Daily Tax Report: State provides authoritative coverage of state and local tax developments across the 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia, tracking legislative and regulatory updates,...
The U.S. Supreme Court isn’t rushing to grant or deny IBM, Goodyear and other companies’ requests for review of “retroactive” tax laws in Michigan and Washington state.
For the third time in a month, the high court has relisted the petitions for conference—deferring consideration after its April 21 and 28 conferences. The petitions could be rescheduled for the next conference on May 11.
Several out-of-state companies are asking the Supreme Court to review state court opinions upholding statutes in the two states that retroactively impact tax assessments years before the laws were enacted. The number of companies challenging the Michigan law increased in mid-April with another petition filed by R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the second-largest tobacco company in the U.S.
In an April 23 posting on SCOTUSBlog.com, John Elwood, a partner and appellate attorney at Vinson and Elkins LLP, discussed the Supreme Court’s relist streak. Several cases recently granted argument in the next term followed at least one rescheduled conference.
During the May 1 live blog on the same site, Amy Howe said the high court “has been giving most cases a second look before granting.” If a case wasn’t on the May 1 order list, it could indicate that:
Another potential factor? Justice Neil Gorsuch just joined the high court on April 10, giving it the full nine members.
The Michigan litigation dates back to 2014, when the state Legislature amended the Michigan Business Tax Act and repealed the Multistate Tax Compact. Under the compact, business taxpayers could elect to apportion income using “an equally-weighted, three-factor apportionment formula based on a business’s sales, property, and payroll.”
Under the amendment, businesses would need to apportion their tax base using a “sales-factor apportionment formula,” retroactive to Jan. 1, 2008.
Multiple out-of-state businesses have asked the high court to review several Michigan Court of Appeals rulings that upheld the 2014 statute against alleged constitutional violations. They are:
In a March 13 brief, Michigan Solicitor General Aaron Lindstrom said the Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction over the issue because the 2014 Michigan law is merely a corrective measure and not retroactive “at all.”
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. on April 19 joined the chorus of companies contesting the Michigan law. The company’s appeal arises from another Michigan Court of Appeals decision denying Lorillard Tobacco—acquired by R.J. Reynolds in 2015—the use of the three-factor apportionment formula ( R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Michigan Dep’t of Treasury , U.S., No. 16-1260, petition for review filed 4/19/17 ).
A response to the petition for review is due May 22.
In the Washington litigation, Dot Foods Inc. is challenging a Washington Supreme Court ruling that the retroactive application of a statutory amendment narrowing a business and occupation tax exemption didn’t violate due process. In a December 2016 reply, the company reiterated that the case is prime for review—arguing that the state court’s decision “deepens a conflict” among lower courts and implicates “millions, if not billions, of dollars” ( Dot Foods, Inc. v. Wash. Dep’t of Revenue , U.S., No. 16-308 ).
The company also argued that its petition directly relates to an open question highlighted by former Justice Sandra Day O’Connor in 1994, the last time the high court considered the legality of retroactive taxation.
To contact the reporter on this story: Jennifer McLoughlin in Washington at email@example.com
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Ryan C. Tuck at firstname.lastname@example.org
Copyright © 2017 Tax Management 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)