Income Tax Archives | Page 18 of 31

Income Tax

U.S. Supreme Court Turns its Attention to State Tax, Agrees to Hear “Double Taxation” Case

by McDermott Will & Emery | Jun 2, 2014 | Constitutional Issues, Income Tax, Maryland

The Supreme Court granted the petition for certiorari filed by the Maryland Comptroller of Treasury in Comptroller v. Wynne, Dkt. No. 13-485 (U.S. Sup. Ct., cert. granted May 27, 2014). The central issue in Wynne is whether a state must allow its residents a credit for income taxes paid to other states, in a manner sufficient to prevent double taxation of income from interstate commerce, to avoid violating the fair apportionment and discrimination prongs of the dormant Commerce Clause.

Like most states, Maryland taxes its residents on their entire income, wherever earned, and permits a credit for income tax paid to other states, limited to the amount of Maryland tax on the income taxed by other states. But Maryland’s income tax includes both a state and a county tax component, and Maryland permitted a credit for taxes paid to other states only with respect to its state income tax. The state rate was 4.75 percent and the county tax rate applicable to the Wynnes was 3.2 percent (which could vary by county). The county tax was imposed and administered by the state on the same tax base as the state income tax, and residents file a single return that reflects both state and county income taxes. Thus, Maryland provided a credit only against the Maryland state income tax, but not the substantial county income tax, on the income taxed by other states, resulting in a form of double taxation of that income (i.e., by the other state and by the Maryland county).

The Wynnes reported substantial income on their 2006 individual return from business activities in interstate commerce. They owned 2.4 percent of an S corporation doing business in 39 states, and paid income tax to most of those states on the income that flowed through to their individual return. The Wynnes reported $2.7 million of income and $126,636 of Maryland state income tax (not including the county income tax portion) prior to credits, and claimed a credit of $84,550 for taxes paid to other states. The Maryland Comptroller permitted the Wynnes to claim a credit against the state income tax, but not the county portion of the income tax, for taxes paid to other states. Maryland’s highest court, the Court of Appeals, agreed with the Wynnes that they suffered double taxation of the income in violation of the dormant Commerce Clause doctrine that taxation of multistate business requires fair apportionment and no discrimination against interstate commerce, citing Complete Auto Transit v. Brady, 430 U.S. 274 (1977) and other Supreme Court cases.

In its petition for certiorari, the Maryland Comptroller relied upon settled Due Process doctrine that states have plenary power to tax all of the income of their residents. The Comptroller’s petition essentially ignored the Commerce Clause issues raised by the Maryland Court of Appeals.

The U.S. solicitor general filed an amicus curiae brief supporting the Maryland Comptroller’s position, recognizing the different standards imposed by the Due Process Clause and the Commerce Clause but nonetheless contending that the longstanding [...]

Continue Reading

Illinois Legislative Tax Policy Subcommittees Issue Joint Report on Findings

by Mary Kay McCalla Martire | May 29, 2014 | Illinois, Incentives, Income Tax, Sales Tax, Transaction Taxes

On May 28, 2014, the Tax Policy Subcommittees of the Illinois General Assembly’s Joint Revenue and Finance and State Government Administration Committees (Subcommittees) issued their long-awaited Report on Findings regarding the State of Illinois (Report). The Report was generated after months of hearings and solicitation of written comments from interested parties with respect to Illinois tax rates, tax incentives and tax policy issues.

The Report is chock full of facts and figures. Unfortunately, it fails to offer much clear direction for the state, as the members of the Subcommittees were unable to agree on the majority of the issues considered. For example, the Report provides that the state should “continue to explore” the question of whether Illinois should apply the sales tax to services, as do many surrounding states. Similarly, the Report concludes that while most members of the Subcommittees believe that the corporate income tax rate should be reduced, they could not agree on the amount of the reduction, what corresponding cuts in state spending would offset such a reduction, or even whether the Illinois personal property replacement tax should be considered as part of the corporate income tax rate when comparing Illinois’ income tax rates to those of other states. The Report also concludes that the Subcommittees are “strongly interested” in providing sales tax exemptions to customers who provide data centers in Illinois, but has not come to a consensus about how to move forward with that process. The Subcommittees also failed to reach a consensus regarding any changes needed to the Economic Development for a Growing Economy credit, instead offering only the platitude that “it is imperative to ensure that Illinois remains competitive in today’s economy.”

