SUMMARY. January 7, 2005
|
|
- Dwayne Pierce Webb
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 SUMMARY QUESTION: Does the standard apportionment factor, which would include the sale of Florida business assets, fairly represent the extent of the taxpayer's tax base attributable to Florida? ANSWER - Based on Facts Below: The inclusion of the proceeds from the sale of assets that were used in the taxpayer's business is found not to materially distort the apportionment factor or tax extraterritorial values. Therefore, the taxpayer's request for alternative apportionment was not granted. January 7, 2005 Re: Technical Assistance Advisement 05C1-001 Corporate Income Tax - Apportionment - Other Methods Section , F.S. XXX, hereinafter referred to as "Taxpayer" Dear : Your letter dated XX, requests a Technical Assistance Advisement concerning whether the Taxpayer may use an alternative apportionment factor. This response to your request constitutes a Technical Assistance Advisement under Chapter 12-11, Florida Administrative Code, and is issued to you under the authority of s , Florida Statutes. FACTS The Taxpayer is a XXX that is commercially domiciled in XX. The Taxpayer has XXX in Florida and XXX. The Taxpayer files corporate income tax returns on a separate basis in Florida and on a consolidated basis with XXX affiliated entities in XXX. The Taxpayer's XXX affiliated entities do not file corporate income tax returns in Florida. During its XX tax year, the Taxpayer sold XXX that were located in Florida. The sale of these business assets located in Florida generated XX of gross proceeds and resulted in a net gain to the Taxpayer of XX.(FN 1) The standard Florida apportionment factor requires the Taxpayer to include the gross proceeds from the sale of the business assets in the sales factor. Since the business assets that were sold were located in Florida, most, if not all of the gross proceeds from the sale of the business assets are included in the numerator of the Florida sales factor under this standard Florida apportionment methodology. This increase in the numerator of the Florida sales factor (Florida sales) increases the Florida sales factor and consequently increases the overall Florida apportionment factor. The Taxpayer believes that the standard Florida apportionment factor does not fairly tax the income that it earned during its XX tax year and has requested the use of an alternative apportionment factor. The Taxpayer's proposed
2 alternative apportionment factor would exclude from the apportionment factor (FN 2) the gross proceeds from the sale of the business assets. In its XX tax year, the Taxpayer's weighted sales factor was and its total apportionment factor was (FN 3) The standard Florida apportionment factor, which includes the sale of the Florida business assets, produces a XX weighted sales factor of and a total apportionment factor of If the Taxpayer's alternative apportionment methodology were used for the XX tax year, the Taxpayer's weighted sales factor would be and its total apportionment factor would be (fn 4) The Taxpayer's federal taxable income, after Florida additions and subtractions, for the XX tax year is a loss of (XX) and its federal taxable income, after Florida additions and subtractions, for the XX tax year is XX. The substantial increase in federal taxable income is from the Taxpayer's sale of the Florida business assets. In addition, it should be noted that the Taxpayer's XX apportioned Florida loss of (XX) should be used to offset Florida income in XX. QUESTION Does the standard apportionment factor, which would include the sale of the Florida business assets (XX), fairly represent the extent of a taxpayer's tax base attributable to Florida? If the answer is no, which of the Taxpayer's alternative apportionment methodologies is appropriate in this situation? LAW Section , F.S., states in part: (1) It is the intent of the Legislature in enacting this code to impose a tax upon all corporations, organizations, associations, and other artificial entities which derive from this state or from any other jurisdiction permanent and inherent attributes not inherent in or available to natural persons, such as perpetual life, transferable ownership represented by shares or certificates, and limited liability for all owners... It is the intent of the Legislature to subject such corporations and other entities to taxation hereunder for the privilege of conducting business, deriving income, or existing within this state. This code is not intended to tax, and shall not be construed so as to tax, any natural person who engages in a trade, business, or profession in this state under his or her own or any fictitious name, whether individually as a proprietorship or in partnership with others, or as a member or a manager of a limited liability company classified as a partnership for federal income tax purposes; any estate of a decedent or incompetent; or any testamentary trust. However, a corporation or other taxable entity which is or which becomes partners with one or more natural persons shall not, merely by reason of being a partner, exclude from its net income subject to tax its respective share of partnership net income. This statement of intent shall be given preeminent consideration in any construction or interpretation of this code in order to avoid any conflict between this code and the mandate in s. 5, Art. VII of the State Constitution that no income tax be levied upon natural persons who are residents and citizens of this state.... (3) It is the intent of the Legislature that the income tax imposed by this code utilize, to the greatest extent possible, concepts of law which have been developed in connection with the income tax laws of the United States, in order to:
3 (a) Minimize the expenses of the Department of Revenue and difficulties in administering this code; (b) Minimize the costs and difficulties of taxpayer compliance; and (c) Maximize, for both revenue and statistical purposes, the sharing of information between the state and the Federal Government. (4) It is the intent of the Legislature that the tax imposed by this code be prospective in effect only. Consistent with this intention and the intent expressed in subsection (3), it is hereby declared to be the intent of the Legislature that: (a) "Income," for purposes of this code, including gains from the sale, exchange, or other disposition of property, be deemed to be created for Florida income tax purposes at such time as such income is realized for federal income tax purposes; (b) No accretion of value, no accrual of gain, and no acquisition of a right to receive or accrue income which has occurred or been generated prior to November 2, 1971, be deemed to be "property," or an interest in property, (c) All income realized for federal income tax purposes after November 2, 1971, be subject to taxation in full by this state and be taxed in the manner and to the extent provided in this code.... Section , F.S., states in part: (1) A tax measured by net income is hereby imposed on every taxpayer for each taxable year commencing on or after January 1, 1972, and for each taxable year which begins before and ends after January 1, 1972, for the privilege of conducting business, earning or receiving income in this state, or being a resident or citizen of this state. Such tax shall be in addition to all other occupation, excise, privilege, and property taxes imposed by this state or by any political subdivision thereof, including any municipality or other district, jurisdiction, or authority of this state.... Section , F.S., states in part: (1) Except as provided in ss and , adjusted federal income as defined in s shall be apportioned to this state by taxpayers doing business within and without this state by multiplying it by an apportionment fraction composed of a sales factor representing 50 percent of the fraction, a property factor representing 25 percent of the fraction, and a payroll factor representing 25 percent of the fraction. If any factor described in subsection (2), subsection (4), or subsection (5) has a denominator that is zero or is determined by the department to be insignificant, the relative weights of the other factors in the denominator of the apportionment fraction shall be as follows:... (5) The sales factor is a fraction the numerator of which is the total sales of the taxpayer in this state during the taxable year or period and the denominator of which is the total sales of the taxpayer everywhere during the taxable
4 year or period. (a) As used in this subsection, the term "sales" means all gross receipts of the taxpayer except interest, dividends, rents, royalties, and gross receipts from the sale, exchange, maturity, redemption, or other disposition of securities. However:... Section , F.S., states: If the apportionment methods of ss and do not fairly represent the extent of a taxpayer's tax base attributable to this state, the taxpayer may petition for, or the department may require, in respect to all or any part of the taxpayer's tax base, if reasonable: (1) Separate accounting; (2) The exclusion of any one or more factors; (3) The inclusion of one or more additional factors which will fairly represent the taxpayer's tax base attributable to this state; or (4) The employment of any other method which will produce an equitable apportionment. Rule 12C , F.A.C., states in part: (1)(a) A departure from the applicable method of apportionment required under the provisions of ss or , F.S., shall be permitted only where the method does not accurately and fairly reflect business activity in Florida. An alternative method may not be invoked, either by the Department of Revenue or by the taxpayer, merely because it reaches a different apportionment percentage than the regularly applicable formula. However, if the applicable formula will lead to a grossly distorted result in a particular case, a fair and accurate alternative method is appropriate (see Norfolk and Western Railway Co. v. Missouri State Tax Commission, 390 U.S. 317, 88 S. Ct. 995, 19 L. Ed. 2d 1201 (1968), which is incorporated by reference in Rule 12C , F.A.C.). (b) A taxpayer seeking to utilize an alternative apportionment method must show by clear and cogent evidence that the regularly applicable formula would result in taxation of extraterritorial values (see Butler Bros. v. McColgan, 315 U.S. 501, 62 S. Ct. 701, 86 L. Ed. 991 (1942), which is incorporated by reference in Rule 12C , F.A.C.). This can be shown only if the regularly applicable formula is demonstrated to operate unreasonably and arbitrarily in apportioning to Florida a percentage of income which is out of all proportion to the business transacted in Florida and does not accurately and fairly reflect business activity in Florida (see Hans Rees Sons, Inc. v. North Carolina ex rel. Maxwell, 283 U.S. 123, 51 S. Ct. 385, 75 L. Ed. 879 (1931), which is incorporated by reference in Rule 12C , F.A.C.). (Emphasis Supplied)
