unitary

Subscribe to unitary via RSS

In Indiana Department of Revenue Letter of Findings No. 02-20191221 (Dated June 3, 2020, published August 26, 2020), the Department concluded there was a lack of a unitary business relationship between an out-of-state holding company and a partnership that operated gas stations within the state. The Department held that the holding company could not show…

The New York Department of Taxation and Finance recently published an advisory opinion stating that a taxpayer’s New York corporate income tax filing status should be determined by “what activity [a taxpayer] is principally engaged in” and by whether 50% of its aggregate gross receipts in a taxable reporting period are from such activities. The…

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…