State & Local Tax Alert

Similar documents
State & Local Tax Alert

State & Local Tax Alert

State & Local Tax Alert Breaking state and local tax developments from Grant Thornton LLP

State & Local Tax Alert

State & Local Tax Alert

State & Local Tax Alert Breaking state and local tax developments from Grant Thornton LLP

State & Local Tax Alert

State & Local Tax Alert

State & Local Tax Alert

State & Local Tax Alert

State & Local Tax Alert

State & Local Tax Alert

State & Local Tax Alert Breaking state and local tax developments from Grant Thornton LLP

State & Local Tax Alert

State & Local Tax Alert

State & Local Tax Alert

State & Local Tax Alert

State & Local Tax Alert

State & Local Tax Alert

State & Local Tax Alert

State & Local Tax Alert

State & Local Tax Alert Breaking state and local tax developments from Grant Thornton LLP

State & Local Tax Alert

State & Local Tax Alert

State & Local Tax Alert

State & Local Tax Alert

State & Local Tax Alert

State & Local Tax Alert

State & Local Tax Alert

State & Local Tax Alert

State & Local Tax Alert

State & Local Tax Alert

State & Local Tax Alert

State & Local Tax Alert

State & Local Tax Alert

State & Local Tax Alert

State & Local Tax Alert

State & Local Tax Alert

State & Local Tax Alert

State & Local Tax Alert

State & Local Tax Alert

SALT Alert! : Kentucky: Major Tax Reforms Enacted

State & Local Tax Alert

State & Local Tax Alert

PAST PRESENT - FUTURE!

Corporate Income Tax Issues and Trends

Understanding Oregon's Cost of Performance Method of Apportioning Corporate Income. House Committee on Revenue January 14, 2016

STATE APPORTIONMENT UPDATE

Corporate Apportionment Issues in North Carolina. Michael A. Hannah, Esq., CPA Bear Creek, North Carolina

A Bill Regular Session, 2019 SENATE BILL 576

2011 KANSAS Privilege Tax

STATE OF MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

States Move to Market-Based Sourcing; Sky Does Not Fall

Tax Management. Allocation/Apportionment

Understanding Oregon s Throwback Rule for Apportioning Corporate Income

Slicing the Pie Update on State Tax Apportionment Litigation TEI Denver

State and Local Tax Update. Tuesday, November 28, 2017 Wichita Country Club Tim Hartley - Director

Chapter 8-State Tax Services

State and Local Taxation Update: Information Sharing and Transparency

BEFORE THE ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE. In the Matter of ) DECISION OF ) HEARING OFFICER [REDACTED] ) ) Case No C I.D. No.

(Effective for taxable years beginning before January 1, 2017) Allocation and apportionment of income for corporations.

State Tax Return. Is There A Constitutional Standard for UDITPA 18 Alternative Apportionment?

The 2019 National Multistate Tax Symposium State tax reboot The age of Multistate. February 6-8, 2019

Explanatory Notes Legislative Proposals Relating to Income Taxation of Certain Trust and Estates

NC General Statutes - Chapter 105 Article 4 1

Presenting a live 110-minute teleconference with interactive Q&A. Today s faculty features:

The MTC Election Following Gillette vs. Franchise Tax Board

Guidelines for Pass-Through Entity Withholding

ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION

79th OREGON LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Regular Session. Enrolled

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

HOUSE BILL lr2477 CF SB 603 A BILL ENTITLED. Corporate Income Tax Rate Reduction and Reform

State Tax Return. Kristi L. Stathopoulos Atlanta (404)

Mergers and Acquisitions State and Local Tax Aspects

IRS issues regulations on disguised sales of property and allocations of partnership liabilities

State Tax Return (214) (214)

Agenda. Income/franchise tax. Nexus Sourcing of Revenue for Services Uniformity and Simplicity Intercompany Transactions Update. Salt Lunch and Learn

QUESTION: WHETHER TAXPAYER S GROSS RECEIPTS EARNED FROM THE ABOVE MENTIONED REVENUE CATEGORIES SHOULD BE SOURCED TO FLORIDA.

GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA SESSION 2007 S 1 SENATE BILL 244* Short Title: Modernize Corporate Income Tax Filing.

