future-focused

Louisiana Department of Revenue Provides Guidance Regarding Recent Sales Tax Changes

2 minute read

Last week, the Louisiana Department of Revenue (the “Department”) issued guidance regarding recent sales and use tax law changes. The Department issued Revenue Information Bulletin No. 25-023 on August 14, 2025 explaining how general contractors and subcontractors can qualify for the extended governmental sales tax exemption included in Act 384 of the 2025 Regular Session of the Louisiana Legislature. General contractors and subcontractors performing services for state or local government entities in Louisiana must complete the newly created Form R-85012, Public Projects Contractor/Subcontractor Certification and Exemption Application, through the Louisiana Taxpayer Access Point (“LaTAP”) in order to qualify for the exemption.

The application must include the job description, contract number, state or local government entity identifying information, and valid dates or a date range for the construction project. Once a contractor has obtained a valid certificate, any purchases made after July 1, 2025 shall be exempt from state and local sales tax, even if the contract with the government entity was executed before July 1, 2025. No purchases made before July 1, 2025 shall be exempt from sales tax. Local tax collectors are also required to honor the exemption certificate issued to a general contractor or subcontractor.

However, the exemption does not apply to general contractors or subcontractors making purchases related to payment in lieu of taxes (“PILOT”) agreements or other similar agreements executed after July 1, 2025, unless the agreement is approved by the Secretary of the Department and the Secretary of the Louisiana Economic Development. The Department had previously published Revenue Information Bulletin No. 25-022 explaining the process for obtaining a contractor exemption related to PILOT agreements.

In addition to Revenue Information Bulletin No. 25-023, the Department published the Sales and Use Tax on Digital Products and Related Services Guide, which provides additional detail regarding the taxation of digital products in Louisiana. Finally, the Department updated its Frequently Asked Questions section on recent sales and use tax law changes.

For further updates regarding this topic, contact Liskow attorneys Bob Angelico, Caroline Lafourcade, and Kevin Naccari, Jr. and visit our Tax practice page.

 

La. Department of Revenue Addresses Changes to Contractor Exemptions for PILOT Agreements

3 minute read

The Louisiana Department of Revenue (LDR) recently issued Louisiana Revenue Information Bulletin No. 25-022, 08/08/2025, announcing changes to the sales tax exemption for certain purchases made by construction contractors.

Exemption for certain construction contracts

During the 2025 Regular Session, the Louisiana Legislature extended the sales tax exemption to certain purchases by general contractors and their subcontractors when performing work pursuant to construction contracts for the state, local governments, or any agency, board, commission or instrumentality or political subdivision of the state (“public projects”).  La. R.S. 47:305.7(A)(1)(b).   However, for purposes of state sales and use taxes, pursuant to La. R.S. 47:305.7(A)(1)(c), the exemption will not apply to purchases related to payment in lieu of taxes (PILOT) agreements or similar agreements executed after July 1, 2025, unless the agreement is approved by the secretary of the LDR and the secretary of the Louisiana Department of Economic Development (LED).

Application requirements

Requests for approval of PILOT agreements should be submitted to the LDR by e-mail and must include certain information as provided in the guidance. Each request must be accompanied by a state fiscal return on investment (ROI) analysis and a “but-for report.” The ROI must be specific to the cost of the state exemption and net fiscal benefit to the state. The but-for report should answer whether, from a strictly financial perspective, the project would be financially feasible under current market conditions without the exemption of state sales and use tax. Any but-for report prepared for purposes of the local entity may be submitted for purposes of the state requirement if it contains an analysis exclusive to the exemption or abatement of state sales tax. Finally, the project owner, general contractor, and subcontractors who claim the exemption must certify that they have not filed for bankruptcy relief in the last 10 years and are current in their federal, state, and local tax filings.

Evaluation of request

The guidance states that submission of all required information does not guarantee approval and that each request will be evaluated to assess the impact on Louisiana. If approved, the request will be forwarded to the LED for consideration.

