Unitary Business Archives

Unitary Business

Colorado Changes Rules for Determining Members of Combined Filing Group

by Stephen P. Kranz, Michael J. Hilkin and David Jasphy | May 20, 2024 | Colorado, Income Tax, Tax Base, Unitary Business

Colorado Governor Jared Polis has signed legislation that would replace Colorado’s unique “3 of 6” rule for determining the members of a unitary group for combined reporting purposes and instead adopt what Legislative Council Staff has called “the Multistate Tax Commission’s standard” for determining the members of a combined filing group.

Under current law, a combined report may only contain those members of an affiliated group of corporations as to which three of the following six facts have been in existence in the tax return year and the two preceding years:

Sales or leases between one affiliate and another constitute 50% or more of the gross operating receipts or cost of goods sold of the entity making the sales/leases
Certain back-office services are provided by one affiliate for the benefit of another
Twenty percent or more of the long-term debt of one affiliate is owed to or guaranteed by another affiliate
One affiliate substantially uses certain intellectual property of another affiliate
Fifty percent or more of the board of one affiliate are members of the board or are corporate officers of another affiliate
Twenty-five percent or more of the 20 highest ranking officers of an affiliate are members of the board or are corporate officers of another affiliate.

Under the new law all members of a “unitary business” will be required to file a combined report. A “unitary business” is defined as an affiliated group of entities “that are sufficiently interdependent, integrated, and interrelated through their activities so as to provide a synergy and mutual benefit that produces a sharing or exchange of value among them and a significant flow of value to the separate parts.”

The new law keeps Colorado’s water’s-edge rule in place, but it’s notable that said rule provides an exception for any entity “incorporated in a foreign jurisdiction for the purpose of tax avoidance” while identifying a list of nations where a corporation will be presumed to be incorporated for tax avoidance purposes (including the Cayman Islands, Luxembourg, Monaco, etc.).

Presuming Colorado voters don’t file a referendum petition and get the legislation overturned in November, the new standard would go into effect for tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2026.

Vermont Considers Imposing Mandatory Worldwide Combined Reporting

by Stephen P. Kranz, Michael J. Hilkin and David Jasphy | Feb 2, 2024 | Federal Tax, Income Tax, Local Tax, Nationwide Importance, Tax Base, Unitary Business, Vermont

The Vermont House Committee on Ways and Means is actively exploring a proposal to become the first state to enact mandatory worldwide combined reporting for corporate income tax purposes. While legislation has not been formally proposed, the Committee has examined a working draft that could be embedded into a broader tax legislation package.

In Committee testimony supporting the adoption of mandatory worldwide combined reporting, Don Griswold, a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, argued that multinational corporations “pay huge fees to sophisticated advisers to develop an endless variety of complex schemes that shift their profits offshore.” According to him, mandatory worldwide combined reporting would be “the complete solution” to stopping what he perceives as a “loophole for massive tax avoidance.” He also intimated that several companies are among those he believes are currently engaging in “tax avoidance,” even though he freely acknowledged that he worked in a “Big 4 accounting firm’s 600-person ‘state tax minimization’ group” for most of his career.

On the other hand, at least one representative from the Vermont Department of Taxes has suggested that worldwide mandatory combined reporting is not the panacea that Griswold claims it would be. In Committee testimony, Will Baker, assistant attorney general and general counsel at the Department of Taxes, pointed out that a corporation’s Vermont taxable income could increase or decrease under worldwide combined reporting depending on the profitability of the corporation’s domestic and overseas subsidiaries and the locations of the corporate unitary group’s sales throughout the world. Baker also suggested that the Department of Taxes would face practical challenges calculating the income of subsidiaries that are not part of a corporate filing at the US federal level. Finally, he added that “small states” should generally “have the same rules that other states have” to make it easier for taxpayers to comply with Vermont law.

The McDermott state & local tax team will be closely monitoring this legislative proposal to see whether the Vermont General Assembly takes heed of the advice of its own officials at the Department of Taxes.

