INSIDE SALT
INSIDE SALT
In-depth coverage of legal issues surrounding state and local tax
INSIDE SALT
In-depth coverage of legal issues surrounding state and local tax
Income Tax
Subscribe to Income Tax's Posts

Multistate Taxpayers Take Note! Recap of the First Day of the MTC Pricing Summit

by and | Oct 7, 2014 | , ,

On October 6, 2014, the Multistate Tax Commission (MTC) held the first day of a two-day meeting intended to educate state revenue authorities on corporate income tax issues surrounding intercompany transactions, and further refine a path forward for states interested in collaborating on audit and compliance strategies.  This first day focused entirely on presentations by specialists in transfer pricing and related intercompany transaction issues.  Two important themes and one blatant omission regarding future enforcement emerged from the first day:  (1) suggestions for increased disclosure and substantiation requirements; (2) safe harbor options and (3) a lack of discussion of how to prevent the risk of double taxation.

Taxpayers should be particularly concerned with the stress placed by the specialists on increased disclosure and substantiation requirements.  Most of the specialists emphasized the importance of getting information into the hands of revenue authorities.  Several suggested adding questions to the tax return itself such as “does the taxpayer use intangible property owned by an affiliate?”  These questions would be used to identify potential audit targets and focus audit inquiries.  Separately – but in a similar vein – several specialists suggested that taxpayers be required to create contemporaneous documentation substantiating their intercompany pricing at the state level.  An example provided was the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development proposal that a taxpayer provide a country-by-country analysis.  This example provoked at least one attendee to compare it to the infamous “50-state spreadsheet.”  Some specialists even suggested that states create special penalties for failure to properly disclose or create the required substantiation.

As some commentators acknowledged, a substantial concern with both the disclosure and substantiation suggestions is the risk of a significant increase in the cost of compliance for taxpayers.  State authorities should carefully consider the risk/rewards of any such action.  Increased state disclosure requirements, such as modeling the federal uncertain tax position rule, have not yet widely caught on among the states despite spurts of activity.  This is partially because of the administrative burden on taxpayers and partially because states receive a great deal of information from the Internal Revenue Service.  It is clear, however, that the states continue to be frustrated with the perceived tax planning problem.  The specialists expressed near-unanimous agreement that states need more information to properly enforce intercompany transaction issues.

The second theme of the day was the concept of safe harbors.  This theme took different forms but could be something that both taxpayers and state revenue authorities would support.  For example, some specialists suggested that for low-value transactions, safe harbor rules be created to provide increased certainty to taxpayers.  This might include providing limits on the percentage profit that could be made from certain types of intercompany transactions.  Other commentators and some states suggested, however, that additional safe harbor protections are unnecessary because state add-back statutes effectively provide safe harbor protection.

In a glaring omission, specialists failed to recognize or address the need to avoid double taxation.  Although several specialists noted that in the international area, most of the action happens [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Yes, Distortion is Enough: New York Tax Appeals Tribunal Clarifies Combined Reporting Requirements

by | Oct 6, 2014 | , ,

On September 18, 2014, the New York State Tax Appeals Tribunal released its first decision interpreting New York State’s post-2007 combined reporting laws and, in doing so, answered a question that has been lingering in the minds of taxpayers and the Department’s auditors—whether distortion alone can still justify combined reporting.  Reversing a June 2013 determination of a New York Division of Tax Appeals Administrative Law Judge, the Tribunal, in Matter of Knowledge Learning Corp. et al., DTA Nos. 823962; 823963 (N.Y. Tax App. Trib. Sept. 18, 2014), held that distortion, even in the absence of substantial intercorporate transactions, can provide the basis for combined reporting.

Before January 1, 2007, New York required combined reporting for companies that were linked by common ownership and engaged in a unitary business if separate filing would result in distortion of income.  Under prior law, distortion was presumed where taxpayers in a purported combined group engaged in substantial intercorporate transactions (SIT).  The 2007 amendment to the combined reporting statute converted the presumption arising from the presence of SIT into a rule of law, with taxpayers now required to file combined reports if SIT are present.  Unclear after the 2007 law change was whether taxpayers could be permitted or required to file on a combined basis if separate filing would distort the taxpayers’ New York incomes, even if the combined group did not engage in SIT.