PILOTs

PILOT is an acronym for “Payment in lieu of Taxes.” PILOT agreements are a way for the State of Louisiana and its local governments to provide tax abatements to businesses to stimulate economic development.  Through a PILOT agreement, an incentive is given to a private company through a governmental unit (usually a city, parish, port commission or industrial development board) whereby the governmental unit takes title to an economic development project for a term of years, and the project is leased back to the company once the project has actually been built or developed. The company generally receives the benefits of depreciation, while being responsible for paying maintenance, operation and insurance costs on the project. However, since the governmental unit has title to the economic development project, its property is exempt from local property taxes and state and local sales and use taxes on materials and equipment purchased during the construction of the project allowing for the contractual structuring of the PILOT payments (reduced tax payment).  The level of tax abatement is negotiated between the private company and the government unit.

To qualify for the exemption from state and local sales and use taxes, the public entity must designate the general contractor and each sub-contractor on the project as a mandatary (agent) of the lessor for the purpose of purchasing construction materials and equipment.  Prior to claiming the exemption from sales and use tax, the general contractor or their subcontractor shall obtain a certificate of exemption from the LDR which must include the job description, contract number, state or local government entity identifying information, and valid dates or a date range for the project.  Local collectors shall accept certificates of exemption properly issued by the LDR and completed by the general contractor or their subcontractors. 

For PILOT agreements executed after July 1, 2025, the parties must obtain approval by the secretary of the LDR and LED in order to qualify for the exemption from state and local sales and use taxes.

For more information regarding this topic, contact Liskow attorneys Caroline Lafourcade, Bob Angelico, and Kevin Naccari, and visit the Louisiana Industrial Insights Hub for further updates.

 

IRS Expands List of Substances Subject to Superfund Excise Taxes

2 minute read

The IRS recently added 21 new chemicals to the List of taxable substances subject to the Superfund Chemical Excise Taxes and corrected a typographical error in guidance on the spelling of sodium nitrilotriacetate monohydrate and prescribed a tax rate of $3.97 per ton for the substance, effective July 1, 2022.

The Superfund Chemical Excise Taxes apply to manufacturers, producers or importers who sell or use “taxable chemicals” or “taxable substances” that are manufactured or produced in the U.S. or are imported into the United States. The tax is applicable if the chemicals or substances are considered taxable under §4661 or §4672 of the Internal Revenue Code (“Code”). Businesses must analyze the chemical composition of all of their products and determine where along the supply chain any taxable chemicals or substances are imported into, or produced the U.S., and by whom.

The following substances were added to the List according to the Notice published in the Federal Register on August 4, 2025:

Polyphenylene sulfide

Cellulose acetate (degree of substitution = 1.5–2.0)

4,4′- isopropylidenediphenol-epichlorohydrin copolymer

Nylon 6

Caprolactam

Methyl ethyl ketoxime

Iso-butanol

Diethylene glycol

Monomethyl ether

Ethylene glycol  phenyl ether

Methoxytriglycol

Propylene glycol methyl ether acetate

Propylene glycol methyl ether

Propylene glycol n-propyl ether

Propylene glycol phenyl ether

Di-isobutyl carbinol

Di-isobutyl ketone

Methyl isobutyl carbinol

Cyanuric acid

Potassium bicarbonate

Potassium carbonate

Sodium chlorite.

The effective date for purposes of the excise tax under §4671 of the Code for the taxable substances added to the list is January 1, 2026.

The updated List and prescribed tax rates for taxable substances will be included in the instructions to IRS Form 6627, Environmental Taxes.

In November 2021, President Biden signed into law the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, which revived and expanded long dormant excise taxes (known as the Superfund Chemicals Taxes) used to address hazardous waste sites in the United States. The new taxes, which went into effect on July 1, 2022, apply to the sale of certain chemical substances, and to an importer’s sale or use of specified substances.

For more information, contact Liskow attorneys Caroline Lafourcade, Greg Johnson, or Clare Bienvenu.

 

Court of Chancery of Delaware Validates Asset Protection Trust Laws

2 minute read

The Court of Chancery of Delaware recently validated the Delaware asset protection trust laws and rejected a creditor’s attempt to seize assets held in a Delaware asset protection trust in order to enforce a $14 million judgment from Michigan against the trust’s grantor. In the Matter of the CES 2007 Trust. The creditor alleged that the trust was merely a facade used to conceal assets, with the grantor still exercising control.

The Court emphasized that the trust had been established in 2007—before the debt arose—and held 90% ownership in various Delaware LLCs, which in turn owned real estate. According to Delaware law, holding an interest in an LLC does not equate to owning the underlying property, so the trust was not deemed to own the real estate directly.

