Click here to read our November 2013 posts on stateandlocaltax.com or read each article by clicking on the title. You may also view a printable PDF here.

• Alaska Supreme Court Can’t See Russia, But Does See Unitary Business
  The Alaska Supreme Court held that a petroleum company and its subsidiaries were engaged in a unitary business and upheld the state’s use of an alternative apportionment formula for corporate income tax purposes.
• Even the Department Has to Follow Its Own Regulations: Illinois Local Sales Tax Sourcing Regulations Invalidated, But Taxpayer Who Relied on Them Cannot Be Taxed
  The Illinois Supreme Court held that Illinois’ local Retailers’ Occupation Tax 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.
• SALT Pet(s) of the Month: Tink, Lucy, Linus and Puff Daddy 
  Meet Tink, Lucy, Linus and Puff Daddy, three Shih Tzus and a Bichon Frise, who live the sweet life in Milford, Connecticut, with Matthew Fabris of Nylon Technology and his wife of 30 years, Michelle.
• Can’t Touch This: Indiana Department of Revenue’s Application of Alternative Apportionment Disallowed
  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.
• Denial of Summary Judgment Motions Goes Round and Round in New Jersey Whirlpool Case
  The New Jersey Tax Court denied three summary judgment motions in the ongoing Whirlpool litigation relating to nexus and the “Throwout Rule.”
• Do You Copy? New York Court Refuses to Characterize Xerox’s Income from Equipment Financing Agreements as Investment Income
  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.
• P.L. 86-27-Who? Virginia Tax Commissioner Determines Single Employee Creates Nexus
  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.
• Nonresident Corporation Shows Its Hand to Virginia, Comes Away with Corporate Income Tax Nexus
  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.