advanced income tax apportionment issues confronting...

WHO TO CONTACT DURING THE LIVE PROGRAM

For Additional Registrations:-Call Strafford Customer Service 1-800-926-7926 x1 (or 404-881-1141 x1)

For Assistance During the Live Program:-On the web, use the chat box at the bottom left of the screen

If you get disconnected during the program, you can simply log in using your original instructions and PIN.

IMPORTANT INFORMATION FOR THE LIVE PROGRAM

This program is approved for 2 CPE credit hours. To earn credit you must:

• Participate in the program on your own computer connection (no sharing) – if you need to register additional people, please call customer service at 1-800-926-7926 ext. 1 (or 404-881-1141 ext. 1). Strafford accepts American Express, Visa, MasterCard, Discover.

• Listen on-line via your computer speakers.

• Respond to five prompts during the program plus a single verification code.

• To earn full credit, you must remain connected for the entire program.

Advanced Income Tax Apportionment Issues

Confronting Multistate CompaniesTUESDAY, JULY 23, 2019, 1:00-2:50 pm Eastern

FOR LIVE PROGRAM ONLY

Tips for Optimal Quality FOR LIVE PROGRAM ONLY

Sound Quality

When listening via your computer speakers, please note that the quality

of your sound will vary depending on the speed and quality of your internet

connection.

If the sound quality is not satisfactory, please e-mail [email protected]

immediately so we can address the problem.

July 23, 2019

Advanced Income Tax Apportionment Issues Confronting Multistate Companies

M.L. Castilla

CohnReznick

[email protected]

William Pardue

Ryan

[email protected]

Peter Rabinowitz

CohnReznick

[email protected]

Notice

ANY TAX ADVICE IN THIS COMMUNICATION IS NOT INTENDED OR WRITTEN BY

THE SPEAKERS’ FIRMS TO BE USED, AND CANNOT BE USED, BY A CLIENT OR ANY

OTHER PERSON OR ENTITY FOR THE PURPOSE OF (i) AVOIDING PENALTIES THAT

MAY BE IMPOSED ON ANY TAXPAYER OR (ii) PROMOTING, MARKETING OR

RECOMMENDING TO ANOTHER PARTY ANY MATTERS ADDRESSED HEREIN.

You (and your employees, representatives, or agents) may disclose to any and all persons,

without limitation, the tax treatment or tax structure, or both, of any transaction

described in the associated materials we provide to you, including, but not limited to,

any tax opinions, memoranda, or other tax analyses contained in those materials.

The information contained herein is of a general nature and based on authorities that are

subject to change. Applicability of the information to specific situations should be

determined through consultation with your tax adviser.

Agenda

• Sourcing of Receipts from Services and Intangibles –William Pardue

• Alternative Apportionment – Peter Rabinowitz

• Throwback/Throwout – William Pardue

• Joyce/Finnigan Issues – William Pardue

• Pass-through Entity Issues – Peter Rabinowitz

5

Sourcing of Sales from Services and Intangibles

William Pardue, Ryan

6

Sourcing of Receipts from the Sale of Non-Tangible Property (Cont.)

• Recent Developments

– New Jersey adopted market based sourcing for tax years beginning in 2019 and thereafter

– Hawaii switches to market based sourcing for tax years beginning on or after 12/31/2019

– California held fourth Interested Parties Meeting on add’l proposed amendments to the market-based sourcing reg (Cal. Code Regs. Title 18 §25136-2) on 07/19/2019

• Original reg issued in 2016 with first IPM in 2017

9


– Comcast of Massachusetts I, Inc. & Others v. Commissioner of Revenue, 18-P-561, 04/26/2019

• Dispute over use of transactional approach rather than the operational approach to determine income-producing activity for purposes of identifying whether COP are greater in-state

– Dish DBS Corporation f/k/a EchoStar, DBS Corp., and Affiliates, v. South Carolina Department of Revenue, 2016-001642; 2018-UP-404, 10/31/2018

• South Carolina is not a pro rata COP state, nor is it a market share state

10


– The Corporate Executive Board Company v. Virginia Department of Taxation, 171627 (Public Document Ruling No. 19-9), 02/07/2019

• Virginia sticks with COP despite trend shifting to market based sourcing

11


• Market based sourcing

– Shift to market based sourcing• In 2014 and 2015, changes to model apportionment statute

adopted market based sourcing and recommended states use a double weighted sales factor.

• MTC follows MA regulations of market based sourcing

– Rationale• The complexity of sourcing receipts from non-tangible property

• Administrative burden on all parties to determine costs of performance components

12

Alternative Apportionment

Peter Rabinowitz, CohnReznick

15


• The standard Alternative Apportionment provision is found in UDITPA § 18

– If the allocation and apportionment provisions of this Act do not fairly represent the extent of the taxpayer’s business activity in this state, the taxpayer may petition or the [tax administrator] may require alternative apportionment

• Burden of Proof varies based on state specific law

18


• Recent Developments– Arkansas ALJ Docket No. 18-467, 03/07/2019

• Double-weighted sales factor required for calculation of business income unless the taxpayer petitions the Department in writing for permission to use alternative apportionment formula prior to doing so; filing of return doesn’t constitute petition

– Staples, Inc., v. Comptroller of the Treasury, Docket No. 2597, 08/09/2018– Mississippi Department of Revenue v. Comcast of Georgia/Virginia, Inc., n/k/a

Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, G-2017-1147, 06/13/2019– Illinois Dept. of Rev. GIL No. IT-18-0003-GIL, 10/23/2018– Indiana Letting of Finding, No. 02-20171267, 02/01/2019– Maryland Guidance on the Reporting and Taxation of IRC § 951A GILTI,

05/13/2019– Maryland Guidance on the Reporting and Taxation of IRC § 965 Repatriation

Income for Tax Year 2017, 10/05/2018– Michigan Revenue Administrative Bulletin 2018-28– Missouri Policy Guidance: TCJA – IRC § 951A GILTI, 01/30/2019– North Carolina Corporate Technical Bulletin No. II, 01/01/2018– California FTB Legal Ruling No. 2019-01, 06/07/2019

30

Throwback/Throwout: Common Issues


31

Economic Nexus Impact on Throwback/Throwout


42

Foreign Sales Income and Throwback/Throwout


47

Joyce/Finnigan Positions


56

Joyce/Finnigan Nexus Controversies

• Texas receipts include “the gross receipts of each taxable entity that is a member of the combined group and that has a nexus with this state for the purposes of taxation.” (TX Tax Code Sect. 171.103)

• What nexus standard applies?

– Physical presence?

– P.L. 86-272 (in-state solicitation protected)

– Economic presence?

– Factor presence?

61

Joyce/Finnigan PTE Issues

• What about states that directly tax various PTE’s/DE’s? E.g., Texas?• Companies often overlook the Joyce/Finnigan impacts on otherwise

disregarded entities. Assume a stand-alone corporation with a SMLLC subsidiary. The parent corporation has Texas nexus, but the SMLLC does not, although it has some sales into Texas (falling short of the economic nexus thresholds that go into effect on 10/01/2019).

• Since Texas is a Joyce state, and the SMLLC does not have nexus, you should not include the sales of the SMLLC in the combined Texas receipts factor.

• Many companies overlook this, especially where PTE’s and combined reporting is involved.

63

Other PTE Apportionment Issues

Peter Rabinowitz, CohnReznick

64

Other PTE Apportionment Issues

• For Illinois purposes, transactions between PTE and its owner are eliminated

– IL DOR Ruling IT 08-0001-PLR (05/19/2008)

• California provides for eliminations

– CA Reg. Sec. 25137-1(f)

• Pennsylvania also eliminates intercompany transactions

– PA Reg. Sec. 153.29

• Oregon provides for elimination between a corporate member and LLCs

– OR Reg. Sec. 150-314-0385(9)

71

advanced income tax apportionment issues confronting...

Documents