The Report does, however, contain the following findings:

In its most definitive finding, the Report recommends the elimination of the Illinois franchise tax. No specific plan or timetable is put forward for the elimination of this tax.
The Report concludes that Illinois’ eligibility criteria for the research and development (R&D) tax credit should be changed to match the federal requirements. For instance, the federal alternative simplified R&D credit would require that R&D spending exceed 50 percent (instead of 100 percent) of the previous three year average.
The Report concludes that initial filing fees for LLCs should be reduced. No consensus was reached regarding the amount of the reduction.
The Report recommends that the state streamline current processes by designating a point person to help businesses seeking the state’s help with respect to job creation, retention and relocation in Illinois.

In what appears to be an effort to boost the state’s image in the business community, the Report also references a number of favorable statements about Illinois’ business climate that the Report attributes to various business publications. The Report touts that Illinois ranks third in corporate expansions, according to Site Selection Magazine, that Illinois was identified as among the top five states for “technology and innovation” and “infrastructure” according to CNBC Top States for Business 2013 [...]

Continue Reading

2015 D.C. Budget Bill Includes Several Significant Business Tax Changes

by Diann Smith, Eric D. Carstens and Stephen P. Kranz | May 21, 2014 | Allocation/Apportionment, District of Columbia, Income Tax, UDITPA

The FY 2015 District of Columbia Budget Request Act (BRA, Bill 20-749) is currently being reviewed by the D.C. Council after being introduced on April 3 at the request of Mayor Vincent Gray. This year’s Budget Support Act (BSA, Bill 20-750), the supplementary bill implementing changes based on the BRA, contains several significant modifications to the tax provisions of the D.C. Code. The changes include provisions recently recommended by the D.C. Tax Revision Commission (TRC), an independent body created by the Council to evaluate possible changes to tax policy in the District with a focus on broadening the tax base and providing “fairness in tax apportionment.” In particular, the BSA proposes to adopt a single sales factor formula for the apportionment of business income and to reduce business income tax rates (both corporate and unincorporated) from nearly 10 to 9.4 percent. Two additional amendments are pulled directly from the Multistate Tax Commission (MTC) rewrite of the Uniform Division of Income for Tax Purposes Act (UDITPA), including a change to the District’s definition of “sale” and the elimination of cost-of-performance sourcing.

Under the District’s existing apportionment statute, all businesses must apportion business income using a four factor formula consisting of property, payroll and double weighted sales factors. If the BSA is enacted, the statute would be amended to also apportion all business income using a single sales factor. While it is clear that the intent of the BSA provision is to adopt a single sales factor in D.C. going forward, a major ambiguity exists in drafting that would require apportionment using both a single sales and double weighted sales factor formula for taxable years starting after December 31, 2014—which of course is impossible. Thus, without a legislative amendments by the D.C. Council prior to passage on May 28, it is unclear whether the single sales factor formula will be optional or mandatory (as recommended by the TRC) for FY 2015. The budget projection released by Mayor Gray in conjunction with the legislation suggests that the single sales factor would be mandatory, since it is projected that this change would raise an additional $20 million in tax revenue for the District for FY 2015. If the single sales factor were optional, it is unlikely the provision would raise that much revenue.

In addition to statutory modifications to the apportionment formula, the BSA also would reduce the tax rate imposed on corporate and unincorporated businesses from 9.975 percent to 9.4 percent. This is still higher than Maryland (8.25 percent) and Virginia (6 percent).

Picking up where the MTC left off with its ongoing UDITPA rewrite, the District would adopt the MTC draft definition of “sale” to explicitly exclude receipts from hedging transactions and other investment related activity (including the sale, exchange or other disposition of cash or securities).

In addition, BSA would adopt market-based sourcing for sales of intangibles and services, using the language of the MTC draft to do so. The BSA does not pick up the remaining provisions of the MTC [...]

Continue Reading

Show Me the Nonbusiness Income? Missouri Supreme Court Expansively Interprets Functional Test to Conclude Rabbi Trust Income is Business Income

by Mary Kay McCalla Martire | May 19, 2014 | Allocation/Apportionment, Income Tax, Missouri, UDITPA

On April 15, 2014, the Supreme Court of Missouri held that income from a trust used to fund an executive deferred compensation plan (a “rabbi trust”) was apportionable business income. MINACT, Inc. v. Director of Revenue, No. SC93162 (Mo. Apr. 15, 2014). The taxpayer, MINACT, Inc., is a Mississippi-based corporation that contracts with the federal government to manage its education and job training programs.

MINACT reported the trust income as nonbusiness income on its 2007 Missouri corporate income tax return, allocating all the income to Mississippi. The Missouri director of revenue disagreed with the taxpayer and determined that the trust income was business income. MINACT appealed to the Administrative Hearing Commission, which overturned the director’s decision, finding that the trust income was nonbusiness income “because it was ‘not attributable to the acquisition, management, and disposition of property constituting an integral part of MINACT’s regular business. …’” (Opinion at 3.) The director appealed the decision to the Missouri Supreme Court.