5 Rule 12C (1)(b), F.A.C., states: Sales of business assets. If a taxpayer derives receipts from the sale of equipment used in its business, such receipts constitute a "sale." For example, a truck express company owns a fleet of trucks and sells its trucks under a regular replacement program. The gross receipts from the sales of the trucks are included in the sales factor. If amounts of gross receipts arising from an incidental or occasional sale of a fixed asset used in the regular course of the taxpayer's trade or business would materially distort the sales factor, the taxpayer may petition the Department, or the Department is authorized to require, pursuant to s , F.S., and Rule 12C , F.A.C., an adjustment to the sales factor. (Emphasis Supplied) Rule 12C (1)(f), F.A.C., states: Income from intangible personal property. 1. Where the income producing activity in respect to business income from intangible personal property can be readily identified, such income is included in the denominator of the sales factor and, if the income producing activity occurs in this state, in the numerator of the sales factor as well. For example, usually the income producing activity can be readily identified in respect to interest income received on deferred payments on sales of tangible personal property and income from the sale, licensing, or other use of intangible personal property. The sale or licensing of the use of a trade name, trademark, or patent will be attributable to the state in which the trade name, trademark, or patent is used. 2. Where business income from intangible property cannot readily be attributed to any particular income producing activity of the taxpayer, such income cannot be assigned to the numerator of the sales factor for any state and shall be excluded from the denominator of the sales factor. For example, where business income in the form of dividends received on stock, royalties received on patents or copyrights, or interest received on bonds, debentures or government securities results from the mere holding of the intangible personal property by the taxpayer, such dividends and interest shall be excluded from the denominator of the sales factor. 3. In the case of a taxpayer engaged in the sale, assignment, or licensing of intangible personal property such as patents and copyrights, "sales" includes the gross receipts therefrom. Rule 12C (2)(a), F.A.C., states: Sales of Tangible Personal Property in Florida. Gross receipts from sales of tangible personal property are in this state if the property is delivered or shipped to a purchaser within this state regardless of the F.O.B. point, other conditions of the sales, or the ultimate destination of the property. Tangible personal property shipped by common or contract carriers will use a destination test to determine whether the sale is a Florida sale or a sale without this state. 1.a. Property shall be deemed to be delivered or shipped to a purchaser within this state if the recipient is located in this state, even though the property is ordered from outside this state.
6 b. Example: The taxpayer, with inventory in State A, sold $100,000 of its products to a purchaser having branch stores in several states including this state. The order for the purchase was placed by the purchaser's central purchasing department located in State B. $25,000 of the purchaser's order was shipped directly to purchaser's branch store in this state. The branch store in this state is the "purchaser within this state" with respect to $25,000 of the taxpayer's sales. 2.a. Property is delivered or shipped to a purchaser within this state if the shipment terminates in this state, even though the property is subsequently transferred by the purchaser to another state. b. Example: The taxpayer makes a sale to a purchaser who maintains a central warehouse in this state at which all merchandise purchases are received. The purchaser reships the goods to its branch stores in other states for sale. All of the taxpayer's products shipped to the purchaser's warehouse in this state are property "delivered or shipped to a purchaser within this state." 3.a. With respect to sales made to a citrus cooperative by a grower-member, the grower-member's sales factor shall be the same as the sales factor for the most recent taxable year of the citrus cooperative-processor. With respect to sales made to a Florida processor by a grower-participant, the grower participant's sales factor shall be the same as the sales factor for the most recent taxable year of the Florida processor. A copy of the processor's sales factor as furnished to the grower-member or grower-participant shall be attached to the grower-member's or growerparticipant's corporate income tax return, Form F-1120, which is incorporated by reference in Rule 12C-1.051, F.A.C. b. If there is delivery of citrus fruit in Florida, other than citrus fruit delivered by a cooperative for a grower-member, citrus fruit delivered by a grower-member to a cooperative, or citrus fruit delivered by a grower-participant to a Florida processor, the sale will be a Florida sale. For example, if a citrus grower delivers fruit to a processor or middle-man for cash, the sale is considered to be a Florida sale, regardless of any subsequent shipment of the fruit outside the state. 4.a. The term "purchaser within this state" shall include the ultimate recipient of the property if the taxpayer in this state, at the designation of the purchaser, delivers to or has the property shipped to the ultimate recipient within this state. b. Example: A taxpayer in this state sold merchandise to a purchaser in State A. Taxpayer directed the manufacturer or supplier of the merchandise in State B to ship the merchandise to the purchaser's customer in this state pursuant to purchaser's instructions. The sale by the taxpayer is in this state. 5.a. When property being shipped by a seller from the state of origin to a consignee in another state is diverted while en route to a purchaser in this state, the sales are in this state. b. Example: The taxpayer, a produce grower in State A, begins shipment of perishable produce to the purchaser's place of business in State B. While en route the produce is diverted to the purchaser's place of business in this state in which state the taxpayer is subject to tax. The sale by the taxpayer is attributed to this state. Rule 12C (2)(c), F.A.C., states:
7 Real Property. Gross receipts from the sale, lease, rental, or licensing of real property are in this state if the real property is located in this state. (Emphasis Supplied) Rule 12C (2)(f), F.A.C., states: (f) Intangible personal property in Florida. 1. The rental, leasing, licensing, or other use of a trade name, trademark, or patent to a business entity located in Florida will be considered a Florida sale. The mere holding of intangible personal property is not, of itself, an income producing activity. 2. Franchises. The franchise fees paid to rent, lease, license, or otherwise use a trade name and system of sales are Florida sales if the franchise location is in the state. Section (1), F.S., states: The department may issue informal technical assistance advisements to persons, upon written request, as to the position of the department on the tax consequences of a stated transaction or event, under existing statutes, rules, or policies. After the issuance of an assessment, a technical assistance advisement may not be issued to a taxpayer who requests an advisement relating to the tax or liability for tax in respect to which the assessment has been made, except that a technical assistance advisement may be issued to a taxpayer who requests an advisement relating to the exemptions in s (1) or (2) at any time. Technical assistance advisements shall have no precedential value except to the taxpayer who requests the advisement and then only for the specific transaction addressed in the technical assistance advisement, unless specifically stated otherwise in the advisement. Any modification of an advisement shall be prospective only. A technical assistance advisement is not an order issued pursuant to s or s or a rule or policy of general applicability under s The provisions of s (1) are not applicable to technical assistance advisements. Rule (1), F.A.C., states: A taxpayer may not rely on an advisement issued to another taxpayer, except that an advisement issued to a taxpayer association provides guidance to those taxpayers who are members of the taxpayer association for the particular transaction(s) discussed in the TAA... (Emphasis Supplied) DISCUSSION The Taxpayer is requesting the use of an alternative apportionment factor for Florida because it believes that the standard apportionment factor, which includes the sale of the business assets, taxes extraterritorial values and apportions more income to Florida than Florida is constitutionally allowed to tax.(fn 5) Florida Standard Apportionment Factor Subsection (5), F.S., provides the intent of the Florida Legislature and states that the sales factor is a fraction,
