franchise tax

Subscribe to franchise tax via RSS

The Texas Supreme Court upheld the imposition of the franchise tax (often referred to as the Texas Margins Tax) under both the Texas and United States Constitutions. In Re Nestle USA, Inc., No. 12-0518 (Tex. 2012) (opinion delivered Oct. 19, 2012).

Nestle argued that the imposition of the franchise tax was unconstitutional, both facially and as applied.  In Texas, the franchise tax rate is 1%, except for those taxpayers “primarily engaged in a wholesale or retail trade,” for whom the rate is 0.5%. Nestle was engaged only in wholesale and retailing activities in Texas, but because it was engaged in manufacturing outside of Texas, it was subject to the 1% franchise tax rate rather than the lower wholesale/retail rate. Specifically, Nestle argued that the differential rate based on the wholesale/retail classification was unconstitutional under the Equal and Uniform Clause of the Texas Constitution and the Equal Protection, Due Process, and Commerce Clauses of the United States Constitution because the tax lacked a reasonable relationship with actual business in Texas and because of the fact that the tax is higher for those with a manufacturing business outside of Texas.Continue Reading That’s the Way the Cookie Crumbles: Nestle Loses Its Battle on the Constitutionality of the Texas Franchise Tax

In a non-precedential, summary decision released May 3, 2012, the California State Board of Equalization (the Board) held that a foreign corporation with only one employee in California was “doing business” in the state and thus was subject to California’s corporation franchise tax. Appeal of Warwick McKinley, Inc., Cal. Bd. of Equal., Jan. 11, 2012 (released May 3, 2012). While California recently expanded its statutory definition of “doing business” in California Revenue and Taxation Code (CRTC) section 23101(b) to include a factor presence nexus test, the Board in Appeal of Warwick McKinley, Inc. focused on CRTC section 23101(a), which defines “doing business” to mean “actively engaging in any transaction for the purpose of financial or pecuniary gain or profit.”Continue Reading California Nexus: Not in My House!

The Louisiana Supreme Court declined to review the Court of Appeal’s holding that an out-of-state corporation’s passive ownership of an interest in a limited partnership is not a sufficient basis, by itself, to subject the foreign limited partner to Louisiana franchise tax. UTELCOM, Inc. v. Bridges, No. 2010-0654, 77 So.3d 39 (La. App. 1st Cir. Sept. 12, 2011), reh’g denied (Nov. 1, 2011), writ denied, No. 2011-C-2632 (La. Mar. 2, 2012). The court’s decision to not accept the case should prompt the Department of Revenue to reverse course on its current position.

In UTELCOM, the Department issued franchise tax assessments against two out-of-state corporations whose only connection with Louisiana was their ownership interests in a limited partnership engaged in the long-distance telecommunications business in Louisiana. The primary basis for the Department’s position was a regulation that provided that owning property in Louisiana through a partnership is sufficient to create franchise tax nexus. The trial court upheld the assessments based on the Department’s regulation.Continue Reading No Louisiana Nexus Over Out-of-State Corporate Partners

The controversial methodology relied upon by several states to assess corporate taxpayers for transfer pricing violations has been ruled invalid by a D.C. Administrative Law Judge. Several revenue authorities, including New Jersey, Alabama, Louisiana, Kentucky and the District of Columbia, have relied on this now invalidated transfer pricing audit methodology to assess corporate franchise and…

The Louisiana Court of Appeal recently ruled that a corporation’s passive ownership interest in a limited partnership doing business in Louisiana is not sufficient to create Louisiana corporate franchise tax nexus. Utelcom, Inc. v. Bridges, Dkt. No. 535,407 (Division “D”, Ct. App., First Dist., Sept. 12, 2011). The court held that because capital contributed to…