The Missouri Supreme Court analyzed whether the trust income was business income under the state’s statutory UDITPA definition of “business income,” which Missouri interprets to include both a transactional and a functional test. (Opinion at 4-5.) See, e.g., ABB C-E Nuclear Power Inc. v. Dir. of Revenue, 215 S.W.3d 85 (Mo. 2007) (income must fail to satisfy both tests to be nonbusiness income). The Supreme Court agreed with the Commission that the trust income was not business income under the transactional test (MINACT earned the income from investing, not from its regular business of managing job training programs), but it found that the income was business income under the functional test because MINACT established its executive deferred compensation plan to attract and retain key employees who were engaged in MINACT’s regular business operations. (Opinion at 5.) The Court cited California and United States Tax Court cases for the notion that “attracting and retaining key employees is an important business purpose” and found that the employees who benefitted from the rabbi trust furthered MINACT’s business by providing capable leadership. (Opinion at 5, 7.) Using this same reasoning, the Court also rejected MINACT’s constitutional challenges.

This is the third ruling of which we are aware finding that income earned from investments in employee-related funds meet the functional test for business income. In Va. Tax Comm’r Ruling, No. 03-60 (Aug. 8, 2003), the Virginia Tax Commissioner held that rabbi trust income as nonbusiness income because “attracting and retaining quality corporate officers is an integral part of the operations of any business . . .” Similarly, in Hoechst Celanese Corp. v. Franchise Tax Bd., 106 Cal. Rptr. 2d 548, 570-71 (Cal. 2001), the California Supreme Court held that income from an employer’s reversion of pension plan assets was business income under the functional test because the employer created the plan to retain and attract employees, which the court found integral to the employer’s business operations.

Alenia Decision May Benefit D.C. Corporate Taxpayers

by Diann Smith and Stephen P. Kranz | May 13, 2014 | Allocation/Apportionment, Constitutional Issues, District of Columbia, Income Tax, Tax Base

The recent decision in Alenia N. America, Inc. v. District of Columbia Office of Tax and Revenue in the District of Columbia Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) could present opportunities for District taxpayers to receive corporate franchise tax refunds by including their joint ventures’ apportionment factors in the taxpayers’ District apportionment percentage calculation. Alenia N. America v. District of Columbia Office of Tax and Revenue, Dkt. 2012-OTR-00015 (D.C. O.A.H. Mar. 11, 2014).

Through an unwritten, internal policy, the District of Columbia Office of Tax and Revenue (OTR) prohibited separate filers from including the apportionment factors of joint ventures in which a taxpayer was a member/partner in the apportionment percentage calculation while permitting consolidated filers to do so. Alenia N. America challenged this interpretation of the District’s apportionment formula, filing a protest in OAH. Alenia is a separate filer C Corporation headquartered in the District. A portion of Alenia’s 2010 tax year income resulted from its 51 percent ownership in a Mississippi LLC, Global Military Aircraft Systems (GMAS). Because OTR required Alenia to include the income resulting from ownership of GMAS in its apportionable tax base but exclude the apportionment factors of GMAS, Alenia’s District apportionment percentage increased from 55.1899 percent to 86.1993 percent. OTR effectively asserted the power of taxation over income derived from sources outside of the District.

OAH granted a summary decision in favor of Alenia, holding that GMAS’ apportionment factors could be included by Alenia because Alenia and GMAS were unitary and the District’s apportionment statute was designed with the purpose to create uniformity; most states applying formulaic apportionment allow for the inclusion of the apportionment factors (see Homart Development Co. v. Norberg, 529 A.2d 115 (R.I. 1987); Malpass v. Dep’t of Treasury, 494 Mich. 237, 833 N.W.2d 272 (2013)); and factor inclusion was necessary to reflect the source of the GMAS income. Reading the District’s apportionment statute, D.C. Code § 47-1810.02, “consistently with its constitutional underpinnings and its general purpose to promote uniformity” overcame the silence as to whether the inclusion of factors applied to separate filers. OTR’s misinterpretation of District law was “in conflict with the statute.” Alenia, Dkt. 2012-OTR-00015 at *26.

In light of the holding in Alenia allowing for the inclusion of the apportionment factors of joint ventures, taxpayers should consider whether District refunds are now available to them. Further, an argument can be made that the holding in Alenia continues to apply despite the District’s switch to a combined reporting regime because of the court’s insistence that factor inclusion is necessary to reflect the source of the taxpayer’s income.

