The Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts amended its franchise tax apportionment rule, as published in proposed form in the March 10 issue of the Texas Register. The rule, which is now final, discards the “receipt-producing, end-product act” test in light of Eversheds Sutherland’s litigation in Sirius XM Radio, Inc. v. Hegar. Taxpayers should consider
Turnabout is fair play? California Office of Tax Appeals says timeshare developer can’t leave without paying price
The pending precedential Office of Tax Appeal’s (OTA) decision of Appeal of L. Smith, OTA Case No. 20036033 (Dec. 7, 2022) concerned whether California could impose income tax on a nonresident’s distributive share of gain from the sale of an interest in a timeshare developer operating in California as a limited liability company (Timeshare).
Washington apportions genealogy services to customer location
The Administrative Review and Hearings Division of the Washington Department of Revenue recently issued Determination No. 21-0055 in which it determined receipts from the provision of genealogy services should be apportioned based on the customer location for purposes of the Business and Occupation Tax. The genealogy company performs research, primarily online, investigating the customer’s ancestry,
Airline lands partial victory in Oregon apportionment decision
On July 21, 2022, the Regular Division of the Oregon Tax Court ruled that flights operated by all members of a unitary group are included in a taxpayer’s departure ratio and that receipts for selling tickets on flights operated by third parties do not constitute transportation revenue under the state’s special industry apportionment rules for
(Pay)rolling with the punches: D.C. Office of Administrative Hearings holds payroll factor denominator limited to financial institution payroll
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
The new New York: Corporate tax reform edition
In this episode of the SALT Shaker Podcast, Eversheds Sutherland Associates Jeremy Gove and Chelsea Marmor dive in to the history of New York’s corporate tax reform, including a discussion of the anticipated “final draft” apportionment regulations the Department released on July 1.
They discuss the regulations, the New York State Department of Taxation
Legal Alert: New York issues “final draft” corporate income tax apportionment regulations
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
Waiting for Superman in Metropoulos
In this episode of the SALT Shaker Podcast, Eversheds Sutherland Associates Jeremy Gove and Annie Rothschild delve into a recent decision out of the California Court of Appeal – Metropoulos Family Trust v. Franchise Tax Board. The court ruled for the Franchise Tax Board, affirming the trial court’s decision that non-resident S corporation shareholders
California Court of Appeal rules shareholders’ flow-through S corporation intangible income is apportionable, not sourced to shareholders’ domiciles
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
Get out of town! Court upholds New York City tax applying investee apportionment
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