For over 50 years, Bloomberg BNA’s renowned flagship daily news service, Daily Tax Report® has helped leading practitioners and policymakers stay on the cutting edge of taxation and...
Aug. 18 — The U.S. Supreme Court should focus on the terms of the Multistate Tax Compact rather than the actions of member states, the companies in the landmark Gillette case said in their final request to the high court for review ( Gillette Co. v. Cal. Franchise Tax Bd., U.S., No. 15-1442, reply brief to petition for certiorari filed 8/16/16 ).
The Franchise Tax Board had “literally nothing to say” about the binding terms of the compact and its tax apportionment formula in its brief filed with the court, but instead is continuing to argue improperly that the actions of the states and nonbinding resolutions show the compact is only an advisory one, the companies said in their Aug. 16 reply brief in support of their petition for certiorari.
Gillette Co.; its parent, Procter & Gamble Manufacturing Co.; Kimberly-Clark Worldwide Inc.; and Sigma-Aldrich Inc. also argued that lower court rulings on the questions raised in the case in California and other states are inconsistent about the binding nature of the compact, making it necessary for the U.S. Supreme Court to step in.
“It thus appears that the only constant in these state-court decisions is a determination to rule for the state and against out-of-state taxpayers,” the companies said in the latest round of briefing in the case that sparked a national debate about the compact's meaning.
With briefing now complete, the petition will be distributed for the court's Sept. 26 conference.
The companies are asking the court to overturn a state supreme court ruling that California could enforce its statutory apportionment formula in lieu of the compact's formula, despite the state's adoption of the compact. The companies' dispute with the California Franchise Tax Board has centered on competing interpretations of the Multistate Tax Compact as either an advisory compact or a binding agreement.
Whether the compact is an advisory or binding agreement is an issue still before two other supreme courts after the Minnesota high court recently ruled in favor of the state and the Michigan high court declined to review the issue (124 DTR H-1, 6/28/16).
At least $3 billion in corporate tax payments across the country are at stake, according to the Gillette petitioners.
In their Aug. 16 reply brief, the companies refuted the FTB's argument that overturning the California ruling would improperly allow “private taxpayers” to enforce the compact. The FTB didn't raise the issue earlier, likely because other court precedent clearly gives third parties the right to sue to enforce agreements intended to benefit them, the companies said.
The companies also argued that the FTB, in its brief to the court, didn't defend the California court's rationale to interpret the compact based on another U.S. Supreme Court ruling, Northeast Bancorp v. Board of Governors, 472 U.S. 159 (1985) , because it is indefensible. The California court relied on Northeast Bancorp, saying it offered “a unique set of considerations that govern the interpretation of interstate compacts,” in error, the companies said.
“The California Supreme Court misunderstood this Court's precedent, a mistake that this Court has a special responsibility to correct,” the companies said in their brief.
Corporations, tax groups like the Council On State Taxation and the Tax Foundation, and a tax consultant who says he could be the last living person who witnessed the creation of the Multistate Tax Compact have urged the U.S. Supreme Court to review the California case (128 DTR K-2, 7/5/16).
To contact the reporter on this story: Laura Mahoney in Sacramento, Calif., at email@example.com
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Ryan Tuck at firstname.lastname@example.org
Text of the reply brief is available at http://src.bna.com/hQF.
Copyright © 2016 The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
All Bloomberg BNA treatises are available on standing order, which ensures you will always receive the most current edition of the book or supplement of the title you have ordered from Bloomberg BNA’s book division. As soon as a new supplement or edition is published (usually annually) for a title you’ve previously purchased and requested to be placed on standing order, we’ll ship it to you to review for 30 days without any obligation. During this period, you can either (a) honor the invoice and receive a 5% discount (in addition to any other discounts you may qualify for) off the then-current price of the update, plus shipping and handling or (b) return the book(s), in which case, your invoice will be cancelled upon receipt of the book(s). Call us for a prepaid UPS label for your return. It’s as simple and easy as that. Most importantly, standing orders mean you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you’re relying on. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.960.1220 or by sending an email to email@example.com.
Put me on standing order at a 5% discount off list price of all future updates, in addition to any other discounts I may quality for. (Returnable within 30 days.)
Notify me when updates are available (No standing order will be created).
This Bloomberg BNA report is available on standing order, which ensures you will all receive the latest edition. This report is updated annually and we will send you the latest edition once it has been published. By signing up for standing order you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you need. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.372.1033, option 5, or by sending us an email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Put me on standing order
Notify me when new releases are available (no standing order will be created)