8 the numerator of which is the total sales of the taxpayer in this state during the taxable year or period, and the denominator of which is the total sales of the taxpayer everywhere during the taxable year or period. This subsection further provides that the term "sales" means all gross receipts of the taxpayer except interest, dividends, rents, royalties, and gross receipts from the sale, exchange, maturity, redemption, or other disposition of securities. Since the sale of these business assets (XX) is a gross receipt of the Taxpayer, which is not interest, a dividend, a rent, a royalty, or a receipt from the disposition of securities, the standard Florida apportionment methodology would include in the numerator and denominator of the sales factor the proceeds from the sale of the Florida business assets. See Rule 12C-1.055(1)(b) and (2), F.A.C. Following Florida's standard apportionment law, the Taxpayer's apportionable income of XX is subject to a Florida apportionment factor of The Taxpayer's Florida income tax liability is XX, when offset by the Taxpayer's XX net operating loss. Alternative Apportionment As noted above, the Taxpayer believes that the standard Florida apportionment factor taxes extraterritorial values and apportions more income to Florida than Florida is constitutionally allowed to tax. As a result of this belief, the Taxpayer is requesting permission to use an alternative apportionment factor. The Taxpayer notes the language in Rule 12C (1)(b), F.A.C., which provides that if amounts of gross receipts arising from an incidental or occasional sale of a fixed asset used in the regular course of the taxpayer's trade or business would materially distort the sales factor, the taxpayer may petition the Department, or the Department is authorized to require, pursuant to s , F.S., and Rule 12C , F.A.C., an adjustment to the sales factor. Alternative apportionment is very rare. The Florida Supreme Court recognized this fact in Roger Dean Enterprises v. State, Department of Revenue, 387 So.2d 358 (Fla. 1980). There is a very strong presumption in favor of normal three-factor apportionment and against the applicability of relief provisions... The relief provision should be used where the statute reaches arbitrary or unreasonable results so that its application could be attacked successfully on constitutional grounds... Departures from the basic formula should be avoided except where reasonableness requires. 387 So.2d at 363. In Moorman Manufacturing Co. v. Bair, Director of Revenue of Iowa, 437 U.S. 267 (1978), the U.S. Supreme Court stated:...[the] claim that the Constitution invalidates an apportionment formula whenever it may result in taxation of some income that did not have its source in the taxing state is incorrect. 437 U.S. at 272. The Department has only allowed alternative apportionment on a few occasions. As noted, Rule 12C (1)(b),
9 F.A.C., permits an adjustment to the sales factor where the inclusion of the proceeds from an incidental or occasional sale of fixed assets could be distortive to the sales factor and may in fact create a situation where the standard apportionment factor provides Florida with more or less income tax than Florida is constitutionally allowed to collect. However, situations where the inclusion of an incidental or occasional sale of fixed assets actually distorts a taxpayer's apportionment factor are very rare. The Taxpayer cites one such instance when the Department allowed an alternative apportionment (TAA 97(C)1-007) and seems to rely on this Technical Assistance Advisement (TAA) even though there are numerous other TAAs that did not allow an alternative apportionment factor as a result of an occasional or isolated sale of business assets. First, the Taxpayer cannot rely on another taxpayer's TAA. See Subsection (1), F.S., and Rule (1), F.A.C. Second, the Taxpayer's situation is substantially different from that of the taxpayer in the cited TAA (TAA 97(C)1-007). Several substantial differences are noted below. 1. The Taxpayer files separately in Florida, while the taxpayer in TAA 97(C)1-007 filed consolidated in Florida. 2. The Taxpayer's transaction is a straight business asset sale, while the taxpayer in TAA 97(C)1-007 sold stock through an I.R.C. section 338(h)(10) transaction, which was treated as a sale of business assets.(fn 6) 3. The Taxpayer's sale of business assets did not contain goodwill, while the taxpayer in TAA 97(C)1-007 had a sale that contained a substantial portion of goodwill. Given that TAA 97(C)1-007 and the numerous other TAAs that address alternative apportionment are neither authoritative nor persuasive, we must look to the actual law. Rule 12C , F.A.C., provides for an adjustment to the apportionment formula if the standard formula leads to a grossly distorted result. This rule requires the Taxpayer to show by clear and cogent evidence that the apportionment formula results in taxation of extraterritorial values. The Taxpayer must demonstrate that the apportionment formula operates unreasonably and arbitrarily in apportioning income to Florida, and that it is out of all proportion to the business transacted in Florida and does not accurately and fairly reflect business activity in Florida. The Taxpayer has shown that the numerator and the denominator of its sales factor, as well as its overall apportionment factor, substantially increase when the Taxpayer's sale of Florida business assets are included in the sales factor on the XX Florida corporate income tax return. Now, we must consider whether the inclusion of the proceeds from the sale of the business assets in the sales factor materially results in the taxation of extraterritorial values. We must examine the two activities that produced income for the Taxpayer in XX. The Taxpayer's regular business operations produced a loss of (XX). When this is multiplied by the Florida apportionment factor that would have existed without the sale of the business assets ( ), the Taxpayer would have had a Florida net operating loss of (XX). In addition to its regular business activities, the Taxpayer also made a sale of some of its Florida business assets that produced income of XX. Since all of the business assets that were sold were located in Florida, one would expect that all of the XX in income would be subject to tax by Florida. When these two income producing activities are combined, the Taxpayer would have XXX in Florida income that would be subject to the Florida corporate income tax.
10 This amount of Florida income, when offset by the Taxpayer's XX net operating loss, would produce a Florida income tax liability of XX. Following Florida's standard apportionment law, the combination of the Taxpayer's two income activities produces income of XX, which is subject to a Florida apportionment factor of Apportionable income, when offset by the Taxpayer's XX net operating loss, produces a Florida income tax liability of XX. Under the Taxpayer's proposed alternative methodology, which would exclude the sale of the business assets from the sales factor, the combination of the Taxpayer's two income activities produces income of XXX, which would be subject to an apportionment percentage of Apportionable income, when offset by the Taxpayer's XX net operating loss, would produce a Florida tax of zero and the Taxpayer would still have a Florida loss carryover to XX of (XX). The Taxpayer's argument fails to recognize that a significant portion of the income generated was a result of Florida activity, the sale of business assets (XXX) located in Florida. The income of the Taxpayer substantially increases as a result of the Taxpayer's sale of Florida business assets. What logically follows an increase in income resulting from the sale of business assets located in Florida is an increase in the sales factor in Florida. The corresponding increase in the weighted sales apportionment factor from to and corresponding increase in the apportionment formula from to is commensurate with the fact that the business assets that were sold by the Taxpayer were substantial and were located in Florida. The increase in the Taxpayer's Florida tax liability reflects the fact that Florida may subject to tax a substantial portion of the income generated by the sale of Florida business assets. Although the difference in the apportionment factors between including or excluding the sale of the business assets is substantial, we do not believe that extraterritorial values are being taxed by Florida. The regular apportionment factor, which includes the sale of the business assets that were used in the Taxpayer's XXX business, does not operate unreasonably and arbitrarily in apportioning to Florida a percentage of income that is out of all proportion to the business transacted in Florida. The Taxpayer's mere suggestion that extraterritorial values are being taxed and that an alternative apportionment results in less tax due to the State of Florida is insufficient proof. In Norfolk, supra, the U.S. Supreme Court found the application of the apportionment formula unconstitutional where the taxing state imposed an ad valorem property tax on the railroad rolling stock, using the familiar single-factor mileage formula apportionment basis. The taxpayer presented evidence showing that the actual inventory of rolling stock in Missouri on tax day was less than half (approximately $7,600,000 versus assessed value of $19,981,000) the value assessed using Missouri's apportionment formula. The taxpayer further demonstrated that its calculation of the tax-day value was representative of the value of rolling stock located within the state throughout the year and in the preceding year. The Supreme Court in Norfolk, at page 329, noted that it is not necessary for a state to demonstrate that its use of the mileage formula yields an exact measure of value. However, the Supreme Court further stated that: [w]hen a taxpayer comes forward with strong evidence tending to prove that the mileage formula will yield a grossly distorted result in its particular case, the State is obliged to counter that evidence or to make the accommodations necessary to assure that its taxing power is confined to its constitutional limits. If it fails to do so and if the record shows that the taxpayer has sustained the burden of proof to show that the tax is so excessive as to burden interstate commerce, the taxpayer must prevail.
