Craig B. Fields

Craig B. Fields

Education

Queens College (B.A., 1986)
Duke University School of Law (J.D., 1989)
New York University School of Law (LL.M., 1991)

Bar Admissions

Connecticut
New York
District of Columbia
Massachusetts

Craig is co-chair of MoFo’s Tax Department and chair of the firm’s State + Local Tax Group. He regularly litigates state and local tax matters and counsels clients on state and local tax planning.

In addition to representing clients in state and local tax controversies before administrative and judicial systems in jurisdictions throughout the United States, Craig has resolved hundreds of non-public record cases around the country.

One of Craig’s clients told Chambers USA 2018: “He is technically and procedurally great.”

Craig has secured successful outcomes for clients in state general jurisdiction courts and tax courts as well as appellate courts for a multitude of clients, including:

  • AE Outfitters Retail
  • Agilent Technologies
  • Daimler Investments US Corp.
  • Duke Energy Corporation
  • Kohl’s Department Stores
  • MeadWestvaco Corp.

He has also advised clients on the potential tax consequences, in many jurisdictions, of complex restructurings involving:

  • Corporation income (franchise) taxes
  • Sales and use taxes
  • Miscellaneous taxes

Craig received the NYU School of Professional Studies Paul H. Frankel Award for Outstanding Achievement in State and Local Taxation in 2017.

In 2019 he was selected as a Fellow of the American Bar Foundation.

Craig’s articles on U.S. state-and-local taxation have appeared in publications, including:

  • Journal of State Taxation
  • State Tax Notes
  • Tax Management’s Multistate Tax Report
  • COST State Tax Report
  • Research Institute of America’s State and Local Taxes Weekly
  • Journal of Multistate Taxation and Incentives
  • Journal of New York Taxation
  • Interstate Tax Report
  • The American Bar Association’s The State & Local Tax Lawyer

Craig also frequently delivers lectures on state-and-local tax issues and has spoken before organizations including:

  • Georgetown University Law Center’s Advanced State and Local Tax Institute
  • National Multistate Tax Symposium
  • New York University’s Institute on State and Local Taxation
  • Vanderbilt University Law School’s Paul J. Hartman State and Local Tax Forum
  • Tax Executives Institute
  • Council On State Taxation
  • Energy Tax Association
  • STARTUP
  • Tulane Tax Institute
  • Practicing Law Institute
  • Tax Section of the American Bar Association

Craig is a member of:

  • The Georgetown Law Center Advisory Board
  • The National Multistate Tax Symposium Advisory Board
  • The Advisory Board for The Journal of State Taxation
  • The Bloomberg BNA State Tax Advisory Board
  • The State Tax Notes Advisory Board

Agilent Technologies, Inc.
The Colorado Supreme Court held that the Department of Revenue could not forcibly include in a combined return a corporation’s subsidiary, a holding company that derived its income solely from investments in foreign entities, inasmuch as the Department was bound by its own regulation, which provided that a corporation without any property or payroll of its own cannot be included in a Colorado combined return.


Kohl’s Department Stores, Inc.
The Virginia Supreme Court, in a 4-3 decision, held that the subject-to-tax safe harbor to the royalty addback was ambiguous and applies only to the extent that the royalties are actually taxed by another state. In addition, the court agreed with the company’s alternative argument that a portion of the royalties qualify for the safe harbor when: (1) the royalties are taxed by states that require the royalty payor to add back the royalty payments; or (2) the royalties are taxed by states that require combined or consolidated reporting.


Former CFO of Fortune 500 Company
A New York State Administrative Law Judge held that the former Chief Financial Officer of a Fortune 500 Company, who was based in New York City while CFO but retired and then moved to Paris to be with his wife, a French domiciliary with whom he rekindled a relationship after more than 40 years apart, clearly established that he was no longer domiciled in New York, and therefore could no longer be taxed as a New York State and City resident.


Duke Energy Corporation
The New Jersey Tax Court held that electric utilities taxes paid to North Carolina and South Carolina are not taxes “on or measured by profits or income, or business presence or business activity” and, therefore, are not required to be added back to the taxpayer’s federal taxable income for Corporation Business Tax purposes.


