This is the eleventh edition of the Eversheds Sutherland SALT Scoreboard, and the third edition of 2018. Each quarter, we tally the results of what we deem to be significant taxpayer wins and losses and analyze those results. This edition of the SALT Scoreboard includes a discussion of California combined reporting, insights regarding the Washington

The California Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court’s holding that the California Franchise Tax Board can require interstate unitary businesses to use combined reporting, even though combined reporting is optional for intrastate unitary businesses. The taxpayer, a motorcycle retailer, argued that the differential treatment of interstate and intrastate business gave a direct commercial advantage

By Robert Merten and Madison Barnett

The San Diego County Superior Court  determined that California’s combined filing regime—which requires interstate taxpayers to use combined reporting but permits intrastate taxpayers to choose between combined or separate reporting—does not violate the US Constitution’s Commerce Clause. The court acknowledged that (1) the interstate and intrastate unitary businesses were

By Evan Hamme and Marc Simonetti

The Texas Comptroller upheld a taxpayer’s separate Franchise Tax return filing position, rejecting an Administrative Law Judge’s finding that the taxpayer and its affiliate shared a strong centralized management structure that required a unitary combined report. Although the companies were commonly owned and shared an administrator, the Comptroller found

By Ted Friedman and Leah Robinson

The Michigan Court of Appeals reversed a trial court ruling and held that three companies did not constitute a statutorily defined “unitary business group” for Michigan Business Tax (MBT) purposes. It was undisputed that there was insufficient “direct” ownership among the companies to give rise to a “unitary business

By Liz Cha and Timothy Gustafson

In its first decision on combined unitary reporting since Vermont adopted combined reporting in 2006, the Vermont Supreme Court held that the AIG insurance group was not unitary with its wholly owned ski resort subsidiary, Stowe Mountain Resort. Applying the U.S. Supreme Court’s test for unity articulated in Mobil

By Michael Penza and Andrew Appleby

The California Court of Appeal held that California’s disparate treatment of intrastate and interstate unitary businesses discriminated against interstate commerce. California requires taxpayers engaged in a unitary business within and without California to calculate their taxable income using combined reporting, but provides taxpayers engaged in a unitary business wholly