In Health Net Inc. v. Dep’t of Revenue, Docket No. S063625 (Apr. 12, 2018), the Oregon Supreme Court rejected a business taxpayer’s constitutional challenges to a 1993 Oregon statute that eliminated the right to utilize a three-factor apportionment formula in calculating Oregon income tax. The Oregon Supreme Court joined courts in Texas, Minnesota, California and Michigan in rejecting taxpayer arguments that states which have enacted Article IV of the Multistate Tax Compact, thereby incorporating the UDITPA three-factor (payroll, property and sales) formula, have entered into a binding contractual obligation which may not be overridden.

Oregon enacted UDITPA in 1965 (ORS 314.605 – 314.675) and the Multistate Tax Compact (including Article IV) (ORS 305.655), in 1967. In 1993, however, following a series of amendments to the apportionment formula in Oregon’s version of UDITPA, which moved the state to a single sales factor formula, the Oregon legislature eliminated taxpayers’ ability to elect the three factor apportionment formula incorporated via ORS 305.655.

In Health Net, the taxpayer argued that when Oregon enacted the MTC in 1967, it had entered into a binding contract with other states that was violated by the state’s 1993 elimination of the three factor apportionment formula, in violation of the Contract Clause of the state and US constitutions. In Oregon, a statute is considered “a contractual promise only if the legislature has clearly and unmistakably expressed its intent to create a contract.”  The Oregon Supreme Court determined that the text, context, and legislative history of ORS 305.655 did not “clearly and unmistakably” establish that the Oregon legislature intended to execute a binding contract with other states. The court found ORS 305.655 to have only created statutory obligations—according to the majority, it was a uniform law, not a compact—and, thus, there was no Contract Clause violation.


Continue Reading

On Tuesday, April 17, 2018, at 10:00 am (EST) the United States Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc., a state tax case poised to reconsider the dormant Commerce Clause physical presence standard upheld by the Court on stare decisis grounds in the historic mail-order case Quill Corp. v.

Due to the current impact and the likelihood that states will consider legislation and agency guidance addressing federal tax reform implications for state business taxes, a united, effective, nationwide advocacy effort is needed to ensure the issues are consistently addressed on a multi-state basis. In preparation for anticipated ramifications, a multi-state coalition will need to consider the subjects summarized below. For further coverage, continue reading here.

How McDermott Will & Emery Can Help You:

  • Formation of a coalition of companies and industry trade organizations dedicated to proactively addressing state tax issues raised by federal tax reform on a nationwide basis
  • Identify and track, in real time, proposed state legislative and regulatory responses to federal tax reform
  • Analyze proposed state reforms and develop substantive amendments and comments
  • Develop and implement advocacy campaigns to secure favorable legislative and regulatory outcomes, including
    • Preparation of all advocacy collateral
    • Organization of on the ground advocacy, including retaining in-state advocates where needed
    • Activating allied organizations to ensure broad support
  • Provide support concerning the proper reporting of state responses to federal tax reform on company financial statements

Coalition Goals: 

  • Prevent state legislation expanding tax base through decoupling from federal deductions
  • Support state legislation adopting comprehensive federal reform conformity, with appropriate deviations
  • Identify and remedy Commerce Clause issues
  • Encourage states revenue department to publish guidance on issues such as definitional questions, apportionment approaches and problems with different group calculations
  • Identify and act on opportunities to address related issues through state responses to federal reform
  • Prepare to address potential nexus changes in response to South Dakota v. Wayfair


Continue Reading

Many provisions of the House and Senate tax reform proposals would affect state and local tax regimes. SALT practitioners should monitor the progress of this legislation and consider contacting their state tax administrators and legislative bodies to voice their opinions.

Continue Reading.

