Noteworthy Cases

Subscribe to Noteworthy Cases via RSS

This morning, the North Carolina Court of Appeals released its decision in Delhaize America, Inc. v. Lay, No. COA11-868 (N.C. Ct. App. 2012). Delhaize, formerly known as Food Lion, formed an intangible holding company as part of a restructuring in the late 1990s. The Secretary of the North Carolina Department of Revenue sought to combine Delhaize with its intangible holding company on the ground that combination was necessary to reflect Delhaize’s “true earnings,” which is a North Carolina statutory standard used to justify the application of forced combination. The Department assessed Delhaize approximately $20.6 million in tax, interest, and penalty, which Delhaize challenged primarily on procedural due process grounds.

The definition and application of “true earnings” has been a controversial issue. In Wal-Mart Stores East, Inc. v. Hinton, 676 S.E.2d 634 (N.C. Ct. App. 2009), the North Carolina Court of Appeals held that the Secretary of Revenue has discretionary authority to apply forced combination, and the court will not disturb the Secretary’s findings absent an abuse of discretion. Moreover, the Wal-Mart court defined “true earnings” to include income up to the limit found in the U.S. Constitution.Continue Reading Delhaized and Confused: North Carolina Court of Appeals Finds Forced Combination, Penalty

For the first time in 50 years, the California Supreme Court is revisiting the issue of the proper application of the property tax to intangible assets. In Elk Hills Power, LLC v. California State Board of Equalization, Case No. S194121, the court will address whether the California State Board of Equalization (the Board) may assess Elk Hills’ intangible Emission Reduction Credits (ERCs). In Elk Hills, the Board treated the ERCs as “necessary” to put a power plant to “beneficial or productive use” and thus taxable for property tax purposes. Because many businesses use intangible assets that are “necessary” to the conduct of their businesses (e.g., trademarks, trade names, franchises, licenses, customer relationships, patents, and copyrights), the case has attracted attention across a broad spectrum of the California business community.Continue Reading California Supreme Court Considers Case to Allow Property Tax on Intangible Assets

In the latest edition of A Pinch of SALT, Sutherland SALT’s Carley Roberts, Prentiss Willson and Maria Todorova discuss the California Franchise Tax Board’s recent chief counsel ruling stating that California’s alternative apportionment provisions do not apply to the combined group’s intrastate apportionment results.

Read “Intrastate Apportionment: Ripe for Equitable Relief?”…

In a somewhat troubling decision, an Illinois Appellate Court held that a taxpayer’s parent company and its subsidiaries engaged in two lines of business—consumer packaging manufacturing and filtration product manufacturing—were unitary and had to file a combined Illinois return. Clarcor, Inc. v. Hamer, 2012 WL 1719518 (Ill. App. 1st May 11, 2012). The taxpayer contended that there was a lack of unity between the entities because: (1) the subsidiary groups lacked horizontal integration as required by the Seventh Circuit’s holding in In re Envirodyne Industries, Inc., 354 F.3d 646 (2004), and (2) even if horizontal integration is not required, there was insufficient vertical integration between the parent and the subsidiary groups to support a unitary finding.Continue Reading A Pupu Platter of a Case: Packaging and Filtration Businesses Held Unitary

The Indiana Supreme Court issued another taxpayer-averse decision, holding that Miller Brewing Company’s sales to Indiana customers are considered Indiana sales even if they are picked up out of state and delivered into Indiana by common carrier. The Indiana Supreme Court reversed the Indiana Tax Court, which relied on an administrative rule example to exclude…