AE Outfitters Retail Co.
The Indiana Tax Court granted partial summary judgment against the Department of Revenue in a forced combination case.


Agilent Technologies, Inc.
The Colorado Court of Appeals held that the Department of Revenue could not forcibly include in a combined return a corporation’s subsidiary, a holding company that derived its income solely from investments in foreign entities, inasmuch as the Department was bound by its own regulation, which provided that a corporation without any property or payroll of its own cannot be included in a Colorado combined return.


Kohl’s Department Stores, Inc.
The Virginia Supreme Court, in a 4-3 decision, held that the subject-to-tax safe harbor to the royalty addback was ambiguous and applies only to the extent that the royalties are actually taxed by another state. In addition, the court agreed with the company’s alternative argument that a portion of the royalties qualify for the safe harbor when: (1) the royalties are taxed by states that require the royalty payor to add back the royalty payments; or (2) the royalties are taxed by states that require combined or consolidated reporting.


Former CFO of Fortune 500 Company
A New York State Administrative Law Judge held that the former Chief Financial Officer of a Fortune 500 Company, who was based in New York City while CFO but retired and then moved to Paris to be with his wife, a French domiciliary with whom he rekindled a relationship after more than 40 years apart, clearly established that he was no longer domiciled in New York, and therefore could no longer be taxed as a New York State and City resident.


Duke Energy Corporation
The New Jersey Tax Court held that electric utilities taxes paid to North Carolina and South Carolina are not taxes “on or measured by profits or income, or business presence or business activity” and, therefore, are not required to be added back to the taxpayer’s federal taxable income for Corporation Business Tax purposes.


AE Outfitters Retail Co.
The Indiana Tax Court granted partial summary judgment against the Department of Revenue in a forced combination case.


Chambers USA has ranked Mr. Fields as a leading state tax lawyer since 2012. In addition, Legal 500 US has recommended him since 2011 and he has been ranked consistently in Super Lawyers since 2006. He was also named to State Tax Notes’ “Top 10 Tax Lawyers” list in 2011.

What Clients Are Saying

  • Clients attest: “He is excellent with legal analysis, strategy development and follow-through.” – Chambers USA 2017
  • Clients say: “He knows to be aggressive or assertive as we want, and has a great level of experience. He gets a successful outcome very consistently. His interpersonal skills are excellent, engaging but not overwhelming; he comes at it with a nice balance.” – Chambers USA 2016
  • Interviewees say: “He is adept at negotiating settlements and formulating strategies to resolve issues favourably and expediently.” – Chambers USA 2015
  • State tax sources have said that “he is a very effective manager of litigation matters and attracts some important SALT cases.” – Chambers USA 2014
  • Clients praise his ability to “balance what the state is trying to do and what the taxpayer is trying to accomplish,” and regard him as a “very effective litigator: highly competent, and very good at articulating his points.” – Chambers USA 2013
  • Praised by clients for his “strong business acumen and great personality that conveys a professional and proactive approach to dealing with tax.” – Chambers USA 2012

"He's very valuable on the SALT side," says a client, citing his "knowledge and ability to deal with issues. If I have a question, he gets back to me quickly."
Chambers USA 2019


“He is technically and procedurally great; he has a good demeanor in controversy settings and is a very effective listener.”
Chambers USA 2018


Clients attest: “He is excellent with legal analysis, strategy development and follow-through.”
Chambers USA 2017


Clients say: “He knows to be aggressive or assertive as we want, and has a great level of experience. He gets a successful outcome very consistently. His interpersonal skills are excellent, engaging but not overwhelming; he comes at it with a nice balance.”  
– Chambers USA 2016


Interviewees say: “He is adept at negotiating settlements and formulating strategies to resolve issues favourably and expediently.”
– Chambers USA 2015

Email Disclaimer

Unsolicited e-mails and information sent to Morrison & Foerster will not be considered confidential, may be disclosed to others pursuant to our Privacy Policy, may not receive a response, and do not create an attorney-client relationship with Morrison & Foerster. If you are not already a client of Morrison & Foerster, do not include any confidential information in this message. Also, please note that our attorneys do not seek to practice law in any jurisdiction in which they are not properly authorized to do so.

©1996-2019 Morrison & Foerster LLP. All rights reserved.