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 B. Fields is co-chair of the firm’s Tax Department and is also chair of the firm’s State + Local Tax Group. His practice focuses on litigation and planning relating to state and local tax matters. He has been involved in controversies regarding state and local tax issues before the administrative and judicial systems of jurisdictions throughout the United States as well as having resolved hundreds of non-public record cases around the country. Mr. Fields has also provided advice regarding the potential tax consequences of complex restructurings involving the corporation income (franchise) taxes, the sales and use taxes, and miscellaneous taxes of many jurisdictions.

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

Mr. Fields has written extensively in the area of state and local taxation. His articles have appeared in numerous publications, including Tax Management’s Multistate Tax Report, State Tax Notes, Research Institute of America’s State and Local Taxes Weekly, the COST State Tax Report, the Journal of State Taxation, the Journal of Multistate Taxation and Incentives, the Journal of New York Taxation, Interstate Tax Report, and the American Bar Association’s The State & Local Tax Lawyer.

Mr. Fields is also a frequent lecturer concerning state and local taxes and has spoken before such organizations as New York University’s Institute on State and Local Taxation, Georgetown University Law Center’s Advanced State and Local Tax Institute, Vanderbilt University Law School’s Paul J. Hartman State and Local Tax Forum, the Council On State Taxation, The National Multistate Tax Symposium, the Energy Tax Association, STARTUP, the Tax Executives Institute, the Tulane Tax Institute, the Practicing Law Institute, and the Tax Section of the American Bar Association. Mr. Fields 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, and the State Tax Notes Advisory Board.

Agilent Technologies, Inc.
The Colorado Court of Appeals held that the Colorado 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 Colorado 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

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

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.

©1996-2017 Morrison & Foerster LLP. All rights reserved.