In his draft budget plan for Fiscal Year 2025-2026 released on January 10, 2025, California Governor Gavin Newsom proposed to bring financial institutions in line with most other corporate taxpayers when it comes to apportioning multistate income. Banks and “financial corporations” currently use a three-factor apportionment formula consisting of property, payroll and sales to apportion
Inequitable barriers to equitable apportionment
Apportionment formulas sometimes produce unfair results. To rectify the unfairness, taxpayers can (and should) use an alternative apportionment formula to apportion corporate income. In their article for TEI’s Tax Executive journal, Eversheds Sutherland attorneys Jeff Friedman and Sebastian Iagrossi focus on a troubling aspect of alternative apportionment— some states require pre-approval of an alternative apportionment
Ambiguous allocation and apportionment statutes should favor taxpayers
Courts have formulated more than a dozen legal canons of statutory construction specific to tax.
In the October 2024 installment of “A Pinch of SALT” in Tax Notes State, Eversheds Sutherland attorneys Jeff Friedman, John Ormonde and Kelly Donigan examine the application of statutory construction principles to conflicts involving allocation and apportionment statutes.
Because
South Carolina Court holds receipts from mortgage activities and credit cards should be sourced to state
The South Carolina Administrative Law Court upheld a bank tax assessment that was based on adjustments made by the Department of Revenue to a taxpayer’s sales factor and tax base. The taxpayer, a national bank, offered a range of banking and trust services, and generated income by providing residential mortgages and other loans, and issuing
Texas Court of Appeals upholds franchise tax apportionment rule
The Texas Court of Appeals for the Third District upheld the Comptroller of Public Accounts’ Franchise Tax apportionment rule as facially valid, including the provisions apportioning receipts to Texas where the seller ships or delivers property in Texas—regardless of whether the buyer is ultimately located in the state.
The taxpayer, a company that transports and
Landmark state tax cases: The impact of Moorman on apportionment
In this episode of the SALT Shaker Podcast, Eversheds Sutherland Associate Jeremy Gove welcomes Partner Jeff Friedman for another discussion of a landmark state tax case.
For this installment, Jeff and Jeremy jump into Moorman Manufacturing Co. v. Bair, discussing the history of 3-factor apportionment, and how the Moorman decision paved the way for
Washington Court of Appeals gives no credit to bank’s physical presence and apportionment arguments
The Washington Court of Appeals affirmed a Board of Tax Appeals decision that found an out-of-state bank had a sufficient physical presence in the state to be subject to Washington’s Business & Occupation (B&O) tax. The bank did not have any employees or property in Washington, but issued credit cards, including private label credits cards
What the doctor ordered: Maine court apportions drug company’s income on a “market member basis”
The Maine Supreme Judicial Court held that a prescription drug company’s income should be apportioned based on the location where its prescription drugs are received, rather than the headquarters locations of the health plans or employers paying for the drugs.
The drug company sought income tax apportionment based on a “market client basis,” arguing that
Sourcing: The CAT receipts are in Ohio if the patient is in Ohio
The Ohio Board of Tax Appeals denied an out-of-state healthcare organization’s apportionment of the Commercial Activity Tax related to healthcare services.
The taxpayer sought to apportion its gross receipts related to laboratory services and healthcare provider services based on where the taxpayer’s costs were incurred. The Board rejected the taxpayer’s position and found that the
Fashion faux pas: Ohio Board of Tax Appeals rejects apparel wholesaler’s appeal
The taxpayer, a designer, marketer, and wholesaler of apparel, footwear, jeans, and other fashion accessories, shipped products to Ohio-based distribution centers of major retailers and paid the commercial activity tax for all items shipped to the distribution centers, even those that were ultimately received by customers outside of Ohio. The taxpayer applied for a refund