11 In the Hans Rees' case, supra, North Carolina attempted to apportion income of a manufacturing concern using a formula based on the ratio of the value of the taxpayer's real and tangible personal property located in North Carolina over the value of its real and tangible property located everywhere times its entire income. The taxpayer was able to demonstrate that such a one-factor (property) apportionment formula "operated unreasonably and arbitrarily" in attributing income to the state that was "out of all proportion" to the taxpayer's activities in the state. The Court concluded that proof that the formula produced a tax on 83% of the taxpayer's income when only 17% of that income actually had its source in the State would suffice to invalidate the assessment under the Due Process Clause. See Moorman Manufacturing. The type of distortion present in Hans Rees' is largely remedied today by use of a threefactor apportionment formula. The three factors now generally used by states to apportion the income of most businesses (like the taxpayer in Hans Rees') to their state, are sales, property, and payroll. Even though both XXX and Florida, the two states in which the Taxpayer claims that it is subject to tax, use a three factor apportionment formula, the Taxpayer asserted in conference that because greater than 100% of its income is being taxed by the two states, Florida's apportionment calculation must be taxing extraterritorial values. Apportionment is merely a method to break out a multi-state entity s income amongst the states in which it conducts business. Apportionment is not an exact science, but it has been widely accepted by both state and federal courts as a reasonable approximation for this purpose. Regarding this overlap taxation issue, the U.S. Supreme Court stated in Moorman Manufacturing, 437 U.S. at 277: Even assuming some overlap, we could not accept appellant s argument that Iowa, rather than Illinois, was necessarily at fault in a constitutional sense. It is, of course, true that if Iowa had used Illinois' three-factor formula, a risk of duplication in the figures computed by the two States might have been avoided. But the same would be true had Illinois used the Iowa formula. Since the record does not reveal the sources of appellant s profits, its Commerce Clause claim cannot rest on the premise that profits earned in Illinois were included in its Iowa taxable income and therefore the Iowa formula was at fault for whatever overlap may have existed... The only conceivable constitutional basis for invalidating the Iowa statute would be that the Commerce Clause prohibits any overlap in the computation of taxable income by the States. If the Constitution were read to mandate such precision in interstate taxation, the consequences would extend far beyond this case. For some risk of duplicative taxation exists whenever the States in which a corporation does business do not follow identical rules for the division of income... The prevention of duplicative taxation, therefore, would require national uniform rules for the division of income. Although the adoption of a uniform code would undeniably advance the policies that underlie the Commerce Clause, it would require a policy decision based on political and economic considerations that vary from State to State. The Constitution, however, is neutral with respect to the content of any uniform rule... It is clear that the legislative power granted to Congress by the Commerce Clause of the Constitution would amply justify the enactment of legislation requiring all States to adhere to uniform rules for the division of income. It is to that body, and not this Court, that the Constitution has committed such policy decisions... Florida and XXX apportionment laws are quite different. XXX uses the three factor apportionment formula, like Florida, but XXX weights all three factors (payroll, property, and sales) evenly at 33 and 1/3%, while Florida weights the sales factor at 50% and the property and payroll factors at 25% each. This difference alone creates a situation where a taxpayer that only operates in Florida and XXX could be subject to income taxes on more than 100% of its income, or
12 less than 100% of its income, depending on how a taxpayer is situated. In this case, the Taxpayer asserts that more than 100% of its income would be subject to tax between the states. If XXX weighted its apportionment factors in the same manner that Florida does, the combination of the Florida and XXX apportionments would result in exactly 100% of the Taxpayer's income being subject to tax between the states. However, as stated by the U.S. Supreme Court in Wisconsin v. J.C. Penny Co., 311 U.S. 435, 444 (1940): A State is free to pursue its own fiscal policies, unencumbered by the Constitution, if by the practical operation of a tax the State has exerted its power in relation to the opportunities which it has given, to protection which it has afforded, to benefits which it has conferred by the fact of being an orderly, civilized society. Another significant difference between Florida and XXX law is in the items that are included in the sales apportionment factor. XXX law apparently does not include the proceeds from the sale of the Florida business assets in its apportionment factor. Florida law requires the proceeds from the sale of the Florida business assets to be included in the Taxpayer's apportionment factor. Because the business assets that were sold are located in Florida, the combination of the Florida and XXX apportionment percentages is greater than 100%. If XXX law included the sale of the Florida business assets in its apportionment factor, like Florida, the amount of income taxed between the states would be much closer to the amount that has been historically taxed between the states. Therefore, it may be XXX, and not Florida, that is subjecting extraterritorial values to taxation because XXX does not recognize the sale of business assets in its apportionment computation and it was the sale of the business assets that were located in Florida that produced all of the Taxpayer's income in XX.(FN 7) In addition, because the Taxpayer files on a consolidated basis in XXX, and on a separate basis in Florida, the Taxpayer does not have a separate apportionment factor in XXX for comparison with the Florida apportionment percentage. The Taxpayer only has a consolidated apportionment factor in XXX, and that in combination with the Florida apportionment factor, could be greater than or less than 100%, depending on how the other entities that are included in the XXX consolidated tax return are situated and whether those entities are subject to and paying Florida corporate income tax. The Taxpayer has not shown by clear and cogent evidence that Florida s normal apportionment calculation results in taxation of extraterritorial values. The Taxpayer receives the benefits and protections of Florida law, and there is no question that Florida may constitutionally tax the sale of the assets located in Florida and used in the Taxpayer's business. Also, the Taxpayer has not demonstrated that the inclusion of the proceeds from the sale of the business assets in the apportionment formula makes the formula operate unreasonably and arbitrarily in apportioning the Taxpayer's income to Florida, or that the apportionment formula is inaccurate and does not fairly reflect the Taxpayer's business activity in Florida in XX. CONCLUSION Florida law requires the Taxpayer to include the proceeds from the Taxpayer's sale of its Florida business assets in its apportionment factor. Based on the discussion above, the inclusion of the proceeds from the sale of assets that were used in the Taxpayer's XXX business is found not to materially distort the apportionment factor or tax extraterritorial values.
13 This response constitutes a Technical Assistance Advisement under s , F.S., which is binding on the Department only under the facts and circumstances described in the request for this advice as specified in s , F.S. Our response is based on those facts and the specific situation summarized above. You are advised that subsequent statutory or administrative rule changes or judicial interpretations of the statutes or rules upon which this advice is based may subject similar future transactions to a different treatment than expressed in this response. You are further advised that this response, your request and related backup documents are public records under Chapter 119, F.S., and are subject to disclosure to the public under the conditions of s , F.S. Confidential information must be deleted before public disclosure. In an effort to protect confidentiality, we request you provide the undersigned with an edited copy of your request for Technical Assistance Advisement, the backup material and this response, deleting names, addresses and any other details which might lead to identification of the taxpayer. Your response should be received by the Department within 15 days of the date of this letter. Sincerely, Robert DuCasse Technical Assistance and Dispute Resolution RCD/ Control No.: FOOTNOTE 1 While the request submitted on behalf of the Taxpayer makes no mention of this point, we presume from the nature of this request that the Taxpayer acknowledges that the proceeds from this transaction are business income. FOOTNOTE 2. As an apparent compromise, the Taxpayer suggests that instead of the gross proceeds from the sale of the business assets being included in the apportionment factor, only the net gain from the sale of the business assets should be included. FOOTNOTE 3. Apportionment formula numbers and the amount of tax due for tax years XX and XX discussed in this advisement come from returns filed or other facts provided by the Taxpayer. Such information has not been verified through audit or other review by the Department. Use of this information in this advisement is not a recognition or acceptance of the accuracy of these numbers, amounts, or facts. FOOTNOTE 4. Under the Taxpayer's alternative apportionment methodology, the XX weighted sales factor is less than the XX weighted sales factor because Florida real estate was sold in the middle of the tax year, resulting in fewer Florida XXX operations and fewer Florida receipts. In addition, the Taxpayer's Florida property factor is lower in XX because the sale of the Florida business assets reduced the Taxpayer's Florida property factor. FOOTNOTE 5. The Taxpayer, in its request for relief, states: "The substantial increase in the apportionment
14 percentage would cause extraterritorial values to be taxed since the higher apportionment percentage would apply to the income earned in the regular course of [the Taxpayer's] business. The regular apportionment formula therefore operates to unreasonably and arbitrarily attribute income to Florida far out of proportion to the business transacted in Florida." FOOTNOTE 6. The Florida Statutes and Rules exclude the sale of stock (disposition of securities) from the apportionment factor, while they include the sale of business assets in the apportionment factor. The Department treats I.R.C. section 338(h)(10) transactions as a sale of business assets and looks to the individual assets that were sold to determine the extent to which each item of income should be included or excluded in the standard apportionment factor. FOOTNOTE 7. The Taxpayer's XXX operations produced a loss for the XX tax year.