The Court found that the trust complied with all statutory requirements for a valid Delaware asset protection trust: it was irrevocable, included a legally enforceable spendthrift provision, was managed by a qualified Delaware trustee, and was governed by Delaware law. Although the grantor retained certain investment advisory powers and appointed his brother as trust protector, the Court ruled that these elements were permissible under Delaware law and did not render the trust invalid or suggest that the grantor retained control.

Additionally, the Court found no evidence of fraudulent conduct or mismanagement. The grantor’s role in managing the LLCs did not, in the Court’s view, justify disregarding the trust’s protections. Without concrete evidence of wrongdoing, the Court refused to treat the trust as a sham or to “pierce the veil.”

This ruling reinforces the strength of Delaware’s asset protection trust laws, confirming that adherence to the formal legal requirements can shield trusts from creditor claims—even those based on judgments from other states—unless there is clear evidence of fraud or abuse. For further questions regarding the bill, contact Liskow attorneys Leon Rittenberg III, Caroline Lafourcade,  John Rouchell, and Kevin Naccari and visit our Tax practice page.

 

Treasury Revokes Rule Requiring Decentralized Finance (DEFi) Reporting

2 minute read

On December 30, 2024, the Department of the Treasury (the “Department”) finalized regulations regarding information reporting by brokers who operate decentralized finance (DeFi) platforms in T.D. 10021. Those regulations required brokers who provide front-end services in DeFi transactions to file information returns and furnish payee statements reporting gross proceeds on dispositions of digital assets effected for customers in certain sale or exchange transactions. Transactions involving wrapping and unwrapping, liquidity providers, staking, lending, short sales, and notional principal contracts, however, were excepted from the reporting requirements.  The newly created Form 1099-DA would have been required for all sales and exchanges subject to the new reporting requirements beginning January 1, 2025. Critics of the new rule argued that the reporting requirements were cumbersome and would harm the American cryptocurrency market.

Pursuant to its authority under the Congressional Review Act (CRA), Congress passed a joint resolution disapproving the final rule titled “Gross Proceeds Reporting by Brokers that Regularly Provide Services Effectuating Digital Asset Sales,” and the President signed the resolution on April 10, 2025. Under the joint resolution and by operation of the CRA, T.D. 10021 has no legal force or effect. On July 11, 2025, the Department and the IRS removed this final rule from the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) and reverted the relevant text of the CFR back to the text that was in effect immediately prior to the effective date of this final rule.

Broker is defined to include a dealer, a barter exchange organization, any person who (for consideration) regularly acts as a middleman with respect to property or services, and any person who (for consideration) is responsible for regularly providing any service effectuating transfers of digital assets on behalf of another person.

Thus, brokers other than decentralized or non-custodial brokers that do not take possession of the digital assets being sold or exchanged will remain subject to the reporting requirements under T.D. 10000. The key difference is that DeFi brokers, including decentralized exchanges, or those who effectuate smart contracts, decentralized applications, and automated market makers, will not be required to submit Forms 1099-DA. The final joint resolution also prohibits the Department from issuing similar rules in the future. The hope is that this will spur further innovation in the digital asset industry and develop more DeFi products.

For further questions regarding the bill, contact Liskow attorneys Leon Rittenberg III, Caroline Lafourcade,  and Kevin Naccari and visit our Tax practice page.

Wells on the High Seas: Maritime Law and the Energy Industry

less than a minute

In this episode of “Energy Law This Week,” hosts Matt Jones and April L. Rolen-Ogden are joined by Liskow maritime attorney Thomas Diaz to discuss significant legal updates in the energy sector, focusing on recent cases and developments in maritime and admiralty law. They explore a landmark Texas Supreme Court decision regarding produced water rights, the implications of the Jones Act, and the complexities of contracts in oil and gas operations. The conversation also delves into the regulatory impacts of maritime law and offers practical pro tips for navigating this intricate legal landscape.

Listen to the full episode on the Oil & Gas Global Network here.