The petitioners in Knowledge Learning Corporation filed a combined return for the tax year ending December 29, 2007 and argued (1) that the parent and subsidiaries included on the combined report engaged in SIT and (2) that, regardless of whether the SIT test was met, separate filing would result in distortion.  The ALJ declined to address the petitioners’ argument that there was actual distortion even if there were not SIT, stating that “distortion is not the proper analysis in light of the 2007 statutory amendment”—a conclusion with which many practitioners disagreed.  (See prior coverage here).  The Tribunal reversed, concluding that the amended law “allows combined reports to be filed, even in the absence of substantial intercorporate transactions, when combined filing is necessary to properly reflect income and avoid distortion.”  The Tribunal also overruled the ALJ’s conclusion that the petitioners did not engage in SIT and, after conducting a fact-intensive inquiry into the group’s operations, held that the leasing of employees to the subsidiaries by the parent and the parent’s payment of all of the subsidiaries’ expenses met the SIT test such that combination was required.

This decision is noteworthy for a number of reasons:  First, because the Tribunal found in favor of the taxpayer, the New York State Department of Taxation cannot appeal and the decision constitutes binding precedent.  Furthermore, although the Tribunal did not reach the issue of whether the petitioners had actually proved distortion, a wealth of New York case law discussing what is necessary to prove distortion (such as Matter of Autotote Limited, Matter of Heidelberg Eastern Inc. and Matter of Mohasco Corporation) exists, and [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Did You Pay a Michigan Assessment After an MTC Audit? What the State’s Retroactive Compact Repeal May Mean

by and | Sep 30, 2014 | , , , , ,

On September 11, 2014, Michigan Governor Rick Snyder signed legislation (SB 156) retroactively repealing the Multistate Tax Compact (Compact, formerly codified at MCL § 205.581 et seq.) from the state statutes, effective January 1, 2008.  Among other things, the bill’s passage ostensibly supersedes the Michigan Supreme Court’s decision in Int’l Bus. Machines Corp. v. Dep’t of Treasury, 496 Mich. 642 (2014) (holding that (1) the enactment of a single sales factor under the Business Tax Act (codified at MCL § 208.1101 et seq.) did not repeal Compact by implication and (2) the state’s modified gross receipts tax fell within the scope of Compact’s definition of “income tax” which the taxpayer could calculate using Compact’s three-factor apportionment test) and relieves the Department of Treasury from having to pay an estimated $1.1. billion in refunds to taxpayers.  While many commentators have rightfully focused on the constitutional validity of retroactively repealing the Compact in Michigan in such a manner (including our own Mary Kay Martire in her recent blog post), we think it is equally as important to consider whether the repeal compromises the validity of prior interstate audit assessments authorized pursuant to the Compact.

Background

Article VIII of the Compact provides the specific rules governing participation in interstate audits conducted by the Multistate Tax Commission (MTC) via their Joint Audit Program (Program).  Unlike other provisions of the Compact, Article VIII is “in force only in those party states that specifically provide therefore by statute.”  Section 8 of the Compact provides this authority, simply stating “Article VIII [of the Compact] shall be in force in and with respect to this state.” See MCL § 205.588 (repealed by SB 156).  This threshold matter must be satisfied before the MTC is authorized to audit and assess businesses and review their books and records on behalf of any particular state.

The MTC and its participating audit states have taken the controversial position that membership and participation in the Program is independent from a state’s Compact status (e.g. Massachusetts, Nebraska, Tennessee, and Wisconsin have not adopted the Compact, yet participate in the Program).  Further, even when authorized, states have the discretion to elect not to participate in the Program by simply opting out for one or both of the taxes audited (income and franchise, or sales and use).

Minnesota offers an example of a state that may have withdrawn from the Compact correctly while maintaining the State’s ability to participate in MTC audits.  In May 2013, the legislature enacted legislation repealing the Compact (H.F. 677, repealing Minn. Stat. § 290.171) (this legislation does not appear to be retroactive).  In doing so, the legislature included a separate provision authorizing continued participation in audits performed by the MTC. See Minn. Stat. § 270C.03 subd. 1(9), amended by H.F. 677.  While Minnesota ultimately opted not to participate in these audits, they have statutory authority if they so choose (but as noted above, the Compact itself may not allow for this).

Implications

Unlike Minnesota, the recent repeal in Michigan failed to [...]