QUESTION: WHETHER TAXPAYER S GROSS RECEIPTS EARNED FROM THE ABOVE MENTIONED REVENUE CATEGORIES SHOULD BE SOURCED TO FLORIDA.
Executive Director Marshall Stranburg QUESTION: WHETHER TAXPAYER S GROSS RECEIPTS EARNED FROM THE ABOVE MENTIONED REVENUE CATEGORIES SHOULD BE SOURCED TO FLORIDA. ANSWER: REVENUE CATEGORY 1: THIS CONSISTS
More informationApril 17, 2017 XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX
Executive Director Leon M. Biegalski QUESTIONS: WHETHER IT IS APPROPRIATE FOR TAXPAYER TO SOURCE SALES TO THE LOCATION OF THE INCOME PRODUCING ACTIVITY? WHAT IS THE PROPER DETERMINATION OF WHERE THE INCOME
More informationNC General Statutes - Chapter 105 Article 4 1
Article 4. Income Tax. Part 1. Corporation Income Tax. 105-130. Short title. This Part of the income tax Article shall be known and may be cited as the Corporation Income Tax Act. (1939, c. 158, s. 300;
More information(Effective for taxable years beginning before January 1, 2017) Allocation and apportionment of income for corporations.
105-130.4. (Effective for taxable years beginning before January 1, 2017) Allocation and apportionment of income for corporations. (a) As used in this section, unless the context otherwise requires: (1)
More informationMICHIGAN CORPORATE INCOME TAX ACT Act XX of The People of the State of Michigan enact: CHAPTER 1
MICHIGAN CORPORATE INCOME TAX ACT Act XX of 2011 AN ACT to meet deficiencies in state funds by providing for the imposition, levy, computation, collection, assessment, reporting, payment, and enforcement
More informationSUMMARY. Dec 03, 1998
SUMMARY The contemplated sale of all business assets in complete liquidation of all tangible personal property is an occasional or isolated sale. Only the sale of aircraft, boats, mobile homes, and motor
More informationSUMMARY. February 1, 2011
SUMMARY QUESTION: When equipment (tangible personal property) is rented from a Florida dealer and removed from the State of Florida, are the rental payments made to the Florida dealer subject to sales
More information79th OREGON LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Regular Session
th OREGON LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY-- Regular Session House Bill Introduced and printed pursuant to House Rule.00. Presession filed (at the request of Governor Kate Brown for Department of Revenue) SUMMARY
More informationSUMMARY. Jan 08, 2001
SUMMARY QUESTION: Do purchases of furnishings, fixtures, and equipment by a public sports authority for a sports team facility qualify for exemption from sales tax under s. 212.08(6), F.S.? ANSWER - Based
More informationTitle: Third Party Drop-Shipments. Nov 17, 1994
Title: Third Party Drop-Shipments Nov 17, 1994 Re: TAA 94A-060 Applicability of Florida sales tax on third party dropshipments wherein sales are made by a registered Florida dealer to an unregistered out-of-state
More informationAbstract. Standard formulary apportionment, as currently adopted by states which impose a corporate level
Abstract Standard formulary apportionment, as currently adopted by states which impose a corporate level income tax on multistate corporations, may have a distortive effect in instances where the corporation
More information79th OREGON LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Regular Session. Enrolled
79th OREGON LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY--2017 Regular Session Enrolled House Bill 2275 Introduced and printed pursuant to House Rule 12.00. Presession filed (at the request of Governor Kate Brown for Department
More informationTAX REFORM CODE OF PERSONAL INCOME TAX AND STRATEGIC DEVELOPMENT AREAS Act of Nov. 20, 2006, P.L. 1385, No. 151 Cl. 72
TAX REFORM CODE OF 1971 - PERSONAL INCOME TAX AND STRATEGIC DEVELOPMENT AREAS Act of Nov. 20, 2006, P.L. 1385, No. 151 Cl. 72 Session of 2006 No. 2006-151 SB 854 AN ACT Amending the act of March 4, 1971
More informationTax Executive STATE AND LOCAL TAX THE PROFESSIONAL JOURNAL OF TAX EXECUTIVES INSTITUTE MAY JUNE 2017 UNFAIR APPORTIONMENT: CONSIDER THE ALTERNATIVES
Tax Executive THE PROFESSIONAL JOURNAL OF TAX EXECUTIVES INSTITUTE MAY JUNE 2017 Vol. 69 No. 3 STATE AND LOCAL TAX UNFAIR APPORTIONMENT: CONSIDER THE ALTERNATIVES THE NEXUS CONNECTION: WHAT S NEXT? TEI
More informationSUMMARY. TAX: Sales and Use Tax TAA NUMBER: 13A-010
Executive Director Marshall Stranburg SUMMARY TAX: Sales and Use Tax TAA NUMBER: 13A-010 QUESTION: Is the Landlord required to remit the sales tax due for the rental payments received from the Tenant when
More informationCorporate Apportionment Issues in North Carolina. Michael A. Hannah, Esq., CPA Bear Creek, North Carolina
Corporate Apportionment Issues in North Carolina Michael A. Hannah, Esq., CPA Bear Creek, North Carolina 0 North Carolina Corporate Franchise Tax Apportionment Issues 1 What is the Franchise Tax? N.C.G.S.
More informationRevenue Chapter ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE ADMINISTRATIVE CODE CHAPTER MULTISTATE TAX COMPACT TABLE OF CONTENTS
Revenue Chapter 810-27-1 ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE ADMINISTRATIVE CODE CHAPTER 810-27-1 MULTISTATE TAX COMPACT TABLE OF CONTENTS 810-27-1-.01 Multistate Tax Compact Rule Definitions 810-27-1-.02 Application
More informationPROPOSED REGULATION 830 CMR
830 CMR: DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE PROPOSED REGULATION 830 CMR 63.38.1 830 CMR 63:00: TAXATION OF CORPORATIONS 830 CMR 63.38.1 is repealed and replaced with the following: 830 CMR 63.38.1: Apportionment of
More informationSTATE OF RHODE ISLAND DIVISION OF TAXATION. Business Corporation Tax Corporate Nexus. Regulation CT Table of Contents
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND DIVISION OF TAXATION Business Corporation Tax Corporate Nexus Regulation CT 15-02 Table of Contents Rule 1. Rule 2. Rule 3. Rule 4. Rule 5. Rule 6. Rule 7. Purpose Authority Application
More informationTechnical Assistance Advisements
Sales and Use Tax 1995-1999 Technical Assistance Advisements SUMMARY QUESTION: Are charges for a plain carwash taxable when the charge for the wash is separately priced from the charge for the wax, and
More informationCorporations: Allocation and Apportionment of Income.
