visit Liskow’s The Louisiana Industrial Insights Hub for the latest updates.

Through the groundbreaking FastSites Program, Louisiana is eliminating the traditional barriers to site development, reducing risk, cutting costs, and fast-tracking timelines to get projects off the ground quicker.
www.opportunitylouisiana.gov/…

Parish E-File Update: Louisiana Combined State and Local Sales Tax Return

October 24, 2025less than a minute

Liskow has learned that the Louisiana combined state and local sales and use tax return that was scheduled to roll out November 1st has been delayed. According to the Uniform Local Sales and Use Tax Board, the anticipated “Go-Live” date of November 1, 2025, is not achievable due to issues being experienced in the User Acceptance Testing Environment by the test groups. The Uniform Board will continue to evaluate the various aspects of the project and provide updates regarding a new “Go-Live” date.

It is our understanding that a message will be sent by e-mail to all Parish E-File users informing them of the delay. Taxpayers will be able to file their returns for October 2025 using the current Multi-jurisdictional and/or Single Returns available within the Parish E-File Portal.

The Uniform Board has considered feedback from stakeholders and expressed that the delay in rolling out the combined reporting feature should result in a more efficient reporting and payment platform.

For additional information regarding this topic, please contact Liskow attorneys Caroline Lafourcade, Bob Angelico, and Kevin Naccari, and visit the firm’s Tax Practice page.

Industries Push Trump Administration for Preemption of State PFAS Laws

October 21, 20254 minute read

With anxiety looming over regulation of so-called “forever chemicals,” some industry players have proposed a solution: federal preemption. That was the response voiced by trade associations last month, as they answered an August 15, 2025 request from the Department of Justice and National Economic Council. The two agencies requested industry feedback on “Which State laws significantly burden commerce in other States and between States, thus raising costs unnecessarily and harming markets nationwide.”

This request by the Trump administration garnered more than 200 responses, many voicing concerns over a hot topic: regulation of per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (“PFAS”). Those submitting PFAS concerns included representatives of the pharmaceutical industry, vendors of baby products, packaging manufacturers, and other advocates for sensible PFAS regulations.

Unfortunately for regulated industries, states will likely enjoy many avenues for regulating PFAS in the manner the states see fit, potentially creating significant burdens on industry to navigate conflicting state regulations. States enjoy such power pursuant to their general police powers, through which they have the ability to pass laws on health, safety, and general welfare, and to tailor such laws to the needs of that state. This blog post explores: (1) whether federal preemption is a solution for regulated entities; (2) whether Congress should grant protections to “passive receivers” of PFAS; and (3) examples of preemption arguments that will soon face Congress and the courts.

Should the Federal Government be the Exclusive Regulator of PFAS Risks?

In response to the government’s August 2025 inquiry, some industry groups urged broad federal preemption over the regulation of PFAS; in other words, for the federal government to step in as the exclusive regulator of PFAS, displacing state laws touching on the issue. But because PFAS seems to implicate an endless list of products and services, it seems unlikely that the federal government will have the resources or the desire to occupy every facet of regulation of PFAS, inevitably leaving room for States to regulate.

For example, if a state wanted to pass a labeling law that placed extreme burdens on product manufacturers and vendors to include labeling of PFAS risks, generally that is the sort of regulation that states are permitted to enact, even if it creates burdens on out of state vendors.

In response to state regulations on PFAS and other areas where the federal government believes states are creating unnecessary burdens, the federal government could choose to “occupy the regulatory field,” thereby preempting state laws that regulate PFAS. For example, the federal government could enact legislation that declares the labeling of PFAS risks to be exclusively a federal issue by creating uniform standards and invalidating state laws on the issue. Of course, creating uniform labeling for PFAS risks may mean biting off more than Congress can chew, as PFAS seem to implicate an endless list of products and services, and the risks are still not fully understood.

In many other areas of consumer protection, federal regulations establish a safety floor, but states are free to establish their own ceiling, in other words, a stricter standard than the federal standard. That’s true for safe drinking water standards, and most toxic exposure and land contamination issues, where states enjoy great leeway to regulate, and courts have the ability to award substantial compensation to plaintiffs, even when industry has complied with federal standards. Even if Congress attempts to occupy portions of the PFAS regulatory field, it seems likely that states will continue to enjoy broad power to regulate various aspects of PFAS and impose more burdensome standards than those adopted by the federal government.

