Multistate Tax Compact

On July 30, the Multistate Tax Commission (MTC) approved amendments to the Multistate Tax Compact’s (1) definition of nonbusiness income, (2) definition of “sales,” (3) factor-weighting, (4) alternative apportionment, and (5) sourcing of service and intangible revenue. With the approval, the amendments officially become a model act of the MTC, and taxpayers should expect legislation

By Madison Barnett

The Alaska Supreme Court held that a foreign member of a water’s edge unitary group must include its foreign dividend income in the Alaska apportionable tax base, regardless of whether the income is “effectively connected income” (ECI) for federal income tax purposes. Alaska law incorporates the Internal Revenue Code, including the ECI

On July 14, 2014, the Michigan Supreme Court in a splintered 3-1-3 decision found in favor of IBM’s election to apply the Multistate Tax Compact’s three-factor apportionment formula to the now-repealed Michigan Business Tax (MBT).
Several states, including Michigan in 1970, entered into the Multistate Tax Compact (Compact), which describes how multistate corporations allocate

On May 8, the Multistate Tax Commission’s Executive Committee voted to advance its amendments to the Multistate Tax Compact’s definition of nonbusiness income, definition of “sales,” factor weighting, and the sourcing of service and intangible revenue. The Committee essentially embraced the MTC’s original proposed amendments and failed to incorporate any of the comments and observations

By Mary Alexander and Timothy Gustafson

In an administrative order, the Oregon Department of Revenue (1) repealed a rule related to Oregon’s Multistate Tax Compact (MTC) statute, (2) changed the method for utility and telecommunication providers to elect a double-weighted sales factor and (3) provided instructions on the time to adjust a return based on

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

By David Pope and Pilar Mata

The Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts determined that a taxpayer was not permitted to elect the Multistate Tax Compact’s (Compact) three-factor apportionment formula. This treatment is consistent with prior Texas Comptroller decisions holding that Texas law requires a single-factor apportionment methodology (see Sutherland SALT’s previous articles on this topic

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 Zachary Atkins and Prentiss Willson

A Texas administrative law judge ruled that a taxpayer was not entitled to make an alternative three-factor apportionment election under Article IV of the Multistate Tax Compact (Compact) for Texas franchise tax purposes. The Texas Tax Code requires taxpayers to use a single gross receipts factor to apportion taxable