Shaking things up in state and local tax
Shaking things up in state and local tax
By Kathryn Pittman and Andrew Appleby
In a post-audit challenge by a taxpayer, the Virginia Tax Commissioner addressed entity classification, nexus and royalty add-back issues. The Commissioner found that the taxpayer did not provide sufficient evidence that its single member LLC was a disregarded entity or that certain entities were financial institutions. Turning to nexus,…
By Ted Friedman and Prentiss Willson
The Indiana Department of Revenue determined that affiliated entities of an out-of-state manufacturing corporation were not unitary. The corporation conducted marketing operations as one business segment and production operations as a second business segment. The corporation included its marketing entities in its Indiana consolidated return. On audit, Department staff…
By Todd Betor and Andrew Appleby
The Illinois Department of Revenue granted a taxpayer’s request to use an alternative apportionment method, determining that application of the standard single sales factor formula did not fairly represent the market for the taxpayer’s goods, services or other sources of income. The taxpayer’s only sale during the year in…
By Nicole Boutros and Andrew Appleby
In a case of first impression interpreting when substantial intercorporate transactions are present for purposes of New York’s mandatory combined reporting provisions, a New York State Division of Tax Appeals Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) concluded that the taxpayers could not file on a combined basis. In 2007, New York…
The New York State Department of Taxation and Finance (Department) provided another example of its longstanding eagerness to force taxpayer combination—at least in cases where it results in increased tax revenue. In the Matter of Kellwood Co., No. 820915 (N.Y. Tax App. Trib. Sept. 22, 2011).
The Department (or taxpayer) must prove three elements to require a combined report:
Continue Reading New York Attempts to Take Taxpayer Out Behind the (Kell)Woodshed
The New York Tax Appeals Tribunal (TAT) affirmed a decision forcing the combination of a banking corporation and its “nontaxpayer” subsidiary. The combination was upheld based upon the existence of an interest deduction—taken by the banking corporation and attributable to assets held by its subsidiary—that created distortion of income. Interaudi Bank F/K/A Bank Audi (USA), DTA No. 821659 (Apr. 14, 2011).
Interaudi Bank (Interaudi), a commercial banking corporation organized and chartered in New York, formed and transferred its investment portfolio to an investment holding subsidiary, BA (USA) Investments Inc., (BA Investments) domiciled in Delaware. BA Investments limited its activities to the management and maintenance of marketable securities. During the 1997-1999 period, Interaudi filed a New York Article 32 (Bank Tax) combined return that included all of its subsidiaries, except BA Investments—which did not file a New York tax return. Interaudi then claimed interest expense deductions paid to BA Investments.Continue Reading Distortion Reigns in New York Article 32 Forced Combination Case
