On April 24, Maryland Governor Larry Hogan signed Senate Bill 1090 and House Bill 1794, which adds Maryland to the growing list of states that are moving towards a single sales factor formula to apportion corporate net income.

  • Under prior Maryland law, most corporations generally used a three-factor formula based on in-state property, payroll and

By Todd Betor and Andrew Appleby

The Illinois Department of Revenue granted a taxpayer’s request to use an alternative apportionment method, determining that application of the standard single sales factor formula did not fairly represent the market for the taxpayer’s goods, services or other sources of income. The taxpayer’s only sale during the year in

The Massachusetts Department of Revenue ruled that a California lubricant and cleaning products manufacturer was a manufacturing corporation, even though 70% of its production activities were outsourced to third parties. As a result, the Department permitted the company to use a single sales factor to apportion its taxable net income to Massachusetts. Mass. Ltr. Rul. 11-8: Qualification as a Manufacturing Corporation under G.L. c. 63, s. 38(I) (Dec. 16, 2011).

Under Massachusetts Law, a “manufacturing corporation” that has income from business activity that is taxable both in Massachusetts and outside the state is required to apportion its net income to Massachusetts using a single sales factor. There are two requirements to be a “manufacturing corporation.” First, the corporation must be engaged in manufacturing during the year, and second, the manufacturing activity must be substantial. A corporation’s manufacturing activities are substantial if the corporation meets one of the five statutorily enumerated tests. The first test is that the corporation derives 25% or more of its receipts for the taxable year from the sale of manufactured goods that it manufactures.Continue Reading Massachusetts Greases the Skids for Lubricant Manufacturer to Use Single Sales Factor

The California Franchise Tax Board recently released Legal Division Guidance 2012-03-02, concluding that taxpayers may not simultaneously report tax under a single sales factor election and the standard three-factor formula to avoid application of the Large Corporate Understatement Penalty. For full details, read our legal alert, “Single Sales Factor Election May Create Exposure

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

After nearly 60 years of experimentation with value added and gross receipts taxes, Michigan has now joined the rank-and-file corporate income tax states through its repeal of the Michigan Business Tax (MBT). Governor Snyder signed the tax package (H.B. 4361, H.B. 4362) into law on May 25, 2011. According to the Council on State Taxation, the legislation takes the state from 30th to 16th in the nation in terms of lowest state and local business tax burden.

The new 6% corporate income tax, effective January 1, 2012, retains many of the same features as the Business Income Tax component of the former MBT, including unitary combined reporting, single sales factor apportionment with market sourcing, a Finnigan apportionment rule, and the same tax rate. The MBT factor presence nexus standard is also retained, under which nexus is established if an out-of-state company has physical presence in Michigan for more than one day or actively solicits sales in the state and has Michigan gross receipts of $350,000 or more. The new tax also incorporates the same tax regimes for insurance companies and financial institutions that existed under the MBT. Insurance companies continue to be subject to the greater of a 1.25% tax on gross direct Michigan premiums or the retaliatory tax, and financial institutions will still be subject to tax based on 0.29% of net capital.Continue Reading Michigan’s Tax Roulette Lands on a Corporate Income Tax

Ever the trendsetter, California is hip to transparency and has posted proposed budget trailer bill language on the Department of Finance Web site, www.dof.ca.gov. The language confirms what taxpayers already knew: A target is on their backs as budget negotiations begin. The tax provisions specific to business taxpayers include a repeal of California’s Enterprise Zone Program and all related credit carryovers; mandatory single sales factor apportionment; mandatory market sourcing; tax shelter amnesty; and a financial institutions records match (FIRM) program. Other language includes a legislative constitutional amendment to extend current tax rates for five years. All of these proposals require a two-thirds legislative vote. However, the tax shelter amnesty and FIRM provisions could be enacted with a mere majority vote.Continue Reading California Mischief: Budget Tax Proposals Repeal Credits, Limit Apportionment Methods

Chaos resulting from the California budget crisis reached a crescendo in recent weeks because of a new budget agreement, a bevy of voter referendums addressing tax legislation, and new regulations addressing corporate income tax apportionment issues. In the aftermath of the chaos, California has again significantly modified its corporate income tax apportionment provisions, for

In a continuing effort to clarify certain Texas Margins Tax issues, the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts (Comptroller) issued Tax Policy News in July 2010, which provides additional guidance on the Texas Margins Tax costs of goods sold computation; apportionment; and margin tax recovery fees. Texas statutes and regulations do not provide significant guidance on how these provisions should be applied. 

Regarding the costs of goods sold deduction, the Comptroller clarified that this deduction may only be taken by taxpayers that produce “goods,” i.e., real property, tangible personal property, and specifically enumerated services related to video and radio programming. To the extent a taxpayer sells “mixed transactions”—transactions containing elements of both a “good” and a service—the taxpayer may only subtract as costs of goods sold those costs “in relation to” the good. However, a taxpayer may nonetheless deduct as costs of goods sold up to 4% of its back-office (“indirect or administrative overhead”) costs allocable to “the acquisition or production of goods.”Continue Reading Texas Margins Tax Roundup: Comptroller Provides Additional Margins Tax Guidance