79th OREGON LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Regular Session

SUMMARY OF THE 2014 MISSISSIPPI TAXPAYER FAIRNESS ACT

Sales Factors Based on the Benefit Received

Shifting Apportionment Landscape TEI Nevada Chapter

State Tax Return. Massachusetts Applies the Operational Approach for Sourcing of Sales Other Than Sales of Tangible Personal Property

24 th Annual Health Sciences Tax Conference

GEORGIA ADOPTS ADVANTAGEOUS INCOME TAX TREATMENT FOR MANUFACTURING, SALES & SERVICE COMPANIES

Date and Last Agency Action on the Rule. Amended Eff. January 1, Unnecessary FRANCHISE TAX RETURNS. Amended Eff.

Implications. Background

Rulings of the Tax Commissioner

CALIFORNIA UPDATE. Financial Institutions State Tax Coalition Annual Meeting November 12, Jeffrey M. Vesely Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP

IRS re-issues proposed regulations on new partnership audit regime

CD-ROM Draft Copy Last printed 2/2/2015 6:36:00 AM Pass through bill

TWIST-Q Summary of developments First Quarter 2019

Section Income Attributable to Domestic Production Activities

Corporate Income Tax. webtax.org

Arizona Form 2015 Arizona Partnership Income Tax Return 165

State Tax Matters The power of knowing. May 26, In this issue:

New Jersey enacts sweeping Corporate Business Tax changes

State Tax Matters The power of knowing. December 22, In this issue:

SALT Alert! : Significant Corporation Business Tax Changes Enacted in New Jersey

Transcription:

State & Local Tax Alert Breaking state and local tax developments from Grant Thornton LLP Montana Enacts Legislation Adopting Market-Based Sourcing On May 3, 2017, Montana enacted legislation revising its Multistate Tax Compact (Compact) provisions, as recommended by the Multistate Tax Commission (MTC), to adopt market-based sourcing for sales other than sales of tangible property, change definitional terms for business income and sales, and expand alternative apportionment provisions. 1 The legislation takes effect January 1, 2018 and applies to tax years beginning after December 31, 2017. Background In 1957, the Uniform Law Commission promulgated the Uniform Division of Income for Tax Purposes Act (UDITPA) to provide uniform laws that states could adopt to assign the taxable income of multistate corporations among the states in which they do business. In 1967, the MTC created the Compact and included the UDITPA provisions in Article IV. In 2014 and 2015, the MTC revised Article IV of the Compact to, among other things, adopt market-based sourcing for receipts from transactions other than sales of tangible personal property. 2 With the adoption of this legislation, Montana revises its Compact provisions to conform to many of the MTC revisions. Article IV, Section 1 Definitional Changes The MTC amended Article IV, Section 1 of the Compact to change definitional terms for business income and sales. The Montana legislation adopts these revisions. Under Article IV, Section 1, the definitional term business income has been replaced with apportionable income. 3 Apportionable income is defined as all income that is apportionable under the U.S. Constitution and is not allocated under the laws of Montana, 4 including: (A) income arising from transactions and activity in the regular course of the taxpayer s trade or business; 5 and (B) income arising from tangible and intangible property if the acquisition, management, employment, development or disposition of the property is or was related to the operation of the taxpayer s trade or business. 6 The definition of apportionable income also includes any income that would be Release date May 23, 2017 States Montana Issue/Topic Corporate Income Tax Contact details Nisha Mathew Seattle T 206.398.2445 E nisha.mathew@us.gt.com Jamie C. Yesnowitz Washington, DC T 202.521.1504 E jamie.yesnowitz@us.gt.com Chuck Jones Chicago T 312.602.8517 E chuck.jones@us.gt.com Lori Stolly Cincinnati T 513.345.4540 E lori.stolly@us.gt.com Priya D. Nair Washington, DC T 202.521.1546 E priya.nair@us.gt.com www.grantthornton.com/salt 1 H.B. 511, Laws 2017. 2 Model General Allocation and Apportionment Regulations, Prefatory Notes. For further discussion of the amendments to the Compact, see GT SALT Alert: Multistate Tax Commission Finalizes Compact Provision Amendments. 3 MONT. CODE ANN. 15-1-601, ART. IV, (1)(a). 4 MONT. CODE ANN. 15-1-601, ART. IV, (1)(a)(i). 5 MONT. CODE ANN. 15-1-601, ART. IV, (1)(a)(i)(A). 6 MONT. CODE ANN. 15-1-601, ART. IV, (1)(a)(i)(B)..

