The District of Columbia Office of Administrative Hearings held that the two financial institution subsidiaries of Petitioner, a credit and charge card issuer company, should have included in their payroll factor denominator only the payroll attributable to the financial institution entities. In other words, when calculating their payroll factor, Petitioner’s financial institution subsidiaries should have

On July 1, 2022, the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance issued the third set of “final draft” regulations relating to the corporation franchise tax reform that took effect for tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2015. The third set of draft regulations relate to apportionment, and contain revisions to the

The California Court of Appeal ruled that nonresident shareholders were subject to California tax on their pro rata shares of intangible income from an S corporation’s sale of shares in a subsidiary. This sale of intangibles (goodwill of a business) was sourced as business income apportioned at the S corporation level, not as intangible income

On April 12, 2022, the Appellate Division, First Department dismissed a taxpayer’s appeal from the New York City Tax Appeals Tribunal, and held that the Tribunal’s decision to uphold a tax assessment on an out-of-state entity’s gain from the sale of a partnership interest was “rational.”[1]

The taxpayer was an investment vehicle that formed

Following a taxpayer’s appeal of a local Virginia county (County) Business, Professional and Occupational License (BPOL) tax assessment, the Virginia Tax Commissioner held that the taxpayer’s remote employees’ payroll was properly excluded from the numerator of the payroll apportionment calculation. The taxpayer was headquartered out of state and maintained offices worldwide, including an office in

The Indiana Department of Revenue found that a holding company was properly excluded as a member of its affiliates’ financial institutions tax (FIT) combined group return because the company failed to establish nexus with the state.  The Department also decided that for purposes of the FIT, there is no distinction between business and nonbusiness income.

The California Office of Tax Appeals (OTA) recently sustained the Franchise Tax Board’s (FTB) income tax treatment of an IRC 338(h)(10) election. In return for all the outstanding stock in the target S-Corporation taxpayer, third-party buyers paid an initial (fixed) purchase price and agreed to make deferred contingent earnout payments totaling up to $50 million