Should Congress Grant Protections to “Passive Receivers” of PFAS?

One strategy Congress should consider is whether to preempt state laws that create burdens for “passive receivers” of PFAS, i.e., entities that are not responsible for manufacturing or intentionally using PFAS, but which inevitably become the recipients of PFAS. Common examples include landfills or other waste management facilities, drinking and wastewater utilities, and other downstream facilities. Because these facilities do not manufacture or intentionally utilize PFAS, they do not believe they should bear the costs of remedying PFAS-related harms.

The waste industry has been particularly vocal in expressing its view that landfills serve a vital function in managing the public’s waste and are one of the safest places for PFAS to end up, and therefore their liability for PFAS-related harms should be limited. Landfills are likely to continue receiving waste that inevitably contains PFAS, potentially in excess of the unforgiving concentration thresholds being proposed by regulators. As Liskow has previously detailed, EPA has issued guidance suggesting that it will not target public landfills in CERCLA enforcement actions. The waste industry has decried EPA’s policy guidance as insufficient, as it does not offer relief for private landfills (which still provide vital public services) or protections from non-CERCLA sources of liability.

Even if EPA does not target landfills with CERCLA enforcement actions, landfills could still face significant burdens in complying with conflicting state PFAS regulations and liability from state law tort suits. For this reason, it is a safe bet that the waste industry will continue lobbying Congress for protections from PFAS-based liability, potentially including preemptive federal laws that would displace state PFAS laws and regulations.

Examples of Coming Preemption Fights

It is unlikely that the federal government would ever be willing or able to preempt all state laws relating in any way to PFAS. That is why it falls on the regulated community, especially passive receivers of PFAS, to work with lawmakers to identify the most crucial areas where national uniformity would both protect consumers and reduce the burdens on interstate commerce. Some areas where conflicting state regulations could present significant burdens on interstate commerce, and where regulated industries are likely to seek relief from Congress include: (1) labeling requirements; (2) regulation on consumer goods, including packaging for food and other materials; and (3) standards for reporting and testing.

In response to the government’s August 2025 inquiry, multiple industry groups have indeed suggested federal preemption as a solution to various PFAS-related challenges. Some groups argued that certain laws already on the books, e.g., federal pharmaceutical regulations, are already sufficient to achieve preemption of many state PFAS laws. The courts will certainly experience a wave of litigation from regulated industries attempting to use the preemption doctrine to challenge state PFAS regulations.

Clients turn to Liskow for expertise on PFAS and related regulatory issues, and the press does too. For further questions regarding PFAS and the regulation of other “forever chemicals,” contact Liskow attorney Michael Mims and visit our Environmental Practice Page.

Industries Push Trump Administration for Preemption of State PFAS Laws

October 21, 20254 minute read

Should the Federal Government be the Exclusive Regulator of PFAS Risks?

Should Congress Grant Protections to “Passive Receivers” of PFAS?

Examples of Coming Preemption Fights

Client Alert: CCS Project Suspension

October 17, 2025less than a minute

On October 15, 2025, Governor Landry issued Executive Order No. JML 25-119. The Order places a moratorium on agency review of any new Class VI applications submitted after October 15, 2025. It also addresses additional requirements for applications submitted prior to that date, many of which are directed at local government/landowner concerns and coordination with other agencies. The Order and the Department Guidance documents referred to therein can be found here: Department Guidance No. B-2025-01 (Rev.1) Department Guidance No. B-2025-01-A

Louisiana Court Vacates LNG Permit, Must Consider Climate Change and Environmental Justice

October 16, 20253 minute read

On October 10, 2025, a Louisiana district court in Cameron Parish vacated the Louisiana Department of Conservation and Energy’s (LDCE’s) Coastal Use Permit (CUP) issued for the Commonwealth LNG facility on Calcasieu River in Cameron Parish. Sierra Club v. La. Dep’t of Energy & Nat. Resources, C-1021127 (38th J.D.C. Oct. 10, 2025). (As of October 1, 2025, LDCE is the new name for the Louisiana Department of Energy and Natural Resources.) The court found the state agency had violated its Public Trust Duty under the Louisiana Constitution by failing to analyze climate change and environmental justice (EJ) impacts.

