apportionment

Subscribe to apportionment via RSS

The Michigan Court of Appeals held that a $2.2 billion transaction involving the sale of assets related to the Grey Goose vodka product line did not constitute a “sale” for purposes of apportioning the Michigan Single Business Tax (SBT). Sidney Frank Importing Co., Inc. v. Dep’t of Treasury, No. 306742 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012). The taxpayer, Sidney Frank, transferred all of its tangible and intangible assets in the top-shelf vodka, including inventory, to Bacardi, Ltd. The transaction produced a substantial gain, and Sidney Frank included the proceeds in the denominator of its sales factor for 2004 apportionment purposes.

For purposes of the SBT, which was repealed in 2006, “sale” was defined in relevant part as the amounts received from the rental, lease, license or use of property that constitutes business activity. The taxpayer argued that the transfer of the Grey Goose assets was a sale of intangible property (and thus the proceeds should be included in the sales factor denominator) because it was a “use” of intellectual property. The Department argued that the term “sale” includes only transactions where the taxpayer allows a person to use property and does not transfer title to the property.Continue Reading The (Grey) Goose that Got Cooked in Michigan

Virginia released a ruling discussing the right to apportion and how to source sales when the ultimate destination of the sale is outside of Virginia. The Taxpayer was a manufacturer whose headquarters and only production facility were located in Virginia. However, the Taxpayer’s business was largely comprised of sales of its products to the U.S. Government, which in turn exported the products from the Taxpayer’s Virginia facility to various foreign countries. The Taxpayer would then send employees to the product locations for set up and installation.

First, the Tax Commissioner discussed whether the Taxpayer had the right to apportion its income for Virginia income tax purposes. Noting that in Virginia a corporation has the right to apportion its income if it is subject to a tax on net income in another jurisdiction, the Commissioner determined that it needed further information about the Taxpayer’s activities in other jurisdictions to determine if the Taxpayer had a right to apportion.Continue Reading Virginia Ruling Appears to Reach Right Outcome on “Right to Apportion” and Sourcing of Sales…But Perhaps for the Wrong Reason

Illinois Senate President John Cullerton introduced a bill on May 9 that would require publicly traded corporations doing business in Illinois, and those that are at least 50% owned by a publicly traded company, to disclose certain income tax liability information for eventual publication on an Internet database. SB 282 would require the information, usually considered confidential, to be disclosed by corporations that are not obligated to file a corporate income tax return. The data would be publicly searchable, although the data would not be disclosed until two years after the relevant tax year. Although the General Assembly adjourned on May 31 without voting on the bill, Senator Cullerton plans to work on the bill over the summer with the intent of holding hearings before the November veto session.

The information that Illinois would require to be disclosed in an annual statement filed with the Secretary of State includes, among other items: (1) name and address of the corporation; (2) name and address of any corporation that owns 50% or more of the voting stock; (3) modified taxable income; (4) business and nonbusiness income; (5) apportioned income; (6) Illinois apportionment factor; (7) Illinois credits claimed; and (8) Illinois tax liability before and after credits.Continue Reading Illinois Senate President Wants Corporate Tax Liabilities on Internet

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?”…