560-7-7-.03 Corporations: Allocation and Apportionment of Income. (1) What constitutes doing business. A corporation will be considered to be doing business within this state if it performs acts or consummates
More informationLitten, O' Leary, O' Malley, Rader. AN ORDINANCE to take effect on such date that the municipal income tax provisions of
Please substitute for Ord. No. 4-18, placed on first reading and referred to the Finance Committee 2/ 5/ 2018. ORDINANCE NO. 4-18 BY: Anderson, Bullock, George, Litten, O' Leary, O' Malley, Rader. AN ORDINANCE
More informationALTERNATIVE APPORTIONMENT JULY 2, 2014 IPT ANNUAL CONFERENCE. Peter L. Faber Telephone: (212)
ALTERNATIVE IPT ANNUAL CONFERENCE Peter L. Faber Telephone: (212) 547-5585 pfaber@mwe.com APPORTIONMENT JULY 2, 2014 Most states have some sort of discretionary authority to require a taxpayer to use an
More informationState & Local Tax Alert
State & Local Tax Alert Breaking state and local tax developments from Grant Thornton LLP U.S. Supreme Court Vacates and Remands Massachusetts Case for Further Consideration Based on Wynne On October 13,
More informationOVERVIEW OF STATE TAXATION
DORCHESTER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA TAX & INCENTIVE INFORMATION Dorchester County recognizes that the taxing scheme of a state is an important factor when deciding to locate or expand a business. Often,
More information2011 KANSAS Privilege Tax
2011 KANSAS Privilege Tax ON THE INSIDE General Information 2 Form K-130 4 Form K-130AS 8 Instructions for K-130 10 Instructions for K-130AS 13 Form K-131 16 ImproveProcessing Back Cover Tax Assistance
More informationPursuant to the authority contained in subdivision First of section 171 of the Tax Law, the
September 2, 2015 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION AND FINANCE COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION AND FINANCE ALBANY, NEW YORK Pursuant to the authority
More information2011 PIT-B NEW MEXICO ALLOCATION AND APPORTIONMENT OF INCOME SCHEDULE
2011 PIT-B NEW MEXICO ALLOCATION AND APPORTIONMENT OF INCOME SCHEDULE YOUR SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER This schedule must be completed by taxpayers who allocate and apportion income from both within and outside
More information42 nd Annual Notre Dame Tax & Estate Planning Institute
42 nd Annual Notre Dame Tax & Estate Planning Institute State Income Taxation of Trusts, the Significance of State Residency for Fiduciary Income Tax Purposes, the State Fiduciary Income Taxation Rules,
More informationExecutive Director Marshall Stranburg. Tallahassee, Florida
Executive Director Marshall Stranburg QUESTION 1. WHETHER THE TRANSFER OF POSSESSION OF CONSIGNMENT SURGICAL INSTRUMENTS, SUBJECT TO CONSIDERATION IN THE FORM OF CONSIGNMENT FEES AS SET FORTH IN THE MANUAL,
More informationQUESTION: WILL THE TAXPAYER S LEASE BE SUBJECT TO SALES AND USE TAX? January 10, 2018
Executive Director Leon Biegalski QUESTION: WILL THE TAXPAYER S LEASE BE SUBJECT TO SALES AND USE TAX? ANSWER: NO. PROPERTY LEASED QUALIFIES FOR EXEMPTION. January 10, 2018 Subject: ( TAA ) TAA 18A-001
More informationSTATE v. GAY [46 So.2d 165, 1950 Fla.SCt 335] STATE ex rel. UNITED STATES SUGAR CORPORATION. GAY, Comptroller. Supreme Court of Florida, en Banc.
STATE v. GAY [46 So.2d 165, 1950 Fla.SCt 335] STATE ex rel. UNITED STATES SUGAR CORPORATION v. GAY, Comptroller. Supreme Court of Florida, en Banc. Decided May 09, 1950. Rehearing denied May 31, 1950 COUNSEL
More informationQUESTION: WILL TAXPAYER S CONTRACT QUALIFY FOR THE PUBLIC WORKS EXEMPTION PROVIDED FOR BY SECTION (6), F.S.?
Executive Director Leon M. Biegalski QUESTION: WILL TAXPAYER S CONTRACT QUALIFY FOR THE PUBLIC WORKS EXEMPTION PROVIDED FOR BY SECTION 212.08(6), F.S.? ANSWER: YES, TAXPAYER WILL SATISFY ALL CRITERIA REQUIRED
More informationNOTICE OF ADOPTED AMENDMENT. 6) Does this rulemaking contain an automatic repeal date? No
1) Heading of the Part: Income Tax 2) Code Citation: 86 Ill. Adm. Code 100 ILLINOIS REGISTER 1848 3) Number: Adopted Action: 100.3380 Amendment 4) Statutory Authority: [35 ILCS 5/304(f)] 5) Effective Date
More informationSTATE OF OKLAHOMA. 2nd Extraordinary Session of the 56th Legislature (2018) HOUSE BILL 1037 By: Wallace of the House AS INTRODUCED
STATE OF OKLAHOMA 2nd Extraordinary Session of the 56th Legislature (2018) HOUSE BILL 1037 By: Wallace of the House and Thompson of the Senate AS INTRODUCED An Act relating to revenue and taxation; amending
More information2010 KANSAS Partnership
2010 KANSAS Partnership or SCorporation Tax WAIT! Before you file a paper return, consider this... Completing a paper return can take hours compared to completing one electronically which you can get through
More informationRulings of the Tax Commissioner
Page 1 of 5 Rulings of the Tax Commissioner Document 14-31 Number: Tax Type: BPOL Tax Brief Description: Taxpayer is permitted a deduction for gross receipts attributable to business conducted in other
More information79th OREGON LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Regular Session. Enrolled
79th OREGON LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY--2017 Regular Session Enrolled House Bill 2273 Introduced and printed pursuant to House Rule 12.00. Presession filed (at the request of Governor Kate Brown for Department
More information12C Adjusted Federal Income Defined. (1)(a) Taxable income, as defined by Section (2), F.S., is the starting point in determining Florida
12C-1.013 Adjusted Federal Income Defined. (1)(a) Taxable income, as defined by Section 220.13(2), F.S., is the starting point in determining Florida corporate income tax due. (b) In general, taxable income
More informationSingle Sales Apportionment:
Presenting a live 110 minute teleconference with interactive Q&A Single Sales Apportionment: Crafting a Multi State Strategy Meeting Tax Compliance and Planning Demands Amid Significant Changes in Sales
More informationIn general, the non-themed tangible personal property
Title: Occasional Sale May 10, 1993 RE: TAA 93A-030 Sales Tax; Exchange of Property s. 212.02(16), F.S. Rules 12A-1.037, 12A-1.038, 12A-1.039, F.A.C. Dear : This acknowledges receipt of your letter of
More informationMichigan Business Tax Frequently Asked Questions
NOTICE: The MBT was amended by 145 PA 2007 on December 1, 2007. Act 145 imposes an annual surcharge to taxpayers' MBT liability, as well as makes other changes. Some of the FAQs below have revised answers
More informationEconomic Development Fundamentals
Economic Development Fundamentals April 8, 2016 BURNET R. MAYBANK, III bmaybank@nexsenpruet.com Economic Development Fundamentals INCOME TAX COMPARISONS 1 Income Tax Rates (C Corps) SC: 5% NC: In 2013
More information(Effective for taxable years beginning before January 1, 2017) Franchise or privilege tax on domestic and foreign corporations.
105-122. (Effective for taxable years beginning before January 1, 2017) Franchise or privilege tax on domestic and foreign corporations. (a) An annual franchise or privilege tax is imposed on a corporation
More information... moves to amend H.F. No. 2083, the first engrossment, as follows:
1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 1.10 1.11 1.12 1.13 1.14 1.15 1.16 1.17 1.18 1.19 1.20 1.21 1.22 1.23 1.24 1.25 1.26 1.27... moves to amend H.F. No. 2083, the first engrossment, as follows: Page 5,
More informationOperatio. on Wholly. vania. Purpose of. Within. Outside. Allocating. Income A PA S corporation. orders for sales. from the operation.
20 Department of Revenue 013 Instructions for PA-20S/PA-65 Schedule H Apportioned Business Income (Loss) Calculation of PAA Net Business Income (Loss) General Information Purpose of Schedule Use this schedule
More informationRevenue Chapter ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE ADMINISTRATIVE CODE CHAPTER FINANCIAL INSTITUTION EXCISE TAX RULES TABLE OF CONTENTS
Revenue Chapter 810-9-1 ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE ADMINISTRATIVE CODE CHAPTER 810-9-1 FINANCIAL INSTITUTION EXCISE TAX RULES TABLE OF CONTENTS 810-9-1-.01 Definitions 810-9-1-.02 Returns 810-9-1-.03
More informationSUMMARY. February 9, 2012
SUMMARY QUESTION: WHETHER PAYMENTS MADE BY COUNTRY CLUB MEMBERS ARE NOT TAXABLE AS PAYMENTS TO A HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION PURSUANT TO RULE 12A-1.005(4)(d)3., F.A.C. ANSWER: NO. THE PAYMENTS ARE CHARGES FOR
More information2016 North Carolina S Corporation Tax Return Instructions
2016 North Carolina S Corporation Tax Return Instructions Page 1 Corporations Required to File Every S corporation doing business in North Carolina and every inactive S corporation chartered or domesticated
More informationF-1120 INSTRUCTIONS. What s Inside. Florida Department of Revenue
F-1120 INSTRUCTIONS Corporate Income/Franchise Tax Return for taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2012. F-1120N R. 01/13 Rule 12C-1.051 Florida Administrative Code Effective 01/13 All installment
More informationA Bill Regular Session, 2019 SENATE BILL 576
Stricken language would be deleted from and underlined language would be added to present law. Act of the Regular Session 0 0 0 State of Arkansas nd General Assembly As Engrossed: S/0/ H// H// A Bill Regular
More informationQUESTION: MAY A SELLER OF CAR TRACKING DEVICES ACCEPT, IN GOOD FAITH, A RESALE CERTIFICATE FROM CAR DEALERS UNDER THE FACTS PRESENTED?