Grant Thornton LLP - 2 allocable to Montana under the U.S. Constitution but that is apportioned rather than allocated under the laws of Montana. 7 Similarly, the definitional term nonbusiness income has been replaced with nonapportionable income which is defined as all income other than apportionable income. 8 The term sales has been replaced with the term receipts, which is defined as all gross receipts of the taxpayer that are not allocated under Article IV and that are received from transactions and activity in the regular course of the taxpayer s trade or business. 9 However, receipts of a taxpayer from hedging transactions and from the maturity, redemption, sale, exchange, loan or other disposition of cash or securities are excluded. 10 Amendments were made throughout the statute to reflect these new terminologies and definitional changes. Sourcing of Receipts from Sales of Other than Tangible Personal Property Applicable to tax years beginning after December 31, 2017, Montana adopts a marketbased sourcing method for sourcing sales other than sales of tangible personal property. Specifically, receipts from sales of other than tangible property will be considered Montana receipts if the taxpayer s market for the sales is in Montana. 11 A taxpayer s market for sales is in Montana: 12 For the sale, rental, lease or license of real property, to the extent the property is located in Montana; 13 For the rental, lease or license of tangible personal property, to the extent the property is located in Montana; 14 For the sale of a service, to the extent the service is delivered to a location in Montana; 15 For the rental, lease or license of intangible property, to the extent it is used in Montana; 16 and For the sale of certain intangible property, to the extent the property is used in Montana. 17 It should be noted that only certain receipts from the sale of intangible property are included in the receipts factor calculation. A contract right, government license, or similar intangible property authorizing the holder to conduct a business activity in a specific geographic area is used in this state if the geographic area includes all or part of 7 MONT. CODE ANN. 15-1-601, ART. IV, (1)(a)(ii). 8 MONT. CODE ANN. 15-1-601, ART. IV, (1)(e). 9 MONT. CODE ANN. 15-1-601, ART. IV, (1)(g). 10 Id. 11 MONT. CODE ANN. 15-1-601, ART. IV, (17)(a). 12 Id. 13 MONT. CODE ANN. 15-1-601, ART. IV, (17)(a)(i). 14 MONT. CODE ANN. 15-1-601, ART. IV, (17)(a)(ii). 15 MONT. CODE ANN. 15-1-601, ART. IV, (17)(a)(iii). 16 MONT. CODE ANN. 15-1-601, ART. IV, (17)(a)(iv)(A). [I]ntangible property utilized in marketing a good or service to a consumer is used in this state if that good or service is purchased by a consumer who is in this state. 17 MONT. CODE ANN. 15-1-601, ART. IV, (17)(a)(iv)(B).

Grant Thornton LLP - 3 Montana. 18 Receipts from intangible property sales that are contingent on the productivity, use, or disposition of the intangible property are treated as receipts from the rental, lease, or licensing of such intangible property. 19 All other receipts from sales of intangible property are excluded from the receipts factor calculation. 20 Reasonable Approximation and Throwout Rule For purposes of sourcing receipts from sales other than sales of tangible personal property, the legislation allows for reasonable approximation if the state of assignment cannot be determined. 21 In addition, a throwout rule may apply under which receipts will be excluded from the denominator of the receipts factor if the taxpayer is not taxable in the state where a receipt is assigned under the above sourcing rules, or if the state of assignment cannot be determined or reasonably approximated. 22 Alternative Apportionment The legislation gives the tax administrator the authority to promulgate regulations for alternative apportionment if the standard allocation and apportionment rules do not fairly represent the extent of business activity in Montana of taxpayers engaged in a particular industry or in a particular transaction or activity. 23 This authority is in addition to its statutory powers to impose alternative apportionment on a taxpayer. 24 Any such regulation promulgated must be applied uniformly but the taxpayer may petition for, or the tax administrator may require, the use of Montana s alternative apportionment provision. 25 The party utilizing alternative apportionment must prove by a preponderance of the evidence: (A) that the allocation and apportionment provisions under Article IV do not fairly represent the extent of the taxpayer s business activity in Montana; and (B) that the alternative apportionment is reasonable. 26 The same burden of proof applies whether the taxpayer or the tax administrator is utilizing alternative apportionment. 27 However, if the tax administrator can show that in any two of the prior five tax years, the taxpayer had used an allocation or apportionment method that varied from the allocation or apportionment methods used for the other tax years, then the tax administrator will not bear the burden of proof when imposing a different method. 28 Further, if the tax administrator requires alternative apportionment in a situation where the taxpayer had relied on statutory allocation and apportionment, the tax administrator cannot impose a 18 MONT. CODE ANN. 15-1-601, ART. IV, (17)(a)(iv)(B)(I). 19 MONT. CODE ANN. 15-1-601, ART. IV, (17)(a)(iv)(B)(II). 20 MONT. CODE ANN. 15-1-601, ART. IV, (17)(a)(iv)(B)(III). 21 MONT. CODE ANN. 15-1-601, ART. IV, (17)(b). 22 MONT. CODE ANN. 15-1-601, ART. IV, (17)(c). 23 MONT. CODE ANN. 15-1-601, ART. IV, (18)(b)(i). 24 Id. MONT. CODE ANN. 15-1-601, ART. IV, (18)(a) provides that if the allocation and apportionment provisions do not fairly represent the extent of the taxpayer s business activity in Montana, the taxpayer may petition for or the tax administrator may require, with respect to all or any part of the taxpayer s business activity, if reasonable: (i) separate accounting; (ii) the exclusion of one or more factors; (iii) the inclusion of one or more additional factors that would fairly represent the taxpayer s business activity in Montana; or (iv) the employment of any other method that would effectuate an equitable solution and apportionment of the taxpayer s income. 25 MONT. CODE ANN. 15-1-601, ART. IV, (18)(b)(ii). 26 MONT. CODE ANN. 15-1-601, ART. IV, (18)(c)(i). 27 MONT. CODE ANN. 15-1-601, ART. IV, (18)(c)(ii). 28 Id.