Continue Reading



read more

MTC to Hold Transfer Pricing Group Meeting with Third-Party Contract Auditors

by and | Sep 23, 2014 | , , , , , , , , , , ,

On October 6 and 7, 2014, the Multistate Tax Commission (MTC) will hold an Arm’s-Length Adjustment Service (ALAS) Advisory Group Conference at the Atlanta Airport Marriott.  On the first day, third-party contract auditors will give presentations on transfer pricing issues.  An ALAS Advisory Group meeting will be held on the second day.

This past year, the MTC has been designing a joint transfer pricing program.  So far, nine members have committed money to the development of this program: Alabama, the District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Iowa, Kentucky, New Jersey and North Carolina.

Dan Bucks, former executive director of the MTC and former director of the Montana Department of Revenue, is the project facilitator.  In the lead-up to the event, he discussed arm’s-length issues with numerous third-party contract auditors.  On October 6, the contract auditors will explain how they believe a multistate transfer pricing program should work and how the MTC would best use their services to conduct transfer pricing audits on behalf of member states.

The list of contract auditors includes Chainbridge Software, Economics Analysis Group, Economists Incorporated, NERA, Peters Advisors, RoyaltyStat and WTP Advisors.  While project facilitator, Dan Bucks, has indicated that this meeting is not an audition for a procurement process, the discussion seems to be headed in that direction and the MTC has not ruled out utilizing third-party audit assistance in the transfer pricing program.

Businesses concerned with the overall direction of the ALAS Advisory Group, including the possibility of subjecting taxpayers to Chainbridge-style audits on a nationwide scale, should contact the authors.  For more information on the conference, please visit the MTC ALAS webpage.



read more

How Will Michigan Courts Analyze a Legal Challenge to the Michigan Legislature’s Retroactive Repeal of the Multistate Tax Compact?

by | Sep 18, 2014 | , , , ,

In recent days, the state tax world has focused on the State of Michigan’s retroactive repeal of the Multistate Tax Compact (Compact).  Last week, the Michigan Legislature passed and Governor Snyder signed into law a bill (P.A. 282) that nullifies the effect of the state Supreme Court’s July 14, 2014 decision in International Business Machines v. Dep’t of Treasury, Dkt.  No. 146440.  In IBM, the state Supreme Court held that IBM may apportion its business income tax base and modified gross receipts tax base under the Michigan Business Tax (MBT) using the three-factor apportionment formula provided in the Compact, rather than the sales-factor apportionment formula provided by the MBT. Reflective of the urgency with which he views the situation, Michigan’s Governor Snyder signed the bill into law within twenty-four hours after its passage, with a statement that the state’s actions were an effort to ensure that “Michigan businesses are not penalized for investing in the State.”  The Michigan Department of Treasury (MDOT) made no attempt to sugar coat its statements in language that would reflect support for Michigan business interests.  Rather, it loudly proclaimed that the Legislature must act because the revenue impact to the State of the IBM decision was $1.1 billion.

The new law repeals L. 1969, P.A. 343, which enacted the Compact, retroactive to January 1, 2008, allegedly in order to express the original intent of the legislature regarding the application of M.C.L.A. §208.1403 of the MBT.  (Section 208.1403 specifies that a multistate taxpayer must apportion its tax base to Michigan using the sales factor.)  The law goes on to provide that the Legislature’s original “intended effect” of §208.1403 was to eliminate the ability for taxpayers to use the  Compact’s three factor apportionment election provision in computing their MBT, and to “clarify” that the election provision included in the Compact is not available to the Michigan Income Tax Act, which replaced the MBT in 2012.

The actions of the state are perhaps not surprising, given MDOT’s revenue estimate and the number of related claims (more than 130) that are reported to be pending before MDOT and/or the Michigan courts on this issue.  Earlier this week, the Michigan Court of Appeals issued an unpublished decision holding that the IBM ruling was dispositive on the issue of whether Lorillard Tobacco Company could elect to use a three-factor apportionment formula in computing its MBT for 2008 and 2009.  Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Dep’t of Treasury, No. 313256 (Sept. 16, 2014).  Critics of the new law make strong arguments about the unfairness of the state’s recent actions, and tax pundits predict that the retroactivity of the law will soon be the subject of a court challenge.  What do Michigan court’s prior rulings on retroactivity teach us about how the Michigan courts are likely to address this issue?

This is not the first time in recent memory that the state has acted to retroactively repeal legislation with the potential for large, negative implications to Michigan’s revenue stream.  In General Motors Co. v. [...]