At the 10-Yard Line: New York Formally Proposes Corporate Tax Reform Regulations

by Stephen P. Kranz, Richard C. Call, Michael J. Hilkin and David Jasphy | Aug 11, 2023 | Allocation/Apportionment, Income Tax, Local Tax, Nationwide Importance, New York, Nexus, Unitary Business

On August 9, 2023, the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance (Department) released 417 pages of proposed regulations, an important step toward concluding a now almost decade-long process to implement corporate tax reform.

The journey began in 2014 with the enactment of legislation modernizing the state’s corporate tax law. Thereafter, the Department released several versions of draft regulations while warning taxpayers that the drafts were “not final and should not be relied upon.” Even though the Department announced last spring that it intended to formally propose and adopt such regulations in fall 2022, taxpayers had to wait another year.

Comments on the proposed regulations must be provided to the Department by October 10, and the regulations will be finalized thereafter. In this article, we’re taking a closer look at a few of the items included in the proposed regulations.

ADOPTION OF THE MULTISTATE TAX COMMISSION’S INTERPRETATION OF P.L. 86-272

Consistent with the Department’s final version of the draft regulations, the proposed regulations contain rules based on model regulations adopted by the Multistate Tax Commission, which narrowly interpret P.L. 86-272. Under the proposed regulations, “interacting with customers or potential customers through the corporation’s website or computer application” exceeds P.L. 86-272 protection. By contrast, “a corporation will not be made taxable solely by presenting static text or images on its website.” This sweeping change remains surprising because P.L. 86-272 is a federal law, the scope of which is not addressed by the state’s corporate tax reform.

THE ELIMINATION OF THE “UNUSUAL EVENTS” RULE

The proposed regulations omit the “unusual events” rule contained in the 2016 draft regulations. Generally consistent with Department regulations long predating the state’s corporate tax reform legislation, the 2016 draft stated that “business receipts from sales of real, personal, or intangible property that arose from unusual events” were not included in the business apportionment factor. For example, a consulting firm that sold its office building for a gain would not have included the gain in its apportionment factor because the sale was considered to be from an unusual event. The Department claims to have abandoned the rule “because Tax Reform provided significantly more detailed sourcing rules, including guidelines for those transactions that might have been excluded under pre-reform policy.”

SAFE HARBOR SOURCING FOR DIGITAL PRODUCTS AND SERVICES

Post-reform corporate tax law sources receipts from digital products and digital services to New York if the location the customers derive value from is in New York as determined by a complicated hierarchy of methods. The proposed regulations provide a simplified safe harbor in applying this sourcing rule, where “if the corporation has more than 250 business customers purchasing substantially similar digital products or digital services as purchased by the particular customer . . . and no more than 5% of receipts from such digital products or digital services are from that particular customer, then the primary use location of the digital product or digital service is [...]

Continue Reading

As Minnesota Moves Toward GILTI Taxation, New Jersey May Be Moving Away from It

by Stephen P. Kranz, Michael J. Hilkin and Diann Smith | May 23, 2023 | Allocation/Apportionment, Federal Tax, Income Tax, Minnesota, Nationwide Importance, New Jersey, Tax Base, Unitary Business

We previously reported that the Minnesota Legislature was considering imposing mandatory worldwide combined reporting through an omnibus tax bill. Subsequent to our report and in the face of numerous criticisms, Minnesota Senate leaders backed away from the proposal. But ominously, those same leaders said they would examine other tax increases to make up for the (potentially hypothetical) revenue left on the table by moving away from mandatory worldwide combined reporting.

