Shaking things up in state and local tax
Shaking things up in state and local tax
By Madison Barnett and Jack Trachtenberg
The Michigan Court of Appeals ruled in two consolidated cases that the state’s estimated corporate income tax assessments were invalid because the taxpayers’ sales factors were improperly calculated using an alternative population-based formula rather than the statutory costs of performance (COP) formula. The two taxpayers were out-of-state book publishers…
By Todd Betor and Pilar Mata
Oregon’s $29 million corporate excise tax claim against the taxpayers’ parent company was held to violate both the Due Process and Commerce Clauses of the U.S. Constitution by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. Oregon claimed that Washington Mutual, Inc. (WMI) was liable for its subsidiaries’…
By Mary Alexander and Prentiss Willson
The disallowance of a credit for income taxes paid to other states against Maryland’s county income tax was ruled unconstitutional as a violation of the dormant Commerce Clause by the Court of Appeals of Maryland. Maryland’s income tax, which includes both state and county components, is imposed on all…
By Madison Barnett and Timothy Gustafson
The Missouri Administrative Hearing Commission ruled that interest income and capital gains generated by a “rabbi trust”—a trust established to fund a nonqualified deferred compensation plan for the taxpayer’s officers—constituted nonbusiness income under the Uniform Division of Income for Tax Purposes Act (UDITPA). The trust income failed the transactional…
The Multistate Tax Commission’s (MTC) Sales and Use Tax Uniformity Subcommittee is moving forward with a broad sales tax nexus model statute that includes click-through, affiliate and attributional nexus provisions. The Subcommittee also discussed a memorandum related to class actions and false claims acts. The nexus and class action projects are in the educational stage…
The Michigan Court of Appeals held that a $2.2 billion transaction involving the sale of assets related to the Grey Goose vodka product line did not constitute a “sale” for purposes of apportioning the Michigan Single Business Tax (SBT). Sidney Frank Importing Co., Inc. v. Dep’t of Treasury, No. 306742 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012). The taxpayer, Sidney Frank, transferred all of its tangible and intangible assets in the top-shelf vodka, including inventory, to Bacardi, Ltd. The transaction produced a substantial gain, and Sidney Frank included the proceeds in the denominator of its sales factor for 2004 apportionment purposes.
For purposes of the SBT, which was repealed in 2006, “sale” was defined in relevant part as the amounts received from the rental, lease, license or use of property that constitutes business activity. The taxpayer argued that the transfer of the Grey Goose assets was a sale of intangible property (and thus the proceeds should be included in the sales factor denominator) because it was a “use” of intellectual property. The Department argued that the term “sale” includes only transactions where the taxpayer allows a person to use property and does not transfer title to the property.Continue Reading The (Grey) Goose that Got Cooked in Michigan
We are pleased to announce the launch of the new Sutherland SALT Digital Economy Forum, which provides resources, legislative monitoring and advocacy, and strategic counsel on the state taxation of the Digital Economy. To access free resources on the taxation of the Digital Economy, click on the Digital Economy Forum link at the top of…
The Nebraska Department of Revenue (Department) recently declared, by way of an article in a third-party newsletter, that it has the authority to “examine all aspects of a return, including federal items.” George Kilpatrick, Nebraska Revenue Department’s Audit and Examination Powers Discussed, THE NEBRASKA CPA (Oct. 2012). While the article is aimed at personal income taxpayers, corporate taxpayers have good reason to be concerned because the statutory language relied on by the Department is applicable also to the corporate income tax.
Continue Reading Nebraska’s Below-the-Belt Decision to Audit “Above the Line”
We previously reported on a significant taxpayer victory in which the Oregon Tax Court held that changes or corrections made by other states’ taxing authorities will not hold open the Oregon statute of limitations. Dep’t of Revenue v. Washington Federal, Inc., TC 5010 (Or. Tax Ct., June 29, 2012). As promised, following is our analysis of the case.
The taxpayer, a multistate federal savings and loan corporation, timely filed its Oregon corporate excise tax returns for tax years 1999 through 2002. Arizona and Idaho state taxing authorities assessed the taxpayer in 2003 and 2006, respectively. In 2008, after the expiration of the standard Oregon statute of limitations for assessment (generally three years from the date the return was filed), the Oregon Department of Revenue (the Department) issued assessments for the tax years 1999 through 2002. The issue before the court was whether the Department’s assessments were timely.Continue Reading Oregon DOR Out of Luck on SOL: Our Analysis
Illinois Senate President John Cullerton introduced a bill on May 9 that would require publicly traded corporations doing business in Illinois, and those that are at least 50% owned by a publicly traded company, to disclose certain income tax liability information for eventual publication on an Internet database. SB 282 would require the information, usually considered confidential, to be disclosed by corporations that are not obligated to file a corporate income tax return. The data would be publicly searchable, although the data would not be disclosed until two years after the relevant tax year. Although the General Assembly adjourned on May 31 without voting on the bill, Senator Cullerton plans to work on the bill over the summer with the intent of holding hearings before the November veto session.
The information that Illinois would require to be disclosed in an annual statement filed with the Secretary of State includes, among other items: (1) name and address of the corporation; (2) name and address of any corporation that owns 50% or more of the voting stock; (3) modified taxable income; (4) business and nonbusiness income; (5) apportioned income; (6) Illinois apportionment factor; (7) Illinois credits claimed; and (8) Illinois tax liability before and after credits.Continue Reading Illinois Senate President Wants Corporate Tax Liabilities on Internet
