Shaking things up in state and local tax
Shaking things up in state and local tax
By Jessica Kerner and Andrew Appleby
The Virginia Tax Commissioner concluded that a taxpayer was not permitted to deduct a portion of the royalties it had paid to an affiliate by narrowly construing the “subject to tax” exception to the state’s addback statute. This exception provides that the deduction will be permitted if the “corresponding…
By Mary Alexander and Andrew Appleby
The Indiana Department of Revenue disallowed a taxpayer’s deduction for interest expenses accrued to a subsidiary because the Department considered the loan a sham. Unless eligible for an exemption under Ind. Code § 6-3-2-20(c), a taxpayer that is subject to Indiana’s adjusted gross income tax is required to add…
By Madison Barnett and Timothy Gustafson
In a case involving the exclusion of captive insurance companies from combined reporting groups, the Indiana Tax Court held that a captive must be physically present in Indiana to be “subject to” the insurance premiums tax and therefore exempt from the corporate income tax. The Tax Court initially…
By Todd Betor and Andrew Appleby
The Indiana Department of Revenue issued a Letter of Findings denying a taxpayer’s deductions for certain intercompany payments to a subsidiary management company. The taxpayer and its subsidiary management company (Management Co.) entered into an intercompany agreement based on a federal income tax transfer pricing study, which endorsed the…
By Zachary Atkins and Andrew Appleby
An Arizona Department of Revenue hearing officer determined that the gross receipts from a taxpayer’s deemed asset sale pursuant to I.R.C. § 338(h)(10), including gross receipts attributable to goodwill, could not be included in the taxpayer’s sales factor for corporate income tax apportionment purposes. The taxpayer asserted that goodwill…
By Shane Lord and Andrew Appleby
The California Superior Court ruled that certain special purpose entities (SPEs) owned by Harley-Davidson, Inc. had nexus in California. The taxpayer formed the SPEs as securitization subsidiaries, which the court held were subject to California income taxation because the SPEs: (1) were “financial corporations” under California law; and (2)…
By Todd Betor and Pilar Mata
In a Letter of Findings, the Indiana Department of Revenue disallowed a corporate partner’s attempt to deduct flow-through income from a limited liability company as “foreign source dividends and other adjustments” on its Indiana corporate income tax return. Indiana requires corporate partners to report their share of partnership income,…
By Shane Lord and Andrew Appleby
The Indiana Department of State Revenue issued a Letter of Findings concluding that a taxpayer’s sales of tangible personal property from Indiana to foreign countries were attributable to Indiana for income tax purposes because the taxpayer did not show that its activities in the foreign countries exceeded the protections…
By Zachary Atkins and Pilar Mata
The Colorado Department of Revenue issued a private letter ruling permitting a financial institution to deviate from Colorado’s special industry rules and use an alternative method of apportionment for corporate income tax purposes. The taxpayer, a savings and loan holding company with subsidiaries separately engaged in broker-dealer and banking…
On March 28, 2013, the New York State Legislature passed budget legislation (S.2609D/A.3009D) that replaces the existing New York State and City related-party royalty add-back requirements with provisions based on the Multistate Tax Commission’s model add-back statute. In addition, the legislation repeals the New York State and City royalty income exclusions, which permitted taxpayers to…
