A continuing issue across the country for taxpayers with multistate income has been whether they can elect to use the Multistate Tax Compact’s evenly weighted three-factor apportionment formula. . The decision by the Michigan Supreme Court in IBM v. Michigan Dept. of Treas. was notable for allowing taxpayers to elect to use the three-factor formula because the MTC had not been expressly repealed for the tax years in question. Michigan’s legislature responded by expressly repealing the MTC for the tax years at issue.
As discussed in Bloomberg BNA’s 2015 State Tax Advisory Board Roundtable, several other states are still litigating the issue. . California, Texas and Oregon all have cases pending related to the effectiveness of the compact and election to use its apportionment formula. The Minnesota Tax Court has reached a decision in their case, Kimberly-Clark Corp. & Subsidiaries v. Comr. of Rev.
In Kimberly-Clark, the taxpayers argued that for tax years 2007 through 2009 they should be allowed the use of the MTC’s apportionment formula because the compact was a binding contract on the state of Minnesota requiring the state to allow the election if it had not entirely withdrawn from the compact. The commissioner argued that the 1987 repeal of the sections of the compact allowing the use of the three-factor formula (while still remaining a member of the Compact) was valid.
The tax court, hearing the case en banc, ruled in favor of the commissioner, stating that taxpayers would not be allowed to use the three-factor apportionment formula in the compact. The court reasoned that government contracts must be construed where possible to avoid relinquishment of sovereign powers of the state under the unmistakability doctrine established by the U.S. Supreme Court. Allowing the compact to dictate how the state’s tax policy works where there has been a valid legislative act repealing a portion of the compact related to apportionment and no unmistakable promise in the compact not to alter or repeal the election of this formula would violate Minnesota’s sovereign power to tax.
The ruling’s result differs from the case in IBM, and, significantly, the rationale behind the rulings is different. In IBM the failure of the legislature to expressly repeal the MTC apportionment provisions for the tax years in question was the deciding factor, rather than the unmistakability doctrine and the nature of the Compact itself. “The IBM decision was ruled in favor of the taxpayer on what I believe was essentially state statutory grounds and didn’t really address the compact issue, notwithstanding the fact that the concurring opinion and the dissenting opinions all spent most of their discussion talking about the compact issues,” said Joseph Huddleston, executive director for the Multistate Tax Commission in Washington, D.C., at the Bloomberg BNA Roundtable.
With further litigation pending, the power of the MTC to dictate tax policy in the member states remains an issue. It remains to be seen how much power the MTC actually has in its member states outside Minnesota, even where portions of it have been repealed.
The text of the Minnesota Tax Court’s opinion can be found here.
Continue the discussion on Bloomberg BNA’s
State Tax Group on LinkedIn: Should taxpayers be permitted to
use the MTC’s three-factor apportionment formula even when it has been repealed?
Take a free trial to Premier State Tax Library, a comprehensive research service that delivers deep, unique analysis, and time-saving practice tools to help practitioners make well-informed decisions.
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)