Continue Reading



read more

State Revenue Departments Misapplying Federal Tax Law

by | Sep 9, 2014 | , , , , , ,

State income tax laws generally build on federal tax law.  The typical pattern is to begin the calculation of state taxable income with federal taxable income and then to modify it by adding or subtracting items where state tax policies differ from federal tax policies.  As a result, a corporation’s state taxable income can be affected by the application of the federal Internal Revenue Code.  State revenue departments generally do not consider themselves bound by Internal Revenue Service determinations respecting the application of federal tax law and believe that they are free to interpret the Internal Revenue Code as they see fit.  Unfortunately, this has led to problems because state tax auditors often are not well trained in federal tax principles.  We had an instance earlier this year in which an auditor claimed that the merger of a wholly-owned subsidiary into its corporate parent was taxable because there was an increase in the parent’s retained earnings.  The merger was a plain vanilla tax-free liquidation under Sections 332 and 337 of the Internal Revenue Code (there was no intercompany debt and the subsidiary was clearly solvent), but sending copies of these provisions to the auditor left him unmoved.  We finally got him to back down by showing that the parent’s increase in retained earnings was matched by a decrease in the subsidiary’s retained earnings so that there was no overall increase.  As we explained to the client, a win is a win, even if for the wrong reasons.  Nevertheless, if the auditor had been properly versed in the most basic federal corporate tax principles, this exercise would not have been necessary.

Two recent decisions illustrate misapplications of federal tax law by state revenue departments.

The Idaho Tax Commission recently held that a subsidiary’s net operating loss (NOL) carryovers did not pass to its parent in a merger of the subsidiary into the parent.  The parent did not continue to operate the business of the merged subsidiary and the Commission held that “based on IRC §382, the Petitioner cannot carry the loss forward after the merger.”  Idaho State Tax Commission Ruling No. 25749 (Apr. 17, 2014).  The Commission’s statement of federal tax law is incorrect.  Section 382 of the Internal Revenue Code does not apply to a merger of a wholly-owned subsidiary into its parent.  Because of constructive ownership rules, no change in ownership is deemed to occur.  Moreover, Section 382 does not prevent an NOL from passing to the surviving company in a merger; it simply limits the extent to which the NOL can be used.  Although it is true that the limitation is zero for years in which the merged company’s business is discontinued, the NOL is not destroyed.  If the parent later sells assets received from the subsidiary that had built-in gain at the time of the merger, the loss can be used to offset the gain.

Discussions that we have had with the Commission after the decision came out indicate that the Commission had [...]

Continue Reading



read more

New York ALJ Rejects Retroactive Application of Statute

by | Sep 8, 2014 | , , ,

State courts generally have allowed legislatures a fair amount of flexibility in adopting retroactive statutes, but a recent New York case held that, under the circumstances presented, the retroactive application of a statute was unconstitutional.   In Matter of Jeffrey and Melissa Luizza (DTA No. 824932) (Aug. 21, 2014), Mr. Luizza agreed to sell all of the stock of an S corporation to an unrelated buyer in a transaction governed by Section 338(h)(10) of the Internal Revenue Code.  Under Section 338(h)(10), Mr. Luizza’s sale of his stock was ignored for income tax purposes and the transaction was treated as if the corporation had sold its assets and distributed the proceeds to Mr. Luizza.  Under the Subchapter S rules, the liquidation was essentially tax-free.  The corporation’s gain was passed through to Mr. Luizza as the sole shareholder.  Mr. Luizza was a nonresident of New York and under the law in effect when the sale occurred (March 2008) it appeared that a nonresident shareholder was not taxed on the gain in a 338(h)(10) sale because the transaction was treated as a sale of stock.

In 2009, the State Tax Appeals Tribunal confirmed that although a 338(h)(10) transaction was treated as a sale of assets by the corporation for federal income tax purposes, it was in fact a sale of stock and, since nonresidents are not subject to New York State income tax on gains from the sale of stock, even of a corporation doing business in New York, a nonresident selling stock of an S corporation in a 338(h)(10) transaction cannot be taxed by New York State on the resulting gain.  In Matter of Gabriel S. and Frances B. Baum, et al., (DTA Nos. 820837, 820838) (Feb. 12. 2009) (McDermott Will & Emery filed an amicus brief supporting the taxpayer’s position in that case.)