Executive Director Leon M. Biegalski QUESTION: MAY A SELLER OF CAR TRACKING DEVICES ACCEPT, IN GOOD FAITH, A RESALE CERTIFICATE FROM CAR DEALERS UNDER THE FACTS PRESENTED? ANSWER: NO, SUCH SALES ARE NOT
More informationAlternative Apportionment - The Process and the Impact
Alternative Apportionment - The Process and the Impact Current Issues in State & Local Taxation TEI Philadelphia Chapter February 22, 2017 Maria Todorova Open Weaver Banks 2017 (US) LLP All Rights Reserved.
More informationRulings of the Tax Commissioner
Rulings of the Tax Commissioner Tax Type: Individual Income Tax Brief Description: Guidelines for Pass Through Entity Withholding Topics: Pass Through Entities Persons Subject to Tax Withholding of Tax
More informationCHAPTER 2 BUSINESS FRANCHISE TAX. By David L. Phillips
CHAPTER 2 BUSINESS FRANCHISE TAX By David L. Phillips David L. Phillips is an executive director in charge of tax practice for the Charleston, West Virginia office of Ernst & Young. He was a special advisor
More informationTaxpayer (Entities Liable for Tax)-Due Date-Computer Prepared Tax Forms.
Chapter 1320-06-01 Franchise and Excise Rules and Regulations 1320-06-01-.01 Repealed. Authority: T.C.A. 67-1-102(a) and Acts 1999, Ch. 406, 2; effective July 1, 1999. Administrative History: Original
More informationThis is not a current year tax form and cannot be used to file a 2009 return. If you use this form for a tax year other than is intended, it will not
This is not a current year tax form and cannot be used to file a 2009 return If you use this form for a tax year other than is intended, it will not be processed Instead, it will be returned to you with
More informationFair Reflection: Defending Against or Applying Alternative Apportionment
COST Pacific Northwest Regional State Tax Seminar San Francisco, California July 10, 2012 Fair Reflection: Defending Against or Applying Alternative Apportionment Kerne H. O. Matsubara, Esq. Michael J.
More informationANSWER 2: YES, UNLESS THE CONTRACT IS STRUCTURED AS A LUMP-SUM REAL PROPERTY CONTRACT.
Executive Director Marshall Stranburg QUESTION 1: SHOULD TAXPAYER USE A LUMP SUM CONTRACT INSTEAD OF A RETAIL SALE PLUS INSTALLATION CONTRACT WHEN CONTRACTING WITH CUSTOMERS WHERE AN ITEMIZED LIST OF MATERIALS
More informationState of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations
EXPOSURE DRAFT The Rhode Island Division of Taxation is releasing this draft regulation to provide taxpayers and practitioners with an opportunity to review anticipated regulatory changes related to the
More informationCase Survey: May v. Akers-Lang 2012 Ark. 7 UALR Law Review Published Online Only
THE SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS HOLDS THAT AN AD VALOREM TAX ON GAS, OIL, AND MINERALS EXTRACTED FROM PROPERTY IS NOT AN ILLEGAL EXACTION AND DOES NOT VIOLATE EQUAL PROTECTION. In May v. Akers-Lang, 1 Appellants
More informationState Tax Return. Kristi L. Stathopoulos Atlanta (404)
July 2006 Volume 13 Number 7 State Tax Return California Appellate Court Finds Return of Principal on Short- Term Investments Is Gross Receipts, But Excludes From the Taxpayer s Sales Factor Kristi L.
More informationTAXES ON CONNECTICUT BUSINESS & INDUSTRY
TAXES ON CONNECTICUT BUSINESS & INDUSTRY Revised 7.1.16 to reflect 2016 legislative developments Special thanks to Shipman & Goodwin for their assistance. TABLE OF CONTENTS INCORPORATION AND ORGANIZATION
More informationA BILL IN THE COUNCIL OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
A BILL IN THE COUNCIL OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA To amend Title 47, Chapter 18 of the District of Columbia Official Code by adding thereto new sections, designated 47-1805.02A, 47-1810.04, 47-1810.05, 47-1810.06,
More informationIncome Tax Basics. SCEDA Economic Development 101 5/6/2014. South Carolina Corporate Income and License Tax Basics INCOME AND LICENSE TAX BASICS
SCEDA Economic Development 101 Income Tax Basics Burnet R. Maybank, III Nexsen Pruet, LLC 1230 Main Street, Suite 700 Columbia, SC 29201 803-771-8900 bmaybank@nexsenpruet.com South Carolina Corporate Income
More informationNOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOONE COUNTY FISCAL COURT AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I
ORDINANCE NO. 07-27 AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOONE COUNTY FISCAL COURT AMENDING CHAPTER 110 OF THE BOONE COUNTY CODE OF ORDINANCES HAVING BEEN PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED BY ORDINANCE 430.1 ON MAY 2, 1978 AND AMENDED
More informationNOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOONE COUNTY FISCAL COURT AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I
ORDINANCE NO. 07-26 AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOONE COUNTY FISCAL COURT AMENDING CHAPTER 110 OF THE BOONE COUNTY CODE OF ORDINANCES AS IT RELATES TO OCCUPATIONAL LICENSES FOR MENTAL HEALTH/MENTAL RETARDATION/
More informationSENATE, No. 786 STATE OF NEW JERSEY. 218th LEGISLATURE PRE-FILED FOR INTRODUCTION IN THE 2018 SESSION
SENATE, No. STATE OF NEW JERSEY th LEGISLATURE PRE-FILED FOR INTRODUCTION IN THE 0 SESSION Sponsored by: Senator PAUL A. SARLO District (Bergen and Passaic) Co-Sponsored by: Senators Greenstein and Ruiz
More informationCorporate Income Tax. webtax.org
2012 Corporate Income Tax File your business taxes electronically! Our electronic filing methods are simple, safe, and convenient and the quickest way to receive a refund. See back cover for details. webtax.org
More informationAs Introduced. 132nd General Assembly Regular Session S. B. No
132nd General Assembly Regular Session S. B. No. 203 2017-2018 Senator Dolan Cosponsors: Senators Sykes, Eklund A B I L L To amend sections 718.02 and 718.82 of the Revised Code to reinstate the municipal
More informationIMPACT OF THE FEDERAL PROTECTING AMERICANS FROM TAX HIKES ACT OF 2015 ON NORTH CAROLINA S CORPORATE AND INDIVDUAL INCOME TAX RETURNS FOR TAX YEAR
April 13, 2016 IMPACT OF THE FEDERAL PROTECTING AMERICANS FROM TAX HIKES ACT OF 2015 ON NORTH CAROLINA S CORPORATE AND INDIVDUAL INCOME TAX RETURNS FOR TAX YEAR 2015 North Carolina s corporate income tax
More informationChapter XI TAXATION CONDENSED OUTLINE
Chapter XI TAXATION CONDENSED OUTLINE I. INTRODUCTION A. Nature of Taxing Power. B. Limitations on Taxing Power. C. Construction of Tax Statutes. D. Types of Taxes. E. Intergovernmental Taxation and Immunity.
More informationA bill to be entitled. 2 An act relating to local business taxes; amending ss.
