The Colorado Supreme Court issued two decisions simultaneously holding that neither Oracle Corporation nor Agilent Technologies, Inc. were required to include in their combined income tax returns holding companies that did not meet the statutory definition of an “includable C corporation.” To be included in a combined return in Colorado, an affiliate must have more

Many states require or permit affiliated businesses to report their income to the state in a combined group return. In their article for Bloomberg Tax, Eversheds Sutherland attorneys Maria Todorova, Justin Brown and Samantha Trencs discuss some of the complexities of combined reporting related to the inclusion of foreign entities in a combined

By Samantha Trencs and Eric Coffill

The Colorado Court of Appeals held that a corporate parent doing business in Colorado was not required to include its subsidiary holding company that held no property or payroll in Colorado or elsewhere in its Colorado unitary combined corporate income tax report. The holding company was not an “includable”

By Samantha Trencs and Carley Roberts

In a private letter ruling, the Colorado Department of Revenue stated that an affiliated group of corporations engaged in distinctly different commercial activities requiring different apportionment methodologies under Colorado law could use the allocation and apportionment methodology set forth in two previous private letter rulings (PLR-11-002 and PLR 15-005)

By Samantha Trencs and Jeff Friedman

The Minnesota Supreme Court respected a foreign entity’s federal check-the-box election for the purpose of determining which entities were included in the Minnesota combined franchise tax reports. The court held that including the income and apportionment factors of a foreign entity that elects under federal tax law to be

Traditionally, mandatory worldwide combined reporting was the state corporate tax issue of most concern to companies engaged in international business. States are now moving toward a water’s-edge unitary combination method for both US and foreign-based companies.

In his article for the Spring 2017 edition of Partnering Perspectives, Eversheds Sutherland (US) Senior Counsel Eric Coffill covers

By Robert Merten and Madison Barnett

The San Diego County Superior Court  determined that California’s combined filing regime—which requires interstate taxpayers to use combined reporting but permits intrastate taxpayers to choose between combined or separate reporting—does not violate the US Constitution’s Commerce Clause. The court acknowledged that (1) the interstate and intrastate unitary businesses were

By Alla Raykin and Eric Coffill

The Massachusetts Appellate Tax Board (ATB) upheld the Commissioner’s assessment, resulting from a denial of a subsidiary’s securities corporation classification for corporate excise tax purposes. Companies classified as securities corporations receive favorable excise tax treatment under G.L. c. 63, § 38B(a), including not being subject to inclusion in the