The State Department of Taxation and Finance was not happy about the result of this litigation.  It convinced the legislature to reverse that result by amending the statute to provide that a shareholder’s share of the corporation’s gain in a 338(h)(10) transaction would be treated as New York source income that was taxable to nonresidents.  The legislation was adopted in 2010 and was made effective retroactively to all years open under the statute of limitations.

Mr. Luizza objected to the retroactive application of the statute to him, and the administrative law judge agreed that, on his facts, the retroactivity was so harsh as to be unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution.  The ALJ pointed out that the taxpayer relied on the law as it existed in 2008 and that at the time of the sale the prevailing authority was that the transaction was not taxable.  Mr. Luizza was advised by his tax advisors that there would be no additional New York tax due.  Because of his reliance, he did not have an opportunity to seek a higher sale price or to require the buyer to indemnify him for any additional taxes resulting from [...]

Continue Reading



read more

MTC’s Market-Based Sourcing Recommendations for UDITPA: Too Little, Too Late?

by | Sep 3, 2014 | , , ,

Member states of the Multistate Tax Commission (MTC) voted to adopt proposed amendments to Article IV of the Multistate Tax Compact during their annual meeting in late July.  The proposed amendments likely to have the most widespread impact on taxpayers are the amendments to the Uniform Division of Income for Tax Purposes Act (UDITPA) Article IV section 17 sourcing rules that change the sales factor sourcing methodology for services and intangibles from a costs of performance (COP) method to a market-based sourcing method. 

The MTC’s recommended market approach provides that sales of services and intangibles “are in [the] State if the taxpayer’s market for the sales is in [the] state.”  In the case of services, a taxpayer’s market for sales is in the state “if and to the extent the service is delivered to a location in the state.”  The proposed amendments also provide that if the state of delivery cannot be determined, taxpayers are permitted to use a reasonable approximation.  At this point, there is no additional guidance from the MTC on the meaning of “delivered,” how to determine the location of delivery in the event that a service is delivered to multiple jurisdictions, or what constitutes a reasonable approximation.

While the proposed amendments may be touted by some as the death knell of COP sourcing, for these changes to take effect, they will still need to be adopted individually by legislatures in Compact member states or in any other states that may choose to adopt them.  As we have seen over the last several years, many states have already forged their own paths in this area.  (See our article discussing the wide variety of market-based sourcing rules.)  Moreover, while many states have enacted market-based sourcing provisions with respect to the sale of services, certain states, unlike the MTC proposed amendments, have declined to convert to market-based sourcing for intangibles (e.g., Pennsylvania).

The proposed amendments leave taxpayers with many unanswered questions.  For example, assume a corporate taxpayer (Corporation A) is in the business of offering a payroll processing service.  Corporation A provides this service to Corporation B.  Corporation B’s management of the contractual arrangement with Corporation A occurs in Massachusetts, which is also the location of Corporation B’s human resources function.  Corporation B has 10,000 employees, 2,000 of whom are located in a jurisdiction that has adopted the MTC’s market-based sourcing recommendation (State X).  What portion of Corporation A’s receipts from the performance of its payroll processing service for Corporation B should be sourced to State X?

One can reasonably argue that the service is delivered to Corporation B as a corporation (i.e., that the human resources function is the true beneficiary) and not individually to Corporation B’s employees—leaving State X with nothing.  However, does the MTC’s language “if and to the extent the service is delivered” create an opportunity for State X to argue that it should receive 1/5 (2,000 employees/10,000 employees) of Corporation A’s receipts?

In late August, the MTC launched a project to [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Connecticut Hires Chainbridge Software LLC for Transfer Pricing Training

by and | Aug 21, 2014 | , , , ,

On July 15, 2014, the Connecticut Department of Revenue Services awarded Chainbridge Software LLC a contract worth $50,000 for on-site and remotely supported training for transfer pricing audits.  Chainbridge is infamous for being the contract auditor hired by the District of Columbia Office of Tax and Revenue to manufacture transfer pricing-based assessments.  In 2012, the District of Columbia Office of Administrative Hearings denounced Chainbridge’s methodology in Microsoft Corp. v. Office of Tax and Revenue.  Numerous other cases are in litigation following D.C.’s refusal to abide by that decision.

