Today is State Taxgiving Day at Bloomberg BNA! The usual bag lunch is replaced by homemade dishes such as Quill-Lime Pie, Market-Based Sourcing Macaroni and Cheese as well as Green Incentives Green Bean Casserole. This is also a time to give thanks for the following issues and open questions that are enough for State Taxgiving Day Feast:
The Multistate Tax Compact Apportionment Election Controversy. At issue is whether taxpayers operating in MTC member states can elect to apportion income using the MTC Compact’s three-factor apportionment formula instead of the method (e.g., single-sales factor) purportedly required under state statute. Litigation on this question is pending in California, Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon and Texas. After having originally won on this issue in California, the prospects for the taxpayers’ success appears to have dimmed, based on oral arguments before the state’s supreme court.
Food for Thought: Rulings for the states--and against requiring them to adhere to compact provisions--could doom the prospects for greater uniformity among the states on other important provisions such as market-based sourcing.
Retroactive Legislation. A sub-issue in the MTC Compact controversy discussed above is whether an MTC member state may retroactively repeal their adoption of the compact. The most recent ruling on this issue came in September when taxpayers lost their bid in challenging Michigan’s retroactive repeal of the MTC Compact in Gillette Commercial Operations N. Am. v. Dep't of Treasury, No. 325258 (Mich. Ct. App. Sept. 29, 2015). Retroactivity has arisen on other contexts as well. Last year, Washington state’s high court upheld a 2013 legislative amendment to estate tax provisions that apply to “estates of decedents dying on or after May 17, 2005” against a due process challenge. The U.S. Supreme Court recently denied cert. in that case. (Hambleton v. Washington Dep't of Revenue, 2015 BL 335688, U.S., No. 14-1436, cert. denied, 10/13/15).
Food for Thought: The seminal case on the constitutionality of retroactive tax legislation (United States v. Carlton, 512 U.S. 26 (1994)) turned 20 last year. In Justice O’Connor’s concurring opinion, she said: “A period of retroactivity longer than the year preceding the legislative session in which the law was enacted would raise, in my view, serious constitutional questions.” The retroactivity question seems ripe for a revisit by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Corporate Income Tax Sourcing. Determining which states are owed corporate income tax on sales of services or intangibles continues to grow in complexity. The states have adopted a varying patchwork of conflicting rules on this issue. Most states follow the cost of performance approach, which is an “all-or-nothing” approach that sources all of the receipts to a single jurisdiction based on where most of the costs of performance occurred. Other states use a proportionate method, or pro rata approach, in which receipts from the income-producing activity are sourced proportionately to each state based on where the cost of activity occurs. A growing minority of states use a market-based sourcing approach, which sources receipts to the state where the taxpayer’s market for the sale is located.
One result of these contrasting approaches is that it is not uncommon for more than one state to conclude that it’s entitled to impose tax on 100 percent of the receipts of a given transaction. In AT&T Corp. v. Dep't of Revenue, No. S060150, 2015 BL 294190 (Or Sept. 11. 2015) the court found that AT&T failed to show that the majority of its costs arose in New Jersey. Instead the court concluded that most of the company’s costs of performance occurred in Oregon. As a result, the income from its transactions was properly subject to Oregon’s income tax.
Food for Thought: What relief would be available to the taxpayer if New Jersey reached the same conclusion as Oregon and both states taxed 100 percent of the income? The taxpayer would be barred from directly challenging this result in federal court under the Tax Injunction Act. The only hope would be for New Jersey Court to strike down its statute or the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case on appeal and side with the taxpayer.
As we approach Thanksgiving, I am thankful for the cornucopia of issues that exist in state corporate income tax.
Continue the discussion on Bloomberg BNA’s State Tax Group on LinkedIn: What are some other state tax issues that offer food for thought?
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)