Noteworthy Cases

Subscribe to Noteworthy Cases via RSS

Virginia released a ruling discussing the right to apportion and how to source sales when the ultimate destination of the sale is outside of Virginia. The Taxpayer was a manufacturer whose headquarters and only production facility were located in Virginia. However, the Taxpayer’s business was largely comprised of sales of its products to the U.S. Government, which in turn exported the products from the Taxpayer’s Virginia facility to various foreign countries. The Taxpayer would then send employees to the product locations for set up and installation.

First, the Tax Commissioner discussed whether the Taxpayer had the right to apportion its income for Virginia income tax purposes. Noting that in Virginia a corporation has the right to apportion its income if it is subject to a tax on net income in another jurisdiction, the Commissioner determined that it needed further information about the Taxpayer’s activities in other jurisdictions to determine if the Taxpayer had a right to apportion.Continue Reading Virginia Ruling Appears to Reach Right Outcome on “Right to Apportion” and Sourcing of Sales…But Perhaps for the Wrong Reason

We previously reported on a significant taxpayer victory in which the Oregon Tax Court held that changes or corrections made by other states’ taxing authorities will not hold open the Oregon statute of limitations. Dep’t of Revenue v. Washington Federal, Inc., TC 5010 (Or. Tax Ct., June 29, 2012). As promised, following is our analysis of the case.

The taxpayer, a multistate federal savings and loan corporation, timely filed its Oregon corporate excise tax returns for tax years 1999 through 2002. Arizona and Idaho state taxing authorities assessed the taxpayer in 2003 and 2006, respectively. In 2008, after the expiration of the standard Oregon statute of limitations for assessment (generally three years from the date the return was filed), the Oregon Department of Revenue (the Department) issued assessments for the tax years 1999 through 2002. The issue before the court was whether the Department’s assessments were timely.Continue Reading Oregon DOR Out of Luck on SOL: Our Analysis

In a non-precedential, summary decision released May 3, 2012, the California State Board of Equalization (the Board) held that a foreign corporation with only one employee in California was “doing business” in the state and thus was subject to California’s corporation franchise tax. Appeal of Warwick McKinley, Inc., Cal. Bd. of Equal., Jan. 11, 2012 (released May 3, 2012). While California recently expanded its statutory definition of “doing business” in California Revenue and Taxation Code (CRTC) section 23101(b) to include a factor presence nexus test, the Board in Appeal of Warwick McKinley, Inc. focused on CRTC section 23101(a), which defines “doing business” to mean “actively engaging in any transaction for the purpose of financial or pecuniary gain or profit.”Continue Reading California Nexus: Not in My House!

More than a decade into the case, AT&T’s challenge to the constitutionality of Mississippi’s dividends received deduction is over. On September 6, the Mississippi Supreme Court invalidated on procedural grounds the trial court’s 2006 decision finding that the dividends received deduction was unconstitutional. Mississippi’s dividends received deduction is limited to dividends paid from subsidiaries doing…

The U.S. Supreme Court held in Armour v. City of Indianapolis, 132 S.Ct. 2073 (June 4, 2012), that a city’s refusal to refund sewer taxes prepaid by some homeowners while relieving taxes paid by other homeowners who elected to pay the tax by installment did not violate the Equal Protection Clause. Applying a rational basis standard, the Court upheld the tax forgiveness scheme because it was rationally related to the city’s legitimate interest of avoiding the administrative costs associated with issuing refunds.

The opinion reflects the difficulty of applying the Equal Protection Clause. The Court provided that laws treating similarly situated taxpayers differently are constitutional as long as there is a “plausible policy reason for the classification . . . and the relationship of the classification to its goal is not so attenuated so as to render the distinction arbitrary or irrational.” The Court noted that the only instance where it has found a rational basis lacking in this context is where a state law requiring equal assessment was “dramatically violated” by gross disparity in assessments. Here, the sewer project financing assessments were equally distributed, as required by state law. Whether the tax should be forgiven and how such a tax forgiveness program should be implemented are separate questions which are not addressed by state law.Continue Reading Administrative Convenience Justifies Inequality in Tax Forgiveness Program

In direct contradiction to the recent MetLife case, a different division of the Illinois Appellate Court held that a taxpayer was subject to the double interest amnesty penalty on its increased state tax liability resulting from federal audit changes. Marriott Intern. Inc. v. Hamer, 2012 IL App (1st) 111406 (Ill. App. Ct., 1st Dist., 3rd Div. Aug. 22, 2012). The MetLife case held that such penalties did not apply under nearly identical facts. Met. Life Ins. Co. v. Illinois Dep’t of Revenue, 2012 IL App (1st) 110400, at *1 (Ill. App. Ct. 1st Dist., 1st Div. Mar. 5, 2012).

A 2003 Illinois amnesty program provided amnesty to taxpayers who paid “all taxes due” for eligible tax years by November 2003. A double interest penalty applied for those taxpayers that had a tax liability eligible for amnesty but failed to pay it. Two months after the amnesty period ended, the Internal Revenue Service began an audit of Marriott that ultimately resulted in a 2007 revenue agent report (RAR), increasing Marriott’s federal taxable income. Marriott timely reported the federal RAR changes to Illinois and paid the resulting tax liability.Continue Reading Illinois Double Whammy on Double Interest Penalty

The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals held that an out-of-state licensor of intangible property did not have nexus in West Virginia despite products bearing its intangible property being sold in the state. Griffith v. ConAgra Brands, Inc., Dkt. No. 10-AA-02 (W. Va. May 24, 2012). The decision is an important taxpayer victory, particularly for licensors of intangible property.

ConAgra Foods, Inc., a food products company, established and transferred to a wholly owned subsidiary, ConAgra Brands (CA Brands), numerous trademarks and trade names. CA Brands also acquired intangibles from unrelated third parties. CA Brands licensed the intangibles to related and unrelated parties in return for royalty payments. The licensed food products were manufactured by the licensees outside of West Virginia and were sold or distributed to wholesalers and retailers in several states, including West Virginia. CA Brands had no physical presence in West Virginia, and it did not control how the licensees distributed the products bearing the CA Brands’ intangibles.Continue Reading Efforts to Expand Economic Nexus Stall in West Virginia