On October 2, 2017, the State of South Dakota (State) filed its petition for a writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court (Court). A copy of the cert petition is available here and the case, South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc. et al., is expected to be docketed on October 3, 2017. The

Yesterday, the South Dakota Supreme Court released its much-anticipated opinion in the Wayfair litigation, affirming a March 2017 trial court decision granting the remote retailer’s motion for summary judgment on the basis that the economic nexus law enacted in 2016 (SB 106) is unconstitutional and directly violates the US Supreme Court’s dormant Commerce Clause precedent

On July 28, Circuit Judge Daniel Kubasiak dismissed the Complaint filed by the Illinois Retail Merchants Association and a group of retailers challenging the constitutionality of the Cook County, Illinois Sweetened Beverage Tax (Tax). A copy of the court’s Order is linked here (Order). The Order also dissolved the June 30 temporary restraining order which had halted the county’s imposition of the Tax, on which we have previously reported. In response to the Order, the county required Tax collection to begin on August 2. The county also announced that by September 20, retailers must remit a “floor tax” on the inventory of sweetened beverages in their possession as of August 1.

The Order rejected both of the constitutional arguments raised by the Complaint. The court held that Plaintiffs raised a good faith Illinois Uniformity Clause challenge, and thereby shifted the burden of proof to the county, because the Tax applied to pre-made, but not made-to-order sweetened beverages. The court went on to hold, however, that the county met its burden to justify this arbitrary tax classification by alleging that pre-made sweetened beverages were more widely available and therefore more likely to be purchased and consumed than made-to-order beverages (thus generating more tax revenues) and by arguing that imposing the Tax on made-to-order beverages would be administratively burdensome. The court then held that Plaintiffs had failed to meet their burden of establishing that the county’s justifications were insufficient in law or unsupported by the facts. According to the court, the “County has set forth a real and substantial difference between the people taxed, who purchase ready-to-drink, pre-made sweetened beverages, and those not taxed, who purchase on-demand, custom sweetened beverages.” (Order at 9.)


Continue Reading

On August 9, 2017, the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (Third Circuit), overruling the US District Court for the District of Delaware (District Court), allowed a claim by a holder seeking to prevent an unclaimed property audit by Delaware on due process grounds to proceed. See Plains All American Pipeline L.P. v. Cook et al., No. 16-3631 (3d Cir. Aug. 9, 2017).  The procedural due process claim challenges Delaware’s use of auditors that have a stake in the assessment. Consistent with the District Court decision, the Third Circuit held that challenges to Delaware’s estimation methodology were ruled not ripe. The case has been remanded to the District Court for further proceedings.

Continue Reading

The No Regulation Without Representation Act of 2017 (NRWRA) is scheduled for a hearing before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law on Tuesday, July 25 at 10:00 am EDT in 2141 Rayburn House Office Building. The bill was introduced by Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI) last month with House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) as one of seven original co-sponsors. As described in more detail below, the bill would codify the Bellas Hess “physical presence” requirement upheld by the US Supreme Court in Quill and make that requirement applicable to sales, use and other similar transactional taxes, notice and reporting requirements, net income taxes and other business activity taxes. Extending the concept to an area far beyond state taxation, the bill would also require the same physical presence for a state or locality to regulate the out-of-state production, manufacturing or post-sale disposal of any good or service sold to locations within its jurisdictional borders.

In the last Congress, the Business Activity Tax Simplification Act of 2015 (BATSA) would have codified a physical presence requirement in the context of business activity taxes (e.g., net income and gross receipts taxes). However, the scope of NRWRA’s limitations on interstate regulation and tax differs from the standard set forth in BATSA. Specifically, under BATSA, assigning an employee to a state constitutes physical presence, whereas under NRWRA a company does not have physical presence until it employs more than two employees in the state (or a single employee if he or she is in the state and provides design, installation or repair services or “substantially assists” in establishing or maintaining a market). Under NRWRA, activities related to the potential or actual purchase of goods or services in the state or locality are not a physical presence if the final decision to purchase is made outside of the jurisdiction.
Continue Reading