After a series of negotiations, an updated omnibus tax bill (HF 1938) emerged from the Minnesota Legislature conference committee over the weekend, which has already been passed by both the Minnesota House and Senate. Most notably for corporate taxpayers, the legislation:

Recouples Minnesota with the Internal Revenue Code provision providing for the inclusion of global intangible low-taxed income (GILTI) (under IRC § 951A) in the corporate tax base while providing a 50% dividends received deduction (but no deduction under IRC § 250)
Reduces the dividends received deduction from 80% to 50% for corporations in which the recipient owns 20% or more of the stock and from 70% to 40% for corporations in which the recipient owns less than 20% of the stock and
Decreases a corporation’s maximum net operating loss deduction from 80% to 70% of taxable net income each year.

As no prior bills proposing these tax increases had been introduced in the Minnesota Legislature, these tax increases have been passed without any public hearing or public testimony. The rush to put these proposals together may explain why the legislation fails to address how income from GILTI must be accounted for in determining a taxpayer’s apportionment factor.

Minnesota’s move toward GILTI taxation is out of step with legislation introduced in New Jersey, which would increase the state’s GILTI deduction to 95% from 50%. The proposal, which is part of a broader legislative compromise package negotiated by New Jersey government officials and businesses, has the support of the chair of the New Jersey Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee and has been publicly called “win-win” legislation by a New Jersey Division of Taxation representative.

As litigation addressing the constitutionality of taxing GILTI is already percolating through administrative appeals in numerous states, it is likely that New Jersey’s potential move away from GILTI taxation will prove to be the more fiscally prudent way to go.

Buehler Doesn’t Get a Day Off from Double Taxation

by Charles Moll, III and Michael J. Hilkin | May 12, 2023 | California, Constitutional Issues, Income Tax, Massachusetts, State Tax, Unitary Business

The California Office of Tax Appeals (OTA) recently held that a California resident’s income tax paid to Massachusetts from the sale of his membership interest in a limited liability company (LLC) doing business in Massachusetts was not eligible for California’s other state tax credit. The OTA reached this conclusion while acknowledging that it “will result in the income” from the sale of the membership interest “being double taxed.”

The taxpayer in the case, Mr. Buehler, was one of three managing members of an LLC that had an office in Massachusetts and provided portfolio management services for pooled investment vehicles. Buehler “was actively involved in” the LLC’s management and operations. After selling his membership interest in the LLC, Buehler filed a Massachusetts nonresident tax return and reported and paid tax on a share of the net gain from the sale of the membership interest, using the LLC’s Massachusetts apportionment factors.

The OTA’s decision did not question whether Buehler properly determined, under Massachusetts law, the tax owed to Massachusetts from the sale of his LLC membership interest. At that time, the Massachusetts Department of Revenue took the position that such sales of pass-through entity interests were taxable in Massachusetts where the entity conducted business regardless of whether the seller was “unitary” with the entity. (See, e.g., VAS Holdings & Investments LLC v. Comm’r of Revenue, 489 Mass. 669 (2022).) Instead, the OTA focused on the language of California’s other state tax credit, which applies to income taxes paid to another state on “income derived from sources within that state.” As stated by the OTA, “in order for a California taxpayer to be entitled” to a credit, “income taxes paid to the nonresident state (here, Massachusetts) must be based on income sourced to that nonresident state using California’s nonresident sourcing rules.” (Emphasis in original).

The OTA determined that under Cal. Rev. & Tax. Code § 17952, the LLC interest was not sourced to Massachusetts because Buehler’s LLC membership interest had not acquired a “business situs” in Massachusetts. According to the OTA, Buehler’s activities as a managing member of the LLC did not cause the “membership interest itself” to be “integrated into the business activities” of the LLC “in Massachusetts.” (Emphasis in original). In other words, while Buehler’s “services for” the LLC “as one of its three managing partners may connect him with” the LLC’s “Massachusetts business activities, that fact alone does not show that [Buehler’s] membership interest was localized in Massachusetts.”

The OTA also rejected Buehler’s alternative argument that his active involvement in the LLC caused him to “become unitary” with the LLC’s business, allowing for combination and apportionment under California Tax Regulation § 17951-4(d). The OTA explained that Buehler did not establish that he was “operating a sole proprietorship or any kind of business activity” separate and apart from the LLC “that could be considered unitary with” the LLC.

