Constantly changing rules and requirements. Overburdened internal resources. The compliance and planning demands placed on companies operating in multiple states can be huge.
Grant Thornton's team of state and local tax experts can help you meet the challenge. Our national network of professionals possess an impressive depth of experience and knowledge relative to the pursuit of refund opportunities and the reduction of state tax exposures.
Find out what compliance, planning and audit defense services we can offer your company. The results can be reduced effective tax rates, increased cash flow, reduced costs of doing business, improved measurable earnings, better integration of tax planning and operations, improved business risk management, improved internal processes and improved data integrity.
Tax credits and incentives services offer businesses the opportunity for tax and nontax savings, which reduce costs related to growth and investment plans.
Grant Thornton offers a suite of state and local income and franchise tax return review services. Our reviews are an unobtrusive way to identify potential refund opportunities and exposure items.
Numerous states have recently acted to renounce membership in the Multistate Tax Compact or departed from significant provisions in the compact. The states’ sudden shift away from the dompact may have major reverberations for taxpayers with significant corporation income tax liabilities in compact states and may even threaten the viability of the compact.
On April 15, 2013, the New Jersey Division of Taxation published a proposed regulation in the New Jersey Register that, if adopted, would change the way in which New Jersey determines whether receipts from services are included in the numerator of the Corporation Business Tax allocation factor sales fraction.
A Tennessee chancery court has held that the state’s Revenue Commissioner properly issued a variance requiring a telecommunications company to apportion sales using market-based sourcing based on a customer’s billing address rather than the statutory cost of performance method.
In a private letter ruling, the Illinois Department of Revenue determined that a taxpayer’s gain from selling the assets of a business segment is excluded from the sales factor as an occasional sale.
On April 4, Kentucky Governor Steve Beshear signed legislation that makes several changes to income tax law as well as sales and use tax law.
New York Governor Andrew Cuomo recently signed budget legislation which amends the related member royalty expense addback rules, reduces the tax rates for certain New York State manufacturers, extends the higher personal income tax rate for high-income individuals and extends the charitable contribution deduction limitation for high-income individuals.
Earlier this year, the Tennessee Department of Revenue released several 2012 revenue and letter rulings1 addressing a variety of franchise and excise (income) tax questions. In particular, the Department discussed the rules with respect to a not-for-profit’s franchise and excise tax liability.
On April 1, Utah Gov. Gary Herbert signed legislation withdrawing the state of Utah from the Multistate Tax Compact on June 30, 2013, and simultaneously readopting some of the Compact’s provisions until June 30, 2014.
On April 4, New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez signed significant tax reform legislation that reduces the corporate income tax rate, requires certain “big box” retailers to file combined reports and allows manufacturers to elect a gradually phased-in single sales factor apportionment formula.
The Alabama Department of Revenue recently has promulgated a corporate income tax regulation to clarify the statutory market-based sourcing methodology that is used to source sales other than sales of tangible personal property.
On March 7, the Oregon Supreme Court, in two separate decisions, held that the gain realized from the sale of two multistate telecommunications service providers’ assets constituted apportionable business income rather than nonbusiness income.
An Alabama administrative law judge (ALJ) has issued a final order on rehearing holding that separate return limitation year rules do not apply to net operating losses (NOLs) incurred by corporations that filed separate returns but were members of the same affiliated group during the loss year.
The Washington Supreme Court recently held that a voter-enacted supermajority requirement for the Washington legislature to enact tax increases violated the state constitution, but a constitutional challenge to a voter-enacted referendum requirement to approve tax bills increasing spending beyond the state spending limit could not be considered by the Court because there was no legal interest or injury at issue.
The U.S. Bankruptcy Court has held that imposition of the Oregon corporate excise tax upon a parent holding company violated the Due Process and Commerce Clauses of the U.S. Constitution as the parent had no property or employees in Oregon and had no sales or other revenue directly attributable to Oregon sources.
The Illinois Appellate Court has held that a taxpayer’s refund request of a good faith estimated payment made to the Department of Revenue through its participation in the 2003 amnesty program was within the applicable statute of limitations.
The Kentucky Department of Revenue has announced that for tax years beginning on or after Jan. 1, 2012, corporations and pass-through entities are required to file and attach a Related Party Costs Disclosure Statement (RPC) to their Forms 720, 720S, 765 or 765-GP.
