Shaking things up in state and local tax
Shaking things up in state and local tax
By Todd Betor and Pilar Mata
On July 3, 2013, the Michigan Supreme Court granted International Business Machines Corporation’s (IBM) motion for leave to appeal the Court of Appeals’ November 20, 2012, judgment in favor of Michigan in International Business Machines v. Department of Treasury, Michigan Supreme Ct., Case No. 146440. Consequently, the highest…
On June 6, 2013, the Michigan Court of Claims became the second court in the country to hold that the Multistate Tax Compact (the Compact) is a binding multistate compact that cannot be repealed by a separate, subsequent statute. The taxpayer was thus entitled to apportion its income under the former Business Income Tax component…
By Suzanne Palms and Andrew Appleby
The Michigan Court of Appeals held that a taxpayer was not liable for additional single business tax (SBT) and use tax because the taxpayer was making sales of tangible personal property at its Michigan facility rather than performing a service. The taxpayer’s business activities at issue consisted of…
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…
We recently launched the Sutherland SALT Digital Economy Forum, which provides comprehensive state tax resources regarding the taxation of the digital economy. Following is a summary of recent digital economy administrative guidance, noteworthy cases and legislation. If you would like to learn more about the Sutherland SALT Digital Economy Forum or any of the issues covered here, please contact us.
Administrative Guidance
Continue Reading Digital Economy Update: Administrative Guidance, Noteworthy Cases and Legislation
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
Retailers and banks continue to get whipsawed on sales tax bad debt deductions where a retailer provides a private label credit card program in conjunction with a third party bank. The Kentucky Board of Tax Appeals ruled that a retailer was not entitled to a bad debt deduction because it was not the party that…
In an unpublished opinion, the Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court holding that E I Du Pont de Nemours (DuPont) was not unitary with its subsidiary, DuPont Pharmaceuticals Company (DPC). E I Du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Dep’t of Treasury, Dkt. No. 304758 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012) (unpublished). Because the two businesses were…
The Michigan Court of Appeals recently affirmed a Court of Claims summary judgment finding that sales to a related party are sourced to the location of the related party’s customers. Uniloy Milacron USA, Inc. v. Dep’t of Treasury, No. 300749 (Mich. Ct. App. Jan. 26, 2012).
Uniloy Milacron USA, Inc. (Uniloy), a manufacturer of molds used in blow-molding machines, entered into a distributor agreement with an affiliated corporation to purchase for resale and market Uniloy’s products. The affiliate did not obtain physical possession of the products. Instead, Uniloy packaged, loaded, and shipped the products directly to the affiliate’s customers.
The Michigan Department of Treasury (Department) argued that all of Uniloy’s sales should be sourced to Michigan for purposes of the Single Business Tax (SBT) sales apportionment factor because Uniloy’s products were “delivered” to the affiliate in Michigan before ultimately being sold/shipped to the affiliate’s customers.Continue Reading Michigan Court of Appeals Finds Drop-Shipped Sales Are Sourced for SBT Purposes Based on Delivery Location
All seems right in the world, or at least in Michigan, where the Michigan Court of Appeals recently held that the Department of Treasury (Department) improperly disallowed Pfizer’s deductions of “royalties” for Michigan Single Business Tax (SBT) purposes. Pfizer, Inc. v. Dep’t of Treas., Docket No. 301632 (Mich. Ct. App. Feb. 14, 2012).
To…
