Shaking things up in state and local tax
Shaking things up in state and local tax
By Zachary Atkins and Pilar Mata
The Colorado Department of Revenue issued a private letter ruling permitting a financial institution to deviate from Colorado’s special industry rules and use an alternative method of apportionment for corporate income tax purposes. The taxpayer, a savings and loan holding company with subsidiaries separately engaged in broker-dealer and banking…
By Christopher Chang and Timothy Gustafson
A prepaid telephone card and long-distance service provider’s attempt to source phone card sales receipts outside of Texas was rebuffed by the Texas Comptroller because the taxpayer failed to carry its burden of proof. After initially sourcing 100% of its gross receipts to Texas and unsuccessfully claiming a cost-of-goods-sold…
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
The New York State Department of Taxation and Finance (the Department) recently released an advisory opinion analyzing the proper characterization and sourcing of various revenue streams derived from the facilitation of online trading activities. Petition No. C080222A, TSB-A-11(8)C (July 12, 2011). Relying on our old friends, Deloitte & Touche, LLP, TSB-A-02(3)C (Apr. 18, 2002); Ins. Servs. Offices, Inc., TSB-A-99(16)C (Apr. 7, 1999); and New York Merchantile Exch., TSB-A-00(15)C (Apr. 18, 2002), the opinion represents the Department’s growing trend to expand the category of “other business receipts,” to source receipts on a market rather than on a cost-of-performance basis.
In the opinion, the Parent is a Delaware corporation headquartered in New York. It owns and operates an Internet-based platform (Exchange) that serves as a marketplace for over-the-counter (OTC) global futures markets. Although the Parent is not a registered broker-dealer, the Exchange serves as a marketplace for buyers and sellers of certain commodities contracts, financial contracts, and other derivatives contracts in futures and OTCs to meet and execute trades on a real-time basis. All of the Parent’s property and equipment associated with the Exchange is located outside of New York, and all of the clearing administration for the OTC is performed outside of New York. In addition to the Parent’s activities, its affiliates generate receipts from various transactions, including open outcry trading, digital auction, flat monthly subscriptions, and trades executed with the assistance of interdealer brokers.Continue Reading The Big Apple Goes to the Market for Online Trading Revenue
For the second time, the Indiana Tax Court has ruled that Miller Brewing’s sales to Indiana customers from Miller Brewing’s Ohio facility were not considered Indiana sales for purposes of inclusion in the sales factor numerator. Miller Brewing Co. v. Indiana Dep’t of State Revenue, No. 49T10-0607-TA-69, 2011 WL 3630147 (Ind. Tax Ct. Aug.