The OTA acknowledged that its decision would lead to double taxation of income from the sale of the LLC membership interest but concluded [...]

Continue Reading

Be Careful What You Wish For: Minnesota May Be on the Precipice of Enacting Worldwide Combined Reporting at the Worst Possible Time

by Stephen P. Kranz, Michael J. Hilkin and Diann Smith | May 4, 2023 | Federal Tax, Income Tax, Local Tax, Minnesota, Nationwide Importance, Tax Base, Unitary Business

It has been widely reported that the Minnesota Legislature has advanced an omnibus tax bill that would require the inclusion of the “entire worldwide income” of combined corporate income tax filers engaging in a unitary business. Tax press outlets have made the broad claim that mandatory worldwide combined reporting will “add foreign subsidiaries’ profits” to Minnesota corporate tax returns. But these claims disregard how such a change in Minnesota’s tax regime would also bring worldwide losses into a combined filing group’s income (or loss) calculation. If Minnesota passes mandatory worldwide combined reporting legislation this year and economic expert predictions of an impending global recession come true, the state could see a significant decrease in revenue from its corporate income tax.

Claims that worldwide combined reporting will bring additional profits into the corporate tax base presuppose foreign subsidiaries added to a combined group are always profitable. But if the entities added to a combined group are unprofitable, the opposite would be true. Instead, the foreign entities would either decrease income subject to state corporate income taxation or increase losses that generate net operating loss carryforwards that will decrease state corporate income taxation in future years.

This isn’t just a hypothetical concern. Tax specialists who practiced in the wake of the 2008 global recession recall that states with combined reporting regimes often sought to force unitary groups of corporations to “decombine” in order to remove entities generating losses from the state corporate tax base. When attempts to decombine were unsuccessful (as many were), states were often forced to walk away from large assessments or pay large refunds to corporate taxpayers. Such experiences should serve as a reminder that combined reporting often can decrease a state’s revenues from a corporate income tax. In Minnesota’s case, the potential for lost tax revenues may only balloon if its legislature imposes worldwide combined reporting during a recession.

No state currently has a true mandatory worldwide combined reporting regime (Alaska only imposes it on specific industries), and concerns about bringing foreign loss companies into the combined group is one of many reasons why. If Minnesota were to break state ranks by imposing worldwide combined reporting and a US parent corporation determined the regime could cause its Minnesota taxable income to increase, the corporation would have every incentive to either avoid or decrease connections with the state—potentially causing the state to lose out on capital investments that bring jobs with high wages and benefits.

Further, any attempt to impose mandatory worldwide combined reporting is likely to cause an international backlash, along with potential federal action and litigation challenging Minnesota’s regime. In the immediate wake of a 1983 U.S. Supreme Court decision indicating, to a limited degree, that a state mandatory worldwide combined reporting regime could pass constitutional muster, the US Department of the Treasury completed a study outlining state taxing principles supported by “state, [...]

Continue Reading

Last Minute Relief for Filers of Business Property Statements

by Charles Moll, III, Elle Kaiser, Marcy Jo Mandel and Troy M. Van Dongen | May 5, 2020 | California, Local Tax, Procedure, Unitary Business

Once again, San Francisco has shown leadership in addressing property tax relief during the COVID-19 pandemic. On Monday, May 4, 2020, the San Francisco County Assessor announced that she was moving the deadline for businesses to file their Business Property Statements (Form 571-L) to June 1 of this year, due to physical office closure of the San Francisco Office of Assessor-Recorder.

Normally, under state law, a 10 percent penalty automatically attaches when a taxpayer’s business property statement is filed after May 7. But, if May 7 falls on a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday, then a property statement that is mailed and postmarked on the next business day is deemed to have been timely filed. Under the applicable statue, legal holidays include days when the county’s offices are closed for the entire day.

