By Scott Booth and Andrew Appleby

Although states continue to challenge the validity of captive insurance companies, Wendy’s has notched several taxpayer victories. In a win involving Scioto Insurance Company (Scioto), Wendy’s captive insurance company, the Illinois Appellate Court held that Scioto constituted a bona fide insurance company that was properly excluded from Wendy’s combined

By Shane Lord and Timothy Gustafson

The Tennessee Court of Appeals held that a taxpayer’s wholesale service of converting end-user information into Internet protocol was an “enhanced” service for which the true object or primary purpose was to provide the non-taxable service of “Internet access” and not the taxable service of “telecommunications.” Adopting definitions set forth

By Zachary Atkins and Douglas Mo

The California Supreme Court held that the State Board of Equalization (SBOE) violated the state’s Administrative Procedures Act (APA) when it promulgated Cal. Code Regs., tit. 18, § 474 (Rule 474). Rule 474, a specialized property tax rule relating to the assessment of petroleum refineries, creates a rebuttable presumption

By Kathryn Pittman and Andrew Appleby

A Washington Superior Court held that using leased specialized railroad cars to transport products in Washington did not rise to the level of “substantial nexus.” The taxpayer, a California company, sold food products into the state by transferring its products into specially leased railroad cars that traveled to Washington.

By Mary Alexander and Andrew Appleby

The Indiana Department of Revenue disallowed a taxpayer’s deduction for interest expenses accrued to a subsidiary because the Department considered the loan a sham. Unless eligible for an exemption under Ind. Code § 6-3-2-20(c), a taxpayer that is subject to Indiana’s adjusted gross income tax is required to add

By Madison Barnett and Timothy Gustafson

In a case involving the exclusion of captive insurance companies from combined reporting groups, the Indiana Tax Court held that a captive must be physically present in Indiana to be “subject to” the insurance premiums tax and therefore exempt from the corporate income tax. The Tax Court initially