By Nick Kump and Marc Simonetti

The Georgia Department of Revenue (Department) released a letter ruling stating that a taxpayer’s sales of computer software and related services were not subject to sales and use tax. The taxpayer sold bundled packages for a single price that included electronically transferred computer software with corresponding updates and upgrades

By Mike Kerman and Madison Barnett

The Indiana Tax Court granted summary judgment to Rent-A-Center East, Inc. (RAC), finding that the Department of Revenue’s determination that RAC and two affiliates should have filed a combined return was improper. This case was on remand from a prior Indiana Supreme Court ruling (please see our prior coverage

By Stephen Burroughs, Jonathan Feldman and Open Weaver Banks

In a significant taxpayer win, the Massachusetts Appellate Tax Board (ATB) held that intercompany interest payments from a wholly owned subsidiary to Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company (MassMutual) were bona fide loans and were deductible for excise tax purposes. The subsidiary (HoldCo) was a holding

By Evan Hamme and Timothy Gustafson

The Maryland Tax Court held that the Comptroller can subject an out-of-state subsidiary holding company to tax because the subsidiary did not have real economic substance separate from its parent, which conducted business in the state. The Comptroller assessed ConAgra Brands, Inc. (Brands) for the 1996-2003 tax years, arguing

Today, the Maryland Court of Appeals held that Maryland may tax out-of-state Delaware holding companies that license patents to their parent company, which was doing business in Maryland. Gore Enterprise Holdings, Inc. v. Comptroller of the Treasury and Future Value, Inc. v. Comptroller of the Treasury. The ramifications of this decision are significant because

Taxpayers have just begun to struggle with the application of states’ related party addback provisions. On January 31, 2011, the Massachusetts Appellate Tax Board (ATB) issued its decision in the first Massachusetts case that addressed the application of the related party addback provision to an intercompany interest and royalty expense. Kimberly-Clark Corp. et al. v. Comm’r of Revenue, Mass. App. Tax Bd., Dkt. No. C282754 (Jan. 31, 2011). In Kimberly-Clark, the ATB addressed the deductibility of interest expense related to the company’s cash management system and royalties related to intellectual property.

The Massachusetts Department of Revenue (Department) assessed the taxpayer based on a denial of the interest expense deduction for pre-addback and addback tax years. The ATB upheld the Department’s denial of the expense deduction because it determined that, based on the preponderance of the evidence, the taxpayer’s cash management system loans did not constitute bona fide debt. The ATB determined that the loans were not debt because the taxpayer had no expectation that the cash advances would be repaid, and there were no security, default, or collateral provisions.Continue Reading Kimberly-Clark Gets No “Huggies” from Massachusetts Appellate Tax Board

In IDC Research, Inc. v. Comm’r of Revenue, No. 09-P-1533 (Nov. 30, 2010), the Appeals Court of Massachusetts held that the transfer of International Data Group’s (IDG) logo licensing business to a Delaware subsidiary was a sham. The court affirmed the Appellate Tax Board’s decision and reallocated the Delaware subsidiary’s royalty income from