November 2013

By Sahang-Hee Hahn and Timothy Gustafson

The New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, held that interest income derived from Xerox Corporation’s equipment financing agreements with governmental customers failed to qualify as “investment income” for New York Corporation Franchise Tax purposes. Xerox’s financing agreements consisted of two types: fixed purchase option leases and installment sales. Xerox

By Maria Todorova

The Indiana Department of Revenue determined that a taxpayer and its two affiliated entities were not required to report their income using a “separate accounting” method because the Department’s audit staff failed to prove the standard apportionment formula did not fairly reflect the taxpayer’s business activities in Indiana. The taxpayer, a manufacturer

By Todd Betor

A nonresident corporation requested a ruling from the Virginia Tax Commissioner as to whether the corporation was required to withhold Virginia state income tax and pay Virginia unemployment insurance for an employee who worked and resided in Virginia. The employee’s in-state activities consisted solely of performing legal services on behalf of the

By Kathryn Pittman and Andrew Appleby

The Virginia Tax Commissioner found that a corporation with a single employee in Virginia who conducted work-related activities from a home office had nexus for corporate income tax purposes. The taxpayer, headquartered outside of Virginia, had one employee who conducted training at various facilities outside Virginia, but also developed

By Madison Barnett and Jonathan Feldman

The Illinois Supreme Court held that Illinois’ local Retailers’ Occupation Tax (ROT) sourcing regulations—which applied a bright-line test to assign sales to the location where the purchase order was accepted—were not supported by the controlling tax imposition statutes and thus were invalid. The taxpayer, like many others in Illinois, established