The Montana Supreme Court held that the Department erred in determining that Exxon Mobil was entitled to only an 80% exclusion for dividends received from domestic corporations excluded from the water’s-edge combined return, and concluded that 100% of the actual dividends it received from such entities are excluded from income. Pursuant to Montana statute, Exxon
Much Ado About Nothing! Colorado Supreme Court Holds that Holding Companies with No Property or Employees are Not Includable in a Combined Group
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
Videocast: SALT Scoreboard – 2018 Year in Review
The quarterly Eversheds Sutherland SALT Scoreboard tallies significant state and local tax litigation wins and losses. In this Bottom Line videocast, Charles Capouet and Chelsea Marmor share 2018 year-end observations, including:
- the overall results for 2018, including a breakdown of corporate income tax and sales and use tax case results
- comparative results from 2016-2018
New Mexico Administrative Hearings Office Rejects Department’s Attempt to Eliminate Payroll Factor from Apportionment Factor Calculation
The State of New Mexico Administrative Hearings Office held that the New Mexico Taxation and Revenue Department could not remove the payroll factor from the apportionment factor calculation of a taxpayer in the credit card and personal lending business. The Hearings Office determined that “the party seeking to depart from the proscribed apportionment method,” which,
Videocast: Consolidated complexities – state corporate income tax implications of IRC § 163(j)
The November 26, 2018, release by the Internal Revenue Service of proposed regulations (REG-106089-18) related to IRC § 163(j) has provided some clarity for federal income taxpayers. But the regulations’ treatment of federal consolidated groups gives rise to complexities and questions as to how the limitation will operate at the state level. In this Bottom
New Jersey Court Holds That Taxpayer Not Entitled to Exception to State’s Interest Add-Back Requirement
In Kraft Foods Global, Inc. v. Director, Division of Taxation, 2018 WL 2247356 (May 17, 2018), the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division, recently upheld a New Jersey Tax Court decision denying a taxpayer an exception to the state’s interest add-back requirement in determining the taxpayer’s corporate net income subject to New Jersey’s corporation
Non-Tax Lawyer’s Guide to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act
On December 22, 2017, the largest overhaul of the nation’s tax code since 1986 was signed into law. While the reduction in the corporate income tax rate grabbed most of the headlines, in their article for the Summer 2018 edition of Partnering Perspectives, Eversheds Sutherland attorneys Jeffrey Friedman and Michael Resnick discuss several additional
Indiana Enacts IRC Conformity Bill, Decouples from Certain Federal Tax Reform Provisions
On May 14, 2018, Indiana Governor Eric Holcomb signed into law H.B 1316 (the Bill). The Bill provides a number of changes to Indiana’s tax laws, including responding to provisions of the federal Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Some notable provisions of the Bill include:
- updating Indiana’s conformity to the Internal Revenue Code from January
Oregon Legislature Passes IRC Conformity Legislation, But Decouples from Certain Federal Tax Reform Provisions
On April 10, 2018, and April 13, 2018, Oregon Governor Kate Brown signed into law S.B. 1529 and S.B. 1528 (the Bills), respectively, which provide a series of changes to Oregon’s income tax laws in response to recent federal tax changes as part of the federal Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Most notably, the Bills:
Texas Rules Sales for Resale of Mobile Voice and Data Services are Not Sales of Intangible Assets for Apportionment Purposes
The Texas Comptroller ruled that, for Texas apportionment purposes, the sale for resale of mobile voice and data services, purchased from third-party mobile telecommunications carriers and sold to an out-of-state third-party retailer using the carrier’s network infrastructure, is characterized as the sale of telecommunications services and internet access services, respectively, not the sale of an