The CUP was challenged by national and local non-profit organizations, arguing that:

LDCE failed to assess all cumulative and secondary impacts, namely climate change;
LDCE failed to adequately protect Cameron Parish residents from the risks of explosions or accidents; and
LDCE failed to consider the coastal use impacts on EJ communities.

The court found that while LDCE’s decision adequately protected Cameron Parish residents from the risks of explosions or other accidents, LDCE was required to analyze climate change and EJ in issuing the CUP and failed to do so.

Climate Change. In issuing the CUP, LDCE relied on the federal government’s Final Environmental Impact Statement’s (FEIS) discussion of cumulative and secondary environmental impacts. LDCE did not discuss climate change and argued that it did not have legislative authority to assess global climate change impacts. However, the court found that because Louisiana’s State and Local Coastal Resources Management Act of 1978 (SCLRMA) mandates that LDCE “minimize detrimental effects of foreseeable cumulative impacts on coastal resources,” the agency was required to consider the project’s local impacts, combined with impacts from two nearby LNG facilities, on storm severity and/or sea level rise in the coastal zone. The court found this analysis to be particularly important given the rapid rate of LNG industry growth in Southwest Louisiana. The court found the statutory mandate to be augmented by LDCE’s Public Trust Duty to ensure environmental protection.

Environmental Justice. Relying on Rise St. James v. LDEQ, 2023-0578 (La. App. 1 Cir. 01/19/24); 383 So. 3d 956, a First Circuit decision holding that EJ is part of the Public Trust Duty, the court concluded that LDCE was required to consider whether the environmental impacts of the facility would have “a disparate or exaggerated effect on surrounding low-income and minority communities.” LDCE argued that only LDEQ was authorized to consider EJ concerns and had already done so in its permitting. However, the court explained that the requirement arises from the Public Trust Duty which applies to all state agencies, including LDCE. The court noted that LDEQ’s EJ analysis focused on impacts caused by air pollution and wastewater discharge, not impacts to natural resources. The court also noted that LDCE was required to consider how “loss of marshes (storm surge protection), disruptive social patterns (forcing people to move), cumulative impacts (of other facilities already in the area), public use resources (recreational and subsistence fishing), and water quality (water temperature, discharge of solids)” would impact “environmental justice communities, namely those living in poverty, and those who fish not only for recreation but for their livelihood.”

The district court vacated the CUP and remanded the matter back to LDCE to incorporate climate change and EJ in its permitting decision. It remains to be seen if LDCE will address these concerns on remand and/or appeal the decision.

Here, the requirement to consider climate change cumulative impacts appears to be unique to LDCE and CUPs, given that the mandate stems from the state statute governing coastal resources. However, the requirement to consider EJ is presented as a global constitutional duty that applies to all relevant state agencies. This decision reinforces the need for industry to be aware that Louisiana state agencies are obligated to fulfill their constitutional Public Trust Duty in issuing permits. Industry should aim to proactively address agency information needs in this regard during the application process.

This decision also highlights the shifting landscape of cumulative impacts and EJ considerations at not only the state and federal level, but also between the executive and judicial branches. The current federal administration has largely eliminated requirements for these considerations in permitting decisions, and the current Louisiana administration appears to be following a similar path. However, with the issuance of this opinion, two Louisiana courts have now opined that Louisiana’s constitution requires agencies to undertake EJ analyses – and this opinion raises the bar for assessing cumulative impacts of projects on coastal resources under SCLRMA and the Public Trust Duty.

Please contact Liskow attorneys Greg Johnson, Clare Bienvenu, Emily von Qualen, and Colin North, and visit Liskow’s The Louisiana Industrial Insights Hub to follow along to stay up-to-date on Public Trust Duty developments.

"The Public Trust doctrine applies to all state agencies, including LDENR – OCM. The OCM does have the authority to consider and should consider environmental justice concerns."
www.sierraclub.org/…

IRS Provides Interim Penalty Relief for Remittance Transfer Providers

October 15, 20252 minute read

The Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) has issued Notice 2025-55 granting temporary penalty relief to remittance transfer providers under new Internal Revenue Code section 4475, which imposes a 1% excise tax on certain remittance transfers made from the U.S. to foreign recipients beginning January 1, 2026. The relief applies to failures to make timely deposits of the tax during the first three calendar quarters of 2026. When a sender funds a transfer with cash, money orders, cashier’s checks, or similar instruments, the sender is liable for the tax, but the remittance transfer provider (such as banks, credit unions, financial service institutions) must collect and remit the tax semimonthly to the IRS. Remittance transfer providers must then file an excise tax return quarterly.