Grant Thornton LLP - 4 penalty on the taxpayer. 29 Finally, a taxpayer that has received written permission from the tax administrator to use alternative apportionment cannot have that permission revoked with respect to transactions and activities that already occurred unless there has been a material change in the taxpayer s facts, or a material misrepresentation of such facts upon which the tax administrator relied. 30 Pass-Through Entities The legislation also provides that a partnership or S corporation with business activity occurring both within and outside Montana must use the allocation and apportionment provisions contained in the state s corporate income tax provisions. 31 The same also holds true for disregarded entities not owned by an individual, estate or trust. 32 Commentary Montana s adoption of most of the MTC s recommended changes to Article IV of the Compact is a positive step for the MTC s goal of state tax uniformity. However, it also highlights two problems inherent in the uniformity process the significant amount of time it takes to achieve uniformity, and the difficulty in getting to complete conformity. Most of the substantive amendments to Article IV of the Compact were approved by the MTC in July 2014. It has taken nearly three years for Montana to adopt the MTC s recommendations. In addition, Montana did not follow the MTC s recommendation in the revised Compact to move to a three-factor apportionment formula consisting of property, payroll and a double-weighted sales factor. Instead, Montana kept the historic Compact formula consisting of equally-weighted property, payroll and sales factors. 33 Furthermore, the adoption of the changes to the underlying statute only marks the first step. Montana will also need to promulgate regulations consistent with its statute and the MTC s model regulations. The MTC adopted amendments to its Model General Allocation and Apportionment Regulations on February 24, 2017 to reflect the changes made to Article IV of the Compact. The adoption process took almost three years and began on July 31, 2014 when the MTC s Executive Committee requested the Uniformity Committee to draft regulations to implement recommended Article IV changes. The bulk of the model regulations were comprised of highly detailed, and highly complex, sourcing rules for receipts from transactions other than sales of tangible personal property. Given the lack of specificity in Montana s newly adopted sourcing provisions, it remains to be seen when and how Montana will address the promulgation of rules that will flesh out the details of the sourcing provisions. The information contained herein is general in nature and based on authorities that are subject to change. It is not intended and should not be construed as legal, accounting or tax advice or opinion provided by Grant Thornton LLP to the reader. This material may not be applicable to or suitable for specific 29 MONT. CODE ANN. 15-1-601, ART. IV, (18)(d). 30 MONT. CODE ANN. 15-1-601, ART. IV, (18)(e). 31 MONT. CODE ANN. 15-30-3302(6)(a). 32 MONT. CODE ANN. 15-30-3302(6)(b). 33 MONT. CODE ANN. 15-1-601, ART. IV, (9).

Grant Thornton LLP - 5 circumstances or needs and may require consideration of nontax and other tax factors. Contact Grant Thornton LLP or other tax professionals prior to taking any action based upon this information. Grant Thornton LLP assumes no obligation to inform the reader of any changes in tax laws or other factors that could affect information contained herein. No part of this document may be reproduced, retransmitted or otherwise redistributed in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including by photocopying, facsimile transmission, recording, re-keying or using any information storage and retrieval system without written permission from Grant Thornton LLP. This document supports the marketing of professional services by Grant Thornton LLP. It is not written tax advice directed at the particular facts and circumstances of any person. Persons interested in the subject of this document should contact Grant Thornton or their tax advisor to discuss the potential application of this subject matter to their particular facts and circumstances. Nothing herein shall be construed as imposing a limitation on any person from disclosing the tax treatment or tax structure of any matter addressed.