The Puerto Rico Treasury Department has released regulations to provide guidance on the application of the new rules for controlled groups of corporations and related entities included in the Internal Revenue Code for a New Puerto Rico.
On Jan. 24, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals held that two out-of-state intangible holding companies had corporate income tax nexus with Maryland because they were in a “unitary business” relationship with their Maryland parent company.
The Illinois Appellate Court recently addressed the Department of Revenue’s ability to assess additional tax through a correction of a “mathematical error” when the department has a substantive dispute with the taxpayer’s position on its return. The Court held that the Department’s treatment of the taxpayer’s use of a certain apportionment factor formula as a “mathematical error” was improper, and that the use of a proper formula was substantive in nature, necessitating the issuance of a “notice of deficiency.”
On Jan. 17, the Oklahoma Court of Appeals determined that the state’s capital gains deduction statute impermissibly violated the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution by facially discriminating against non-Oklahoma companies or companies without headquarters located in the state.
The Texas comptroller of public accounts recently upheld a decision by the administrative law judge to limit a telecommunications company’s cost of goods sold (COGS) deduction for purposes of the revised Texas franchise tax to those costs incurred in purchasing certain telephone equipment that was sold to its customers in the regular course of business.
The Virginia tax commissioner recently issued a ruling that provides guidelines to manufacturers electing to use a single-sales-factor method to apportion income for purposes of the corporate income tax. The guidelines clarify the election and highlight the wage and employment requirements including a detailed discussion of the employment requirement as it relates to affiliated groups and corporate restructuring.
The New York State Department of Taxation and Finance has significantly amended its regulations explaining when corporations are required to file combined reports. The regulations are effective Jan. 2, 2013 and apply to taxable years beginning on or after Jan. 1, 2013.
On Jan. 3, 2013, the North Carolina Department of Revenue adopted regulations intended to clarify the Secretary’s authority to adjust net income or to force combined returns for income tax purposes as mandated by 2012 legislation.
This year promises to be one in which states consider innovative and potentially dramatic changes to their state tax systems. There will be significant shifts in the political composition of state legislatures as well as uncertainty about the effect of the fiscal cliff and the amount of funding that will be available from federal sources.
The North Carolina Department of Revenue has issued a notice discussing a change in its interpretation of the statute allowing a deduction to corporations that sustain a net economic loss (NEL) in any or all of the 15 preceding tax years. This may affect historic NEL calculations.
The New York State Department of Taxation and Finance has issued guidance providing the requirements that a taxpayer must meet to be classified as an “eligible qualified New York manufacturer” that is allowed to use lower corporation franchise tax rates.
On Dec. 18, the California Court of Appeal reversed a trial court’s ruling and determined that a taxpayer’s license of proprietary software, which transferred the right to replicate and install the software, but not the right to use the software, constituted the license of “intangible property” for apportionment purposes.
On Dec.11, Ohio Gov. John Kasich signed legislation that makes significant changes to the bonus depreciation addback rules applicable for purposes of calculating the Ohio income tax.The bill allows owners of pass-through entities who claim bonus depreciation and who increase payroll to reduce the amount of bonus depreciation required to be added back to adjusted gross income.
In a letter of findings, the Indiana Department of Revenue applied a market-based sourcing method and required an out-of-state taxpayer to include receipts from audience profile information that it sold to Indiana customers in its sales factor.
On Dec. 18, as a result of a recent one-day special legislative session, Oregon Gov. John Kitzhaber signed the Economic Impact Investment Act to encourage Nike Corporation, and potentially other large companies, to expand operations and invest in the state.
In 2012, state and local taxation focused on regulatory developments and court cases interpreting groundbreaking legislation. Marking the landscape were new combined reporting rules in the District of Columbia, challenges to the revised Texas franchise tax and the New York payroll tax, and novel market-based sourcing provisions.
The case of Gillette Co. v. Franchise Tax Board was the most significant SALT development of the year. The case interpreted whether a taxpayer could elect to apportion income under a standard equally weighted apportionment formula consisting of property, payroll and sales factors under the Multistate Tax Compact. The election to use the equally weighted apportionment formula affects nearly 20 other states that have adopted the Compact.
The Illinois Appellate Court has upheld the Illinois Department of Revenue’s partial denial of a taxpayer’s claim for a refund based on the carryback of a capital loss.
