Shaking things up in state and local tax
Shaking things up in state and local tax
By Zachary Atkins and Prentiss Willson
The Oregon Supreme Court held that the state’s sales factor exclusion for gross receipts from intangible assets not derived from a taxpayer’s primary business activity applies to all types of intangible assets. The taxpayer, Tektronix, sold its printer division to Xerox for approximately $925 million, of which almost $600…
By Zachary Atkins and Andrew Appleby
The Oregon Supreme Court held that a taxpayer’s sale of an FCC license as part of a liquidation generated apportionable business income. The taxpayer, Crystal Communications, Inc., sold all of its assets to AT&T, including an FCC license. The gain on the FCC license was treated by the taxpayer…
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’…
On January 8, 2013, the Sutherland State and Local Tax (SALT) Team appeared before the Oregon Supreme Court in an important case concerning the scope of Oregon’s central assessment method of property taxation. Comcast Corporation v. Department of Revenue, Case No. S059764. The issue in the case concerns whether cable television and Internet access services are within the scope of “data transmission services” for ad valorem tax purposes. This case is being followed closely by participants in the Digital Economy (e.g., sellers of Internet access, digital goods and services, and cloud computing providers) and taxing jurisdictions throughout the country.Continue Reading Sutherland SALT Argues Digital Economy Central Assessment Case
In two procedural cases, appellate courts in Oregon and Wisconsin dismissed taxpayer appeals for using improper service methods, despite the fact that the Department of Revenue in each case actually received the notice of appeal.
The Oregon Supreme Court dismissed an appeal from the Tax Court, finding that the taxpayer failed to properly serve the…
The Oregon Tax Court issued its opinion in Powerex v. Dep’t of Revenue, TC 4800 (Or. Tax Ct., Sept. 17, 2012), holding that sales of electricity are sales of other than tangible personal property for Oregon apportionment purposes. The taxpayer sold both electricity and natural gas at wholesale with contractual points of delivery in…
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
The Oregon Tax Court issued its second decision in less than a month regarding combined returns that include an insurance company, this time finding for the taxpayer. Last month, in Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Oregon Dept. of Rev., TC 4956, (Ore. Tax Ct. July 16, 2012), the court held that the income of Costco’s…
In an unusual case, the Oregon Department of Revenue tried to argue that a taxpayer’s receipt of an assessment from two other states held open the statute of limitations for Oregon income tax purposes. The Oregon Tax Court disagreed, holding that the assessment from another state would have to impact the taxpayer’s Oregon income tax…
In two separate cases evaluating Massachusetts’ and Oregon’s virtually identical costs-of-performance (COP) rules, the unresolved fundamental difficulties in applying the nearly half-a-century old rules are highlighted in the courts differing conclusions. Under the Uniform Division for Income Tax Purposes Act (UDITPA) (as adopted by both states), receipts from sources “other than sales of tangible personal property” (e.g., services and intangibles) are sourced for income tax apportionment purposes based on a preponderance COP methodology. Specifically, this methodology requires that such receipts be included in the states’ sales factor numerator only if the preponderance of the COP associated with the income producing activity are performed in the state.
The Massachusetts Appellate Tax Board (Board) and Oregon Tax Court (Tax Court) evaluated application of the COP methodology in AT&T Corp. v. Comm’r of Revenue, Mass. ATB Findings of Fact and Reports, 2011-524 and AT&T Corp. v. Dep’t of Revenue, Oregon Tax Court, TC 4814. At issue in both cases was whether AT&T’s receipts from interstate and international voice and data telecommunication services should be included in the states’ sales factor numerator. In providing these services, AT&T utilized its vast network of telecommunications assets, including its Global Network Operations Center in New Jersey. Both states’ Departments of Revenue took the position that AT&T’s income-producing activity consisted of each individual telephone call or data transmission to customers located in the state (referred to as the “Transactional Approach”). AT&T argued that its income-producing activity consisted of its revenue streams from its various services (the “Operational Approach”) rather than the “Transactional Approach.”Continue Reading Two States, One Similar Costs-of-Performance Rule, Different Results