We have reviewed the Connecticut request for proposal drafted by the Department of Revenue Services.  While we do not yet have access to the final contract, it will likely be similar to the request for proposal.  The solicitation requests two to three days of training per week over the course of three months.  According to the RFP, Chainbridge will teach the Department’s employees about transfer pricing principles and methodologies, taxpayer planning, economic analysis of transactions between related parties, pre- and post-audit planning, and other related topics.

In light of the Connecticut Department of Revenue Services’ expected contract with Chainbridge, we anticipate that the Department will become more active in evaluating transfer pricing.  What is not certain is whether the analysis will follow the debunked method still being used in D.C.



read more

Is 2015 the Beginning of Mandatory Single Sales Factor Apportionment for D.C. Taxpayers?

by and | Aug 13, 2014 | , , , , ,

On July 14, 2014, the Fiscal Year 2015 Budget Support Emergency Act of 2014 (2015 BSEA) was enacted after the D.C. Council voted to override Mayor Vincent Gray’s veto.  The act includes a tax relief package recommended by the D.C. Tax Revision Commission, and includes a change to D.C.’s apportionment formula, moving the city to single sales factor apportionment.

Since January 1, 2011, D.C. has required taxpayers to apportion their business income by the property-payroll double-weighted sales factor formula.  D.C. Code Ann. § 47-1810.02(d-1).  Among the provisions enacted in the 2015 BSEA, the District will require the apportionment of business income via a single sales factor formula, starting with tax years beginning after December 31, 2014.  D.C. Act 20-0377, § 7012(c)(10) (2014).  While the 2015 BSEA has only a temporary effect and expires on October 12, 2014, it serves as a stopgap until the process of enacting the permanent version, the Fiscal Year 2015 Budget Support Act of 2014 (2015 BSA) is completed.  (See the single sales factor apportionment provision at D.C. Bill 20-0750, § 7012(a)(10) (2014).)  The 2015 BSA has not yet been enrolled and transmitted to the mayor.  After the mayor signs the 2015 BSA or the D.C. Council overrides his veto, the 2015 BSA will be sent to Congress for review.  If Congress and the President do not enact a joint resolution disapproving of the 2015 BSA, the 2015 BSA will become law, and the switch to single sales factor apportionment will be effective as of January 1, 2015. 

Even with this legislative change, D.C. taxpayers may have an argument for apportioning their business income under the three-factor apportionment formula.  In 1981, the District adopted the Multistate Tax Compact (Compact) as 1981 D.C. Law 4-17.  The Compact provides for the use of the evenly weighted three-factor sales-property-payroll formula.  Multistate Tax Compact, art. IV, sec. 9.  The Compact permits the taxpayer to elect to apportion his business income under the city’s apportionment formula or under the Compact’s three-factor formula.  Multistate Tax Compact, art. III, sec. 1.  In 2013, D.C. repealed and reenacted the statute codifying the Compact, D.C. Code § 47-441.  However, D.C. did not re-enact Article III, Elements of Income Tax Laws, and Article IV, Division of Income.  The repeal of the two articles was effective as of July 30, 2013.  D.C. Act 20-130, §§ 7342(a), (b) (2013); D.C. Act 20-204, §§ 7342(a), (b) (2013); D.C. Law 20-61, §§ 7342(a), (b) (2013).

D.C. repealed and reenacted the Compact in reaction to litigation involving taxpayers that elected to use the three-factor apportionment formula under the Compact instead of the state-mandated apportionment formulas.  See Gillette Co. et al. v. Franchise Tax Bd., 209 Cal.App. 4th 938 (2012); Int’l Bus. Mach. Corp. v. Dep’t of Treasury, No. 146440 (Mich. Jul. 14, 2014); Health Net, Inc. v. Dep’t of Revenue, No. TC 5127 (Or. T.C. 2014).  The California Court of Appeal and Michigan Supreme Court have upheld the taxpayers’ use of the Compact election.

Following the theories being advanced in [...]

Continue Reading



read more

BLOG EDITORS

Stephen P. Kranz

Mary Kay McCalla Martire

Richard C. Call

STAY CONNECTED

Subscribe

TOPICS

ARCHIVES

2026 Best Law Firms - Law Firm of the Year (Tax Law)
jd supra readers choice top firm 2023 badge
McDermott Will & Schulte Logo White

Legal Notices  |  Privacy Policy

Attorney Advertising © 2025 McDermott Will & Schulte

Contact Us: info@mwe.com

Attorney Advertising ©2020 McDermott Will & Emery