(more…)

California FTB to Discuss Apportionment of Combined Group Income

by Roy E. Crawford | Mar 24, 2016 | Allocation/Apportionment, California, Income Tax, Unitary Business

The California Franchise Tax Board (FTB) will hold a second Interested Parties Meeting at their office in Rancho Cordova on April 20, 2016, dealing with the apportionment of income for combined reporting groups with both financial and non-financial members. The Notice of Interested Parties meeting provides a description of the sourcing methods used in other states and solicits comments on four specific proposals.

The current statute and regulations, applied literally, in effect assign the majority of combined income of bank(s) and broker-dealer(s) to the location of the bank(s) or broker-dealer(s) and its customers. This can produce an issue worth many hundreds of millions of dollars to the bank or broker dealer. We understand that the California FTB has issued ad hoc Notices of Proposed Assessment to some taxpayers based on a distortion theory; some of these cases have gone to the Settlement Bureau, where both the FTB and the taxpayers have settled and executed confidentiality agreements.

The FTB takes these Interested Parties Meetings very seriously. They have an unusual format in that there is not a record of who said what, the goal being to have a full and frank discussion on a non-attribution basis. An early example of collaboration between the FTB and interested parties produced what is now Reg. 25137-10. Before the regulation, many years ago Sears argued that it was not engaged in a unitary business with a finance company subsidiary. Sears lost in the trial court on that issue, but the court also held that Sears was entitled to include intangible personal property in the property factor, and the situs of that property was Illinois, resulting in a refund for Sears. Regulation 25137-10 represented an effort to harmonize the income-producing character of intangible personal property with tangible property in the property factor, and the outcome was that intangible property would be included in the property factor at 20 percent of face value. This regulation and the bank regulation 25137-4.2 provide the current regulatory basis for modification of the statutory formula where high volume, low profit activity is combined with other activity in a combined return, but Reg. 24137-10 only applies where the principal business activity of the combined group is not financial.

Taxpayers should follow these regulatory activities carefully, as evidenced by the adoption of a regulation a few years ago on sourcing income of mutual fund service providers, which was favorable to California-based taxpayers. The statute provided for sourcing income from services at the location of income-producing activities, measured by cost of performance. The adopted regulation instead provides for a form of market sourcing.

A Steep Slope — Vermont Supreme Court Finds AIG Not Unitary With a Ski Resort Based On a Clear and Cogent Evidence Burden of Proof

by Arthur R. Rosen and Richard C. Call | Nov 30, 2015 | Allocation/Apportionment, Constitutional Issues, Income Tax, Nationwide Importance, Tax Base, Unitary Business, Vermont

In the first Vermont Supreme Court decision addressing combined unitary reporting since Vermont’s combined reporting regime became effective in 2006, the court affirmed a lower court’s decision that AIG, the multinational insurance company, was not unitary with a ski resort operated by a subsidiary in Vermont; accordingly, a combined report covering the two businesses was not required. The decision is important because it lays the foundation for future unitary cases in Vermont.

The court agreed with AIG that there were no economies of scale between the operations of AIG and the ski resort. “Because [the entity] is a ski resort and therefore its business type is not similar to AIG’s insurance and financial service business, there is no opportunity for common centralized distribution or sales, and no economy of scale realized by their operations.” On centralization of management, the court noted that although AIG controlled the appointments to the ski resort’s board and management, this did not translate into “actual control” over the ski resort’s operations. Lastly, the Vermont Department of Taxes attempted to argue functional integration based primarily on AIG’s influx of working capital to the ski resort. The court rejected this assertion stating the funding “served an investment rather than operational function. The financing was not part of an AIG operational goal to grow part of its business. Further, there is no operational integration between AIG’s insurance and financial businesses and the ski resort operated by [the resort].”

The case is interesting because it involved whether an instate entity was unitary with its parent. For the year at issue, Vermont had a three factor apportionment formula with a double-weighted sales factor. Presumably, the ski resort had a high Vermont apportionment factor and relatively little income, so including AIG in the combined group increased AIG’s Vermont apportionment factor without significantly diluting its income.