The California Franchise Tax Board has issued a technical advice memorandum to explain that economic nexus standards do not apply to the throwback rule for tax years beginning before Jan. 1, 2011.
On Dec. 7, the Illinois Appellate Court held that the apportionment factor numerator of pipeline companies must include miles traveled by natural gas in pipelines through Illinois even if the natural gas did not originate or terminate in the state (flow-through miles).
On Nov. 6, San Francisco voters approved Measure E, which imposes a gross receipts tax on people engaged in business activities in San Francisco. The measure will phase out the payroll expense tax in increments consistent with the phase-in of the gross receipts tax over a five-year period starting in tax years beginning on or after Jan. 1, 2014.
On Nov. 6, Oklahoma voters approved a ballot measure that exempts all intangible personal property from state property taxes beginning with tax years after 2012. As a result, the Oklahoma Business Activity Tax (BAT), which has been in effect for nearly three years, will expire for tax years after 2012 unless the Oklahoma legislature takes action to restore it.
On Oct. 17, the Missouri Administrative Hearing Commission (AHC) held that dividends paid to a parent corporation and its subsidiaries by affiliates that were part of the same consolidated group were required to be excluded from the sales factor denominator because the facts failed to determine the amount of dividends that arose from operations in Missouri, and the inclusion of dividends only in the sales factor denominator would prevent the fair operation of the apportionment formula.
On Nov. 6, 2012, California voters approved Proposition 30, “The Schools and Local Public Safety Protection Act of 2012,” and Proposition 39, “Income Tax Increase for Multistate Businesses.” Voter approval of Proposition 30 retroactively increased 2012 personal income tax (PIT) rates and increases PIT rates for the 2013 through 2018 tax years.
The Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts has affirmed an administrative law judge decision holding that a taxpayer that sold and installed automobile parts and accessories was eligible for the lower revised Texas franchise tax rate that applies to retailers and wholesalers.
On Nov. 16, the District of Columbia enacted temporary legislation that amends and clarifies the combined reporting statutes that are effective for tax years beginning after Dec. 31, 2010.The clarifying legislation transfers enforcement of the combined reporting requirements from the mayor to the chief financial officer, and amends statutory provisions concerning key definitions, treatment of partnerships and their unincorporated business (UB) entities, composition of the water’s-edge group,automatic extension of the worldwide election and the Financial Accounting Standard No. 109 (FAS 109) deduction.
On Oct. 25, the New Jersey Tax Court held on remand that an out-of-state limited partner of a New Jersey limited partnership was entitled to a refund of corporate business tax (CBT) paid on its behalf by the limited partnership. In prior decisions, the New Jersey Tax Court and the Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court held that the out-of-state limited partner did not have nexus with New Jersey and was not subject to the CBT.
The New Mexico Taxation and Revenue Department has ruled that receipts from the sale of Web-based services to New Mexico subscribers were subject to the state’s gross receipts tax. The department found that a subscription fee to access Web-based services constituted a taxable “license” or a form of “property,” which is sourced to New Mexico based on the customer’s location or the location “where it will be normally exercised.”
The California Franchise Tax Board (FTB) has issued a chief counsel ruling that applies California’s new economic nexus standard, the Finnigan rule, and market-based sourcing to determine when the throwback rule will apply to sales of tangible personal property shipped from California to another jurisdiction.
The Massachusetts Appellate Tax Board has held that a book publisher was a “manufacturing corporation” required to apportion its income using a single-factor sales formula to compute its corporate excise tax liability.
The Texas Supreme Court has upheld the revised Texas franchise tax (RTFT) against a constitutional challenge under both the Texas and U.S. Constitutions. The court found that the RTFT did not violate the Equal and Uniform Clause of the Texas Constitution because the structuring of the RTFT classifications was reasonably related to the object of the tax, or the privilege of doing business in Texas.
On Sept. 17, the Oregon Tax Court held that the sale of electricity did not constitute the sale of tangible personal property for corporation income tax apportionment purposes for the taxpayer’s tax years ending March 31, 2002, through March 31, 2004. As such, for purposes of sourcing the taxpayer’s sales of electricity, the cost of performance rule was applied rather than sourcing sales according to the ultimate destination location.
In a letter of findings, the Indiana Department of Revenue required a taxpayer that filed an Indiana consolidated corporate income tax return to use an alternative apportionment method to fairly reflect Indiana income. In requiring alternative apportionment, the department determined that the use of a “stacking” method to apportion income was appropriate.
