By Madison Barnett and Jack Trachtenberg

The Michigan Court of Appeals ruled in two consolidated cases that the state’s estimated corporate income tax assessments were invalid because the taxpayers’ sales factors were improperly calculated using an alternative population-based formula rather than the statutory costs of performance (COP) formula. The two taxpayers were out-of-state book publishers

By Todd Betor and Pilar Mata

Oregon’s $29 million corporate excise tax claim against the taxpayers’ parent company was held to violate both the Due Process and Commerce Clauses of the U.S. Constitution by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. Oregon claimed that Washington Mutual, Inc. (WMI) was liable for its subsidiaries’

By Zachary Atkins and Jack Trachtenberg

The Commonwealth notched another win before the Massachusetts Appeals Court in a case of first impression affirming corporate excise tax assessments based on a disallowance of the taxpayers’ interest and royalty expenses for pre-addback (pre-2002) and addback tax years (post-2001). Under a clear and convincing evidence standard, the court

By Scott Booth and Prentiss Willson

The Vermont Supreme Court held that coupon books distributed monthly, within a free weekly newspaper and also separately distributed on news racks, were not “component parts” of the newspaper, and thus were not exempt from Vermont sales and use tax as newspapers. Vermont exempts newspapers and tangible personal property

By Mary Alexander and Prentiss Willson

The disallowance of a credit for income taxes paid to other states against Maryland’s county income tax was ruled unconstitutional as a violation of the dormant Commerce Clause by the Court of Appeals of Maryland. Maryland’s income tax, which includes both state and county components, is imposed on all

The Virginia Tax Commissioner overturned the Department of Taxation’s adjustments to a taxpayer’s nonresident Virginia income tax return based on a determination that certain transactions between related entities were indeed conducted at arm’s-length, contrary to the Department’s prior findings. The nonresident taxpayer was the majority owner of both an out-of-state LLC as well as a