Interestingly, the court addressed AIG’s burden of proof on the unitary issue. The taxpayer argued that a preponderance of the evidence standard should apply. The Vermont Supreme Court disagreed. Looking to the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Container Corp. as well as to decisions of other states, the taxpayer has the burden of proving by “clear and cogent” evidence that its operations are not unitary. Interestingly, the court suggested that one California court decision that applied a preponderance of the evidence standard to a unitary question was distinguishable because that case involved a taxpayer claiming that unity existed — and AIG was claiming that unity did not exist. This disparate burden depending on the direction of the unitary argument may prove important to taxpayers seeking to bring entities or operations into a combined report in Vermont.

State tax professionals may react to this decision in a manner similar to the way many reacted when the Court of Appeals of Arizona decided Talley Industries and Woolworth. Those decisions engendered substantial hope that courts — and, ultimately, state revenue agencies — would analyze unitariness not on the basis of a “checklist” or as a knee-jerk reaction to [...]

Continue Reading

NYS Tax Appeals Tribunal Provides Guidance Respecting Unitary Business Determinations

by McDermott Will & Emery | Jun 2, 2015 | Income Tax, Nationwide Importance, New York, Unitary Business

The New York State Tax Appeals Tribunal has just provided timely guidance respecting the unitary business rule in New York State. In SunGard Capital Corp. and Subsidiaries (DTA Nos. 823631, 823632, 823680, 824167, and 824256, May 19, 2015), the Tribunal found that a group of related corporations were conducting a unitary business and that they should be allowed to file combined returns, reversing an administrative law judge determination.

The unitary business rules have assumed increased importance in New York this year because of recently-enacted corporate tax reform legislation. Effective January 1, 2015, the only requirements for combination in New York State and City are that the corporations must be linked by 50 percent stock ownership and must be engaged in a unitary business. It is no longer necessary for the party seeking combination (whether the taxpayer or the Department of Taxation and Finance) to show that separate filing would distort the corporations’ New York incomes.

In a related but different context, the Department’s unpublished position with respect to when an acquiring corporation and a recently purchased subsidiary can begin filing combined returns (the so-called “instant unity” issue) generally is that combined returns can be filed from the date of acquisition only if the corporations were engaged in a unitary business before they became linked by common ownership. In a recent set of questions and answers about the new law, the Department indicated that instant unitary decisions would be done on a facts-and-circumstances basis, but we understand from conversations with the Department that the existence of a unitary business between the corporations before the acquisition will be of great importance.

The SunGard case involved prior law under which distortion was an issue, but the interesting aspects of the case involve the question of whether the corporations were engaged in a unitary business, as the taxpayers contended. The corporations’ primary business involved providing information technology sales and services information, software solutions and software licensing. The administrative law judge had concluded that there were similarities among the different business segments but that the different segments operated autonomously. Although the parent provided general oversight and strategic guidance to the subsidiaries, the judge concluded that centralized management, one of the traditional criteria for a unitary business, was not present because the parent’s involvement was not operational. The centralization of certain management functions such as human resources and accounting did not involve operational income-producing activities. The judge held that holding companies, inactive companies, and companies with little or no income or expenses could not be viewed as unitary with the active companies. The judge noted that there were few cross-selling or intercompany transactions. Although programs had been developed to encourage cross-selling, they were not initiated until after the taxable years at issue.

The Tribunal reversed the administrative law judge’s decision and engaged in a detailed discussion of the elements of a unitary business that will provide useful guidance to both taxpayers and tax administrators in the future.

Although there were differences among the different segments of [...]

Continue Reading

BLOG EDITORS

Stephen P. Kranz

Mary Kay McCalla Martire

Richard C. Call

BLOG EDITORS

STAY CONNECTED

TOPICS

ARCHIVES

RECENT POSTS