intangibles

Subscribe to intangibles via RSS

The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals held that an out-of-state licensor of intangible property did not have nexus in West Virginia despite products bearing its intangible property being sold in the state. Griffith v. ConAgra Brands, Inc., Dkt. No. 10-AA-02 (W. Va. May 24, 2012). The decision is an important taxpayer victory, particularly for licensors of intangible property.

ConAgra Foods, Inc., a food products company, established and transferred to a wholly owned subsidiary, ConAgra Brands (CA Brands), numerous trademarks and trade names. CA Brands also acquired intangibles from unrelated third parties. CA Brands licensed the intangibles to related and unrelated parties in return for royalty payments. The licensed food products were manufactured by the licensees outside of West Virginia and were sold or distributed to wholesalers and retailers in several states, including West Virginia. CA Brands had no physical presence in West Virginia, and it did not control how the licensees distributed the products bearing the CA Brands’ intangibles.Continue Reading Efforts to Expand Economic Nexus Stall in West Virginia

For the first time in 50 years, the California Supreme Court is revisiting the issue of the proper application of the property tax to intangible assets. In Elk Hills Power, LLC v. California State Board of Equalization, Case No. S194121, the court will address whether the California State Board of Equalization (the Board) may assess Elk Hills’ intangible Emission Reduction Credits (ERCs). In Elk Hills, the Board treated the ERCs as “necessary” to put a power plant to “beneficial or productive use” and thus taxable for property tax purposes. Because many businesses use intangible assets that are “necessary” to the conduct of their businesses (e.g., trademarks, trade names, franchises, licenses, customer relationships, patents, and copyrights), the case has attracted attention across a broad spectrum of the California business community.Continue Reading California Supreme Court Considers Case to Allow Property Tax on Intangible Assets

A recently released California Chief Counsel Ruling authorized a corporate taxpayer to use its customers’ billing addresses as a proxy for the customers’ “commercial domicile” in calculating the taxpayer’s sales factor numerator. Chief Counsel Ruling 2011-01 (Aug. 23, 2011, rel. Dec. 28, 2011).

For sales factor purposes, California sources the sales of intangibles and services using costs of performance (COP) apportionment. The sales of intangibles and services are attributable to California if a greater proportion of the income-producing activity is performed in California than in any other state, based on COP. Before 2008, taxpayers could not include payments to agents and independent contractors as part of the taxpayer’s COP analysis. But beginning in 2008, California began to require taxpayers to take into account payments made to agents and independent contractors in calculating COP. As part of the analysis, the taxpayer must determine the location of the income-producing activity, and the regulations provide a comprehensive list of cascading rules to determine the appropriate location of the income-producing activity. See Cal. Code Regs. tit. 18, § 25136.Continue Reading We Know Where You Live: California’s Billing Address Sourcing

The California State Board of Equalization (BOE) has provided guidance regarding the application of sales and use tax to purchases of tangible property from retailers using certificates such as Groupon or LivingSocial coupons. Special Notice L-297, California State Board of Equalization (Nov. 2011). In particular, the BOE addressed transactions in which retailers contract with Internet-based…

On December 1, 2011, the California Franchise Tax Board (FTB) approved Proposed Regulation 25136-2, which implements a market rule for sourcing receipts from sales of services and intangibles for those taxpayers electing a single sales factor apportionment formula. The Proposed Regulation now moves to the Office of Administrative Law to be finalized. The FTB’s decision follows a nine-month interested parties process and a regulatory process that began in June 2011.

Proposed Regulation 25136-2 applies a series of cascading rules, establishing separate rules for receipts from: 

  1. Sales of services to individual customers; 
  2. Sales of services to businesses; 
  3. Complete sales of intangibles; and 
  4. The licensing, leasing, rental, or other use of intangibles.

Continue Reading California Franchise Tax Board Decides Fate of Proposed Market Sourcing Regulation

North Carolina

North Carolina H.B. 692 contains several important, and somewhat disconcerting, changes for unclaimed property holders. The bill provides that for amounts due to the apparent owners of intangible property valued at $50,000 or more, holders must report the following information with respect to the owner: “full name, last known address, SSN or TIN…

In shocking similarity to the once-popular Amy Winehouse song “Rehab,” the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari in two nexus cases: KFC Corp. v. Iowa, 792 N.W.2d 308 (Iowa Dec. 30, 2010) and Lamtec Corp. v. Wash. Dep’t of Revenue, Docket No. 83579-9, en banc (Wash. Jan. 20, 2011) but left open the possibility to hear DIRECTV, Inc. v. Levin, 128 Ohio St.3d 68 (Ohio Dec. 27, 2010).

KFC is an economic nexus case involving the license of intangibles. KFC did not have any employees or property within Iowa; KFC licensed the use of trademarks and other intangibles to independent franchisees in the state in exchange for royalties. The Iowa Supreme Court held that KFC’s license of the intangibles was the “functional equivalent” of physical presence under Quill and that, in the alternative, physical presence was not required to find substantial nexus for corporate income tax purposes.

The Court also denied certiorari in Lamtec, where the taxpayer’s sole presence in the state was irregular employee visits to customers. The Washington Supreme Court determined that Lamtec had nexus with Washington for Business and Occupation (B&O) tax purposes and raised additional questions regarding how Washington views the physical presence test relating to the B&O tax, stating: “We conclude that to the extent there is a physical presence requirement, it can be satisfied by the presence of activities within the state.” (emphasis added).Continue Reading These Cases Tried to Go to the U.S. Supreme Court, But the Court said “No…No…Oh?”