Florida Senate - 2017 SB 330 By Senator Steube 23-00332-17 2017330 1 A bill to be entitled 2 An act relating to local business taxes; amending ss. 3 205.032 and 205.042, F.S.; prohibiting the governing
More informationSTATE OF MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
This document is made available electronically by the Minnesota Legislative Reference Library as part of an ongoing digital archiving project. http://www.leg.state.mn.us/lrl/sonar/sonar.asp STATE OF MINNESOTA
More informationARTICLE III IMPOSITION OF TAX A. REGISTRATION
9 A. REGISTRATION Each resident and every association, business, corporation, pass through entity, or other profession, whether resident in the City of Brook Park or nonresident business entities, shall
More informationPetition for Writ of Certiorari Granted COUNSEL
1 AMERICAN DAIRY QUEEN CORP. V. TAXATION & REVENUE DEP'T, 1979-NMCA-160, 93 N.M. 743, 605 P.2d 251 (Ct. App. 1979) AMERICAN DAIRY QUEEN CORPORATION, Appellant, vs. TAXATION AND REVENUE DEPARTMENT OF THE
More informationPublic Law (b) Domestic corporations; persons domiciled in or residents of a State.
Public Law 86-272 381. Imposition of net income tax. (a) Minimum Standards. No state or political subdivision thereof, shall have power to impose, for any taxable year ending after September 14, 1959,
More informationLancaster County Tax Collection Bureau Earned Income and Net Profits Tax Regulations Effective January 1, 2017
These Regulations supplement the Local Tax Enabling Act, 53 P.S. 6924.501 et seq. (LTEA), and Regulations of the Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic Development promulgated thereunder. These
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE September 8, 2008 Session
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE September 8, 2008 Session NEWELL WINDOW FURNISHING, INC. v. RUTH E. JOHNSON, COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE, STATE OF TENNESSEE Appeal from the Chancery Court
More informationGENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA SESSION 2007 S 1 SENATE BILL 244* Short Title: Modernize Corporate Income Tax Filing.
GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA SESSION 0 S SENATE BILL * Short Title: Modernize Corporate Income Tax Filing. Sponsors: Referred to: Finance. (Public) Senators Hoyle, Clodfelter, Dalton, Hartsell, Kerr;
More informationNC General Statutes - Chapter 105 Article 3 1
Article 3. Franchise Tax. 105-114. Nature of taxes; definitions. (a) Repealed by Session Laws 2017-204, s. 1.1, effective August 11, 2017. (a1) Scope. The tax levied in this Article upon corporations is
More informationState Tax Return. Sooner Rather Than Later: Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals Upholds Distinct Withholding Requirements For Nonresident Royalty Owners
September 2007 Volume 14 Number 9 State Tax Return Sooner Rather Than Later: Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals Upholds Distinct Withholding Requirements For Nonresident Royalty Owners Laura A. Kulwicki Columbus
More informationCOUNSEL JUDGES. Walters, Judge, wrote the opinion. WE CONCUR: Andrews, J., Lewis R. Sutin, J. (Specially Concurring) AUTHOR: WALTERS OPINION
AAMCO TRANSMISSIONS V. TAXATION & REVENUE DEP'T, 1979-NMCA-092, 93 N.M. 389, 600 P.2d 841 (Ct. App. 1979) AAMCO TRANSMISSIONS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. TAXATION AND REVENUE DEPARTMENT of the State
More informationCorporation Income and Franchise Taxes Statutes and Regulations
Corporation Income and Franchise Taxes Statutes and Regulations R-6600 January 2003 A publication of the Louisiana Department of Revenue This public document was published at a total cost of $17,300. Five
More informationSALT Whitepapers. Public Law , provides:
Business Strategists Certified Public Accountants Echelbarger, Himebaugh, Tamm & Co., P.C. SALT Whitepapers In 1959, the U. S. Supreme Court, for the first time, held that a state could tax exclusively
More informationState Tax Return (214) (214)
January 2006 Volume 13 Number 2 State Tax Return Sales Of Products Transported Into Indiana By Common Carrier Arranged By Buyer Are Not Indiana Sales For Indiana Corporate Income Tax Apportionment Purposes:
More informationCODIFIED ORDINANCES OF SHREVE AMENDMENT OF ORDINANCE TAXATION CODE. Income Tax
CODIFIED ORDINANCES OF SHREVE AMENDMENT OF ORDINANCE 10-70 TAXATION CODE Income Tax Purpose Article I-1 Definitions Article I-2 Effective Period Article II-2 Imposition of Tax Article II-4 Administration:
More informationIN THE OREGON TAX COURT REGULAR DIVISION Excise Tax
IN THE OREGON TAX COURT REGULAR DIVISION Excise Tax STONEBRIDGE LIFE INSURANCE ) COMPANY, ) ) Plaintiff, ) TC 4705 ) v. ) ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF S ) MOTION FOR SUMMARY ) JUDGMENT AND DENYING DEPARTMENT
More informationMultistate Income Tax
Multistate Income Tax Marion Kopin, CPA Kopin & Company, CPA, PC mkopin@kopincpa.com Multistate Income Taxation Overview Forty-seven states and the District of Columbia impose some type of income or franchise
More informationNo An act relating to the uniform principal and income act. (H.327) It is hereby enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Vermont:
No. 114. An act relating to the uniform principal and income act. (H.327) It is hereby enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Vermont: Sec. 1. 14 V.S.A. chapter 118 is added to read: CHAPTER 118.
More informationGeneral Instructions For S CORPORATION BUSINESS TAX RETURN AND RELATED FORMS. Underpayment of Estimated Corporation Tax
NEW JERSEY 2017 CBT-100S General Instructions For S CORPORATION BUSINESS TAX RETURN AND RELATED FORMS Form CBT-100S Form CBT-100S-V Form CBT-160-A Form CBT-160-B Form CBT-200-T Schedule NJ-K-1 Form NJ-1040-SC
More informationUDITPA Section 18: The Changing Faces of Alternative Apportionment
UDITPA Section 18: The Changing Faces of Alternative Apportionment July 12, 2009 Presented by: Kelly W. Smith, LLP Jay Koren, LLP PwC This document was not written to be used, and it cannot be used, for
More informationSC Amount of line 1 income taxable to nonresident partners (from SC1065 K-1s)...
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA SC1065 PARTNERSHIP RETURN (Rev. 7/16/13) Tax Year 2013 3087 Return is due on or before the 15th day of the fourth month following the close of the taxable year. For the year January
More informationCyprus United States of America Double Tax Treaty
Cyprus United States of America Double Tax Treaty AGREEMENT OF 19 TH MARCH, 1984 This is the Convention between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Republic of Cyprus
More informationGENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA SESSION 1993 S 1 SENATE BILL May 25, 1994
GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA SESSION S SENATE BILL Short Title: Repeal Intangibles Tax. Sponsors: Senators Kerr; and Albertson. Referred to: Finance. (Public) May, 0 0 A BILL TO BE ENTITLED AN ACT
More informationFlorida Corporate Income/Franchise Tax Return. For calendar year 2015 or tax year beginning, 2015 ending Year end date. Check here if negative
Florida Corporate Income/Franchise Tax Return R 01/17 Name Address City/State/ZIP Rule 12C-1051 Florida Administrative Code Effective 01/17 Use black ink Example A - Handwritten Example B - Typed 0 1 2
More informationALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS
REL: 02/17/2012 Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate
More informationQUESTION: IS THE SALE OF THE SERVICES (BOTH, SOFTWARE AND CLOUD-COMPUTING) SOLD BY [THE TAXPAYER] TO ITS CLIENTS SUBJECT TO SALES TAX?
Executive Director Leon M. Biegalski QUESTION: IS THE SALE OF THE SERVICES (BOTH, SOFTWARE AND CLOUD-COMPUTING) SOLD BY [THE TAXPAYER] TO ITS CLIENTS SUBJECT TO SALES TAX? ANSWER BASED ON THE FACTS BELOW:
More informationState and Local Tax Update. Tuesday, November 28, 2017 Wichita Country Club Tim Hartley - Director
State and Local Tax Update Tuesday, November 28, 2017 Wichita Country Club Tim Hartley - Director Presenters Tim Hartley Director Tax tim.hartley@us.gt.com 316 636 6507 Grant Thornton LLP. All rights reserved.
More informationCBT-100-R. NEW JERSEY Short Period. For Accounting Periods that begin on or after January 1, 2018, and end before July 31, 2018
NEW JERSEY Short Period CBT-100-R For Accounting Periods that begin on or after January 1, 2018, and end before July 31, 2018 Contained in This Packet: CBT-100-R Instructions Form CBT-100-R Short Period
More information