For a copy of the decision, contact one of the authors.

Retroactive Revenue Raisers: A Taxpayer Win in New York; Problems Ahead in Virginia

by McDermott Will & Emery | May 12, 2014 | Constitutional Issues, Income Tax, New York, Virginia

When state legislatures are in need of additional funds – as they often are – it is tempting to enact retroactive legislation to bring more dollars into state coffers. Two recent developments have Due Process Clause questions of retroactivity back in the news in the SALT world. In Caprio v. N.Y. State Dep’t of Taxation & Fin., No. 651176/11, 2014 NY Slip Op. 02399 (N.Y. App. Div. Apr. 8, 2014), a New York court rejected a retroactive amendment reaching back three years into the past. Virginia, however, recently amended its add-back statute (H.B. 5001, § 3-5.11) with an even longer retroactive period of 10 years.

New York’s Three and a Half Year Retroactive Tax Struck Down As-Applied

In Caprio, Florida residents sold their stock in a New Jersey S corporation in exchange for an installment note. The S corporation was a janitorial services company that also did business in New York. The parties to the transaction made an IRC § 338(h)(10) election for treatment as a deemed asset sale, with the installment note thereby deemed to be distributed in liquidation to the shareholders. When the shareholders subsequently received payments on the installment note, they did not report any New York source income because they treated the payments as gain from the sale of stock, not sourced to New York any more than would be a sale of stock in a Fortune 500 company.

Treatment of gain from a nonresident’s sale of S corporation stock as not sourced to New York was upheld by the New York State Division of Tax Appeals in In re Mintz, DTA nos. 821807, 821806 (Jun. 4, 2009) (for a detailed discussion in Mintz, see Inside New York Taxes), but retroactive legislation in 2010 reversed the result. 2010 N.Y. Laws, c. 57, Part C (amending N.Y. Tax Law § 632(a)(2)). Caprio voids the retroactive application of the 2010 amendment to the taxpayers as violating the Due Process Clause.

Applying New York’s three-factor test set forth in James Square Assoc. LP v. Mullen, 993 N.E.2d 374, 377 (N.Y. 2013), aff ’g, 91 A.D.3d 164 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th 2011) (which we discussed recently in State Tax Notes), the Appellate Division considered the factors of (1) taxpayer’s forewarning and the reasonableness of the retroactive change, (2) the length of the retroactive period, and (3) the public purpose of the retroactivity. The majority concluded that the 2010 amendment was unconstitutionally retroactive:

The taxpayers had no actual forewarning of the 2010 amendment at the time they entered into the transaction, and they reasonably relied on the law as it existed to structure the sale;
A three and a half year retroactive period was excessive; and
Raising $30 million for the state budget was not a sufficiently compelling public purpose.

The Questionable Validity of Virginia’s 10 Year Retroactive Add-Back Amendments

Just before Caprio came down, Virginia amended its add-back statute, retroactive to 2004, to narrow the subject-to-tax and conduit exceptions. See [...]

Continue Reading

read more

Multistate Tax Commission Appoints Keith Getschel as Director of Joint Audit Program

by Diann Smith and Stephen P. Kranz | May 6, 2014 | Audits, Income Tax, Nationwide Importance, Sales Tax
Beginning June 16, Keith Getschel will succeed Les Koenig as the Director of the Multistate Tax Commission (MTC) Joint Audit Program. Les Koenig is retiring as of July 31. Mr. Getschel comes from the Minnesota Department of Revenue, having held the position of Assistant Commissioner for Business Taxes since 2012. Mr. Getschel has worked in the Minnesota Department of Revenue for over 30 years, holding such positions as Director of Corporate Tax and Assistant Director in the Corporate and Sales Tax Division. He also has experience as a supervisor in the Tax Operations Division, a tax policy manager, a revenue tax specialist in the Amended Returns Unit, and an appeals officer in the Appeals and Legal Services Division.

The MTC Joint Audit Program performs audits on behalf of participating states. The program engages in audits of taxpayers simultaneously across multiple states, conserving state funds and time. Mr. Getschel’s reputation as a tax administrator in the Minnesota Department of Revenue makes him a great fit for this position. He has been viewed as taxpayer friendly and willing to work cooperatively with taxpayers to resolve issues. We hope he continues this trend at the MTC.

read more

Oklahoma Supreme Court KOs the Constitution

by McDermott Will & Emery, Diann Smith and Stephen P. Kranz | May 5, 2014 | Constitutional Issues, Incentives, Income Tax, Nationwide Importance, Oklahoma, Tax Base
On April 22, the Supreme Court of Oklahoma released its opinion in CDR Systems Corp. v. Oklahoma Tax Commission. Case No. 109,886; 2014 OK 31. The Oklahoma Supreme Court, overturning the decision of the Court of Civil Appeals, held that an Oklahoma statute, which grants a deduction for income from gains that result from the sale of all or substantially all of the assets of an “Oklahoma company,” is constitutional under the Commerce Clause. “Oklahoma company” is defined as an entity that has had its primary headquarters in Oklahoma for at least three uninterrupted years prior to the date of the taxable transaction.