For excise tax deposits, filers may ordinarily take advantage of the “deposit safe harbor” under Section 40.6302(c)-1(b)(2), where the deposit amount may be based on a prior quarter’s tax liability. But because the remittance transfer tax is new, there will be no prior quarter data to rely upon for early 2026. To make the transition easier, the IRS is providing penalty relief for the first three quarters of 2026 if remittance transfer providers meet two requirements.

First, the provider must make timely deposits of the remittance transfer tax, even if the amounts are calculated incorrectly. Second, any underpayment for each quarter must be paid in full by the due date of the corresponding Form 720, Quarterly Federal Excise Tax Return. If the provider meets both of these requirements, the failure to make a deposit penalty under section 6656 will not apply. Beginning in the fourth quarter of 2026, the standard deposit safe harbor based on the prior quarter’s tax liability will apply. For further updates regarding this notice, contact Liskow attorneys Caroline Lafourcade and Kevin Naccari, Jr. and visit our Tax practice page.

Government Shutdown and BOEM, BSEE and ONRR Contingency Plans

October 14, 20253 minute read

Due to the government shutdown, which began on Wednesday, October 1, 2025, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) and the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) implemented their respective contingency plans that were prepared in the event of a lapse in government funding. These contingency plans essentially halt renewable energy activities while prioritizing oil and gas projects and permitting during the government shutdown.

With respect to the Office of Natural Resources Revenue (ONRR), ONRR does not publish its own standalone “contingency plan,” but instead generally operates under the U.S. Department of the Interior’s (DOI) broader contingency plan.

Highlights of the plans are as follows:

BOEM Contingency Plan:

Number and percentage of BOEM furloughed employees: 339 of its 473 employees (or 71% of its workforce)

Continued agency activities (i.e., those activities related to priority and time sensitive offshore oil and gas projects) include, but are not limited to, the following:

processing and reviewing certain oil and gas exploration and development plans, to the extent such plans are necessary to protect human life and federal property, including revised plans if they are related to BSEE’s ongoing permitting work;
preparing the upcoming Gulf of America Lease Sale 262, scheduled to occur on December 10, 2025;
preparing the next National Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program;
preparing the 2026 offshore critical mineral lease sales; and
emergency response activities necessary to protect human life and federal property (for both oil and gas and renewable energy projects);

Ceased agency activities (i.e., those activities deemed non-time sensitive and those unrelated to emergency response for incidents posing a threat to human life and/or federal property) include, but are not limited to, the following:

all renewable energy activities (other than emergency response activities, noted above), including permitting, leasing, and environmental reviews;
non-time sensitive activities related to offshore oil and gas, including resource and economic evaluations, data releases, and website updates;
environmental reviews required by the National Environmental Policy Act;
environmental studies under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act; and
processing and reviewing geological and geophysical permits.

For more information on BOEM’s contingency plan please see the following link:

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Contingency Plan

BSEE Contingency Plan:

Number and percentage of BSEE furloughed employees: 190 of its 560 employees (or 34% of its workforce)

Continued agency activities (i.e., those activities related to “critical permitting and oversight activities”) include, but are not limited to, the following:

processing permits for new wells and well modifications;
receiving and reviewing critical plans and documents supporting offshore oil and gas energy, including oil spill response plans;
other activities related to safety, environmental protection and emergency response, including drilling oversight activities; and
undertaking investigations, inspections, and enforcement activities related to offshore operations.

studies unrelated to major ongoing activities;
drafting and promulgating non-critical regulations; and
website updates.

For more information on BSEE’s contingency plan please see the following link:

Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement Contingency Plan

DOI/ONRR Contingency Plan:

Number and percentage of ONRR furloughed employees: unknown

Continued agency activities include, but are not limited to, the following:

energy and mineral revenue collection and disbursement activities.

Ceased agency activities include, but are not limited to, the following:

compliance reviews and audit activities;
verification of natural resource production meters;
royalty valuation;
developing and issuing new regulations;
enforcement actions;
processing of revenue related appeals; and
website updates.

For more information on DOI/ONRR’s contingency plan please see the following link:

Office of the Secretary Contingency Plan