Wells on the High Seas: Maritime Law and the Energy Industry

less than a minute

In this episode of “Energy Law This Week,” hosts Matt Jones and April L. Rolen-Ogden are joined by Liskow maritime attorney Thomas Diaz to discuss significant legal updates in the energy sector, focusing on recent cases and developments in maritime and admiralty law. They explore a landmark Texas Supreme Court decision regarding produced water rights, the implications of the Jones Act, and the complexities of contracts in oil and gas operations. The conversation also delves into the regulatory impacts of maritime law and offers practical pro tips for navigating this intricate legal landscape.

Listen to the full episode on the Oil & Gas Global Network here.

NEPA Reform under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act and Revised Agency Procedures

3 minute read

On July 4, 2025, President Trump signed into law the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” (“the OBBBA”), which modifies the environmental review process under the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) by allowing a project sponsor to pay a fee for the expedited review of an Environmental Assessment (“EA”) or Environmental Impact Statement (“EIS”). NEPA requires federal agencies to assess the environmental impacts of their actions, and this process typically involves preparing an EA, or a more comprehensive EIS. NEPA established the Council on Environmental Quality (“CEQ”) within the executive office and charged the Council with overseeing NEPA implementation.

Section 60026 of the OBBBA amends NEPA to provide that a project sponsor may, after submitting a description of the project to the CEQ, pay 125% of the anticipated preparation costs of the EA or EIS in return for a review of the EA or EIS under an accelerated timeline. The review for EAs for which the fee is paid must be completed within 180 days from the date the fee was paid, and the review for EISs must be completed within one year from the date of publication of the notice of intent to prepare the EIS. CEQ must provide the fee amount within 15 days after the date on which it receives the description of the project. This opt-in fast track is aimed at streamlining NEPA reviews and is the latest action directly affecting NEPA, coming on the heels of President Trump’s executive orders and the Supreme Court’s decision in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition.  

In addition, several federal agencies, including the United States Army Corps of Engineers (“USACE”) and the Departments of Interior, Energy, and Agriculture, recently issued interim final rules revising and/or rescinding their NEPA implementing regulations and outlining their new NEPA procedures. In particular, USACE issued an interim final rule on July 3, 2025, that rescinded its prior NEPA implementing regulations and replaced them with new regulations found at 33 C.F.R. Part 333. USACE also noted that it would rely on the Department of Defense procedures for civil works purposes. Part 333 applies to both the USACE Regulatory Program1 and the Section 408 Program, and some key highlights include:

  • Incorporation of the Seven County Infrastructure Coalition Court’s clarification to the scope of NEPA environmental reviews – USACE “may, but is not required to by NEPA, analyze environmental effects from other projects separate in time, or separate in place, or that fall outside of the [USACE’s] regulatory authority, or that would have to be initiated by a third party.”
  • Alignment with the NEPA Amendments in the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 –
    • Time Limits: Generally, an EA must be completed within one year after the date on which the USACE determines the preparation of an EA for the proposed activity is required, and an EIS must be completed within two years after the date on which USACE determines that the proposed activity requires the issuance of an EIS.
    • Page Limits: Generally, an EA must not exceed 75 pages, and an EIS must not exceed 150 pages, both not including citations or appendices.
  • Changes to Public Involvement – USACE must address only “substantive” comments and need not respond when, for example, the “comment is outside the scope of what is being proposed” or the “commenter misinterpreted the information provided.”

The Part 333 regulations also retain USACE’s categorical exclusions, which are a category of actions that USACE has determined do not have a significant effect on the human environment and thus do not require the preparation of an EA or EIS. USACE’s interim final rule became effective on July 3, 2025, for Regulatory Program permit applications and Section 408 permission requests submitted to USACE on or after that date. Comments on the interim final rule are due by August 4, 2025.

            The recent wave of NEPA reforms from the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of the federal government underscore a shift in policy aiming to speed up federal environmental review. While the OBBBA seeks to improve government efficiency, it does not provide a remedy if the agency deadlines are missed, and recent staffing and shifts in agency funding could affect timelines. Industry should stay tuned for further updates to this evolving NEPA landscape.

For more information regarding this topic, contact Liskow attorneys Greg Johnson, Clare Bienvenu, Emily von Qualen, and Colin North, and visit the Louisiana Industrial Insights Hub for further updates.

1 The Regulatory Program refers to the processing of permit applications under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, Section 9 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, and Section 103 of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972.