In a 5-4 decision, the Oklahoma Supreme Court determined that there was no discrimination against out-of-state commerce. Even if there was discrimination, the Oklahoma Supreme Court held that the statute does not facially discriminate against interstate commerce, does not have a discriminatory purpose and has no discriminatory effect on interstate commerce. The Oklahoma Supreme Court’s reasoning was based in part on the conclusion that the statute treated all taxpayers the same.

In his dissent, Justice Combs reached the opposite conclusion and wrote that the deduction is unconstitutional because the primary headquarters requirement is based upon the level of business a company conducts in Oklahoma, and therefore it discriminates against out-of-state taxpayers. The dissent concluded that the statute effectively creates a tax on taxpayers with an out-of-state headquarters.

Although the majority ably walked through the existing case precedent on these issues, it misunderstood the practical effect of the statute. First, the majority concluded that the statute did not discriminate against any particular market because all markets are treated the same. This conclusion ignores the fact that under the statute, in-state markets are treated differently than out-of-state markets. The majority stated that “[w]ithout any actual or prospective competition in a single market, there is no negative impact on interstate commerce that results from the application of this deduction and no discrimination against interstate commerce . . . .” (Majority Opinion, p. 14). However, there is competition between in-state companies and out-of-state companies, not just in a single market but in all markets.

In reaching this conclusion, the majority relied upon Gen. Motors Corp. v. Tracy, 519 U.S. 278 (1997), which upheld the constitutionality of a tax that discriminated across markets (in other words, the statute benefited an in-state entity not because the entity was in-state but because it was in a different market and sold different products than an out-of-state entity). The dissent specifically took exception to the majority’s reliance on Gen. Motors, for good reason. The Tracy case does not appear to be applicable here, because the in-state and out-of-state entities are competing in the same markets under the Oklahoma statute.

Second, the majority concluded that the statute did not facially discriminate against interstate commerce because “[t]he degree to which the entity generating the gains participated in out-of-state activity, i.e. interstate commerce, is not relevant to whether the entity qualifies for the deduction” (Majority Opinion, p. 17). The [...]

Continue Reading

read more

Illinois Trust Taxation Deemed Unconstitutional

by James H. Cundiff and L. Timothy Halleron | Mar 31, 2014 | Illinois, Income Tax
In Linn v. Department of Revenue, the Illinois Fourth District Appellate Court reviewed the state’s statutory framework for taxing trusts. Linn v. Department of Revenue, 2013 Il App (4th) 121055. On constitutional grounds, the court limited Illinois’ power to impose taxes under its “once subject to tax, forever subject to tax” regime.

This case creates planning opportunities to minimize Illinois income taxes. However, it should be noted that the Linn case applies to trusts that pay Illinois income tax on trust dividends, interest, capital gains or other income retained by the trust and not distributed to a beneficiary. This case does not apply to income distributed to an Illinois beneficiary; that income clearly can be taxed by Illinois.

Read the full article.

read more

New York Issues First New Combined Reporting Law Determination—and It’s Not Pretty

by Arthur R. Rosen | Jul 8, 2013 | Income Tax, New York
Even though New York amended its combination statute for years beginning in 2007, we are just now beginning to see litigation related to those amendments. At the end of June 2013, an administrative law judge in New York’s Division of Tax Appeals issued the first determination analyzing the new law. The analysis in Matter of Knowledge Learning Corporation was notably quite restrictive, resulting in a taxpayer loss.

Read the full article.

read more

Older Posts »

« Newer Posts

Search for:

BLOG EDITORS

Stephen P. Kranz

Mary Kay McCalla Martire

Richard C. Call

STAY CONNECTED

Subscribe

TOPICS
TOPICS

ARCHIVES
ARCHIVES

RECENT POSTS

Diann Smith honored with prestigious NYU Paul H. Frankel achievement award

Biting the hand that feeds? California faces new proposed wealth tax

California SB 711: Closing the conformity gap with the IRC

Decoupling from DC: How HB 4961 redefines Michigan’s tax base

Washington DOR issues interim guidance on advertising services