income tax

Subscribe to income tax via RSS

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For purposes of the SBT, which was repealed in 2006, “sale” was defined in relevant part as the amounts received from the rental, lease, license or use of property that constitutes business activity.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

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…

A decision by Maryland’s highest court illustrates the complexities taxpayers face in reporting federal income tax audit changes for state income tax purposes. The Maryland Court of Appeals held that an individual must claim a state income tax refund resulting from a “final” federal audit change within one year of the Internal Revenue Service’s issuance of Form 4549A, Income Tax Examination Changes, rather than the date when the taxpayer could no longer appeal the Service’s determination. King v. Comptr. of Treas., 2012 WL 592788 (Md. Feb. 24, 2012), aff’g Md. App. (unreported), rev’g 2009 WL 6767497 (Calvert Cnty Cir. Ct. Nov. 12, 2009), rev’g Md. Tax Ct. (Aug. 28, 2008), aff’g Md. Comptr. Off. Hrg. and App. Section.

The taxpayer, who is the ex-wife of author Tom Clancy, owned a limited partnership interest in the Baltimore Orioles baseball team. A federal income tax audit of the partnership resulted in the IRS adjusting certain partnership items using Form 870-PT, Agreement for Partnership Items and Partnership Level Determinations. The partnership adjustments flowed through to the taxpayer’s personal income tax return and permitted her to utilize additional losses, thereby reducing her federal taxable income. The IRS reported the impact of the partnership’s flow through adjustments to the taxpayer on Form 4549A, after which the taxpayer had a minimum of six months to challenge the IRS’ adjustments.Continue Reading A Swing and a Miss: No Refund for Baseball Team Owner Following Federal Audit