Maryland has enacted a corporate and personal income tax credit that is available for certain costs relating to (i) federal security clearances for employees in the state or (ii) the construction or renovation of certain sensitive compartmented information facilities (SCIFs) in the state.
On Oct. 2, the California Court of Appeal issued a revised opinion in Gillette ruling in favor of a group of taxpayers electing to use the equally-weighted three-factor apportionment formula provided by the Multistate Tax Compact, in lieu of an apportionment formula requiring use of a double-weighted sales factor. This opinion is very similar to the previous opinion that the court released for this case on July 24 and subsequently vacated on August 9. However, the new opinion acknowledges legislation, S.B. 1015, enacted on June 27 that repealed the compact.
The Washington Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) has held that a seller of raw materials used in food manufacturing that delivered its goods in leased rail cars did not have nexus for purposes of the business and occupation (B&O) tax and litter tax.
The California Franchise Tax Board (FTB) has released a legal ruling that clarifies whether certain types of stock sales should be characterized as business or nonbusiness income. Specifically, the letter ruling considers situations where one corporation purchases stock in a corporation with which it has preexisting operational ties with the intent to fully integrate Target into its unitary business operations, but the intended integration does not occur.
On Sept. 14, the District of Columbia Office of Tax and Revenue (OTR) promulgated combined reporting regulations that are effective for tax years beginning after Dec.31, 2010.These new regulations address several combined reporting issues including the composition of the combined group, worldwide reporting election, determination of taxable income or loss, computation of net operating losses (NOLs),adoption of the Joyce rule for apportionment, treatment of partnerships, FAS 109 deduction and the automatic filing extension for the first combined return.
An Alabama administrative law judge (ALJ) has issued an opinion and preliminary order finding that a parent company’s net operating losses (NOLs) incurred prior to 1999 could not be used to offset the current year income of one of its subsidiaries on a consolidated return.
On Aug. 20, the Minnesota Tax Court held that an out-of-state provider of pharmacy benefit management and mail-order pharmacy services did not have a unitary business relationship with its one-third owned Minnesota joint venture partnership that created an electronic prescription and information routing service.
On Aug.27, the South Carolina Department of Revenue issued a private letter ruling that permits a group of subsidiary corporations of a foreign corporation to file a single South Carolina consolidated return even though the subsidiaries were required to file two different consolidated returns for federal income tax purposes.
The California Court of Appeal has affirmed a trial court’s determination that a taxpayer’s inclusion of gross receipts from commodity futures contracts used to hedge against price fluctuations was distortive, and an alternative apportionment formula used by the California Franchise Tax Board (FTB) was reasonable.
On Aug. 6, the Oregon Tax Court held that nonresident professional service corporations serving as partners of a multistate law firm were legitimate “taxable corporate entities.”
The Oregon Tax Court has held that the income of an out-of-state retailer’s foreign insurance company subsidiary was required to be included in the retailer’s consolidated Oregon corporation excise tax returns.
The California Court of Appeal has held that a personal income tax statute that allows a taxpayer to defer capital gains on the sale of qualified small business (QSB) stock if the taxpayer uses the gain to purchase stock in another QSB violates the Commerce Clause.
The North Carolina Court of Appeals has affirmed a trial court’s decision that upheld the secretary of the North Carolina Department of Revenue’s ability to order a combined return under prior law. However, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision that the taxpayer was entitled to a refund of the 25 percent gross understatement penalty that it had paid to the department.
On July 2, a Texas district court held that an oilfield service business was entitled to receive a Revised Texas Franchise Tax refund on the basis that certain costs attributable to comprehensive oilfield services are includible in the cost of goods sold (COGS) deduction.
On Aug. 22, the Illinois Appellate Court held that a taxpayer’s additional income tax liability for tax years 2000 and 2001, resulting from a federal audit conducted after the conclusion of the state’s 2003 amnesty program, was subject to a double interest penalty because of the taxpayer’s failure to participate in the program. The justices concluded that even though the taxpayer did not know about the additional liability during the amnesty period, the liability was “due” and required to be paid during the program and, thus, was subject to the double interest penalty.
The California Franchise Tax Board (FTB) has issued a chief counsel ruling concluding that the sale of a minority interest in a partnership by a member of a combined reporting group to a unitary noncorporate entity should not be treated as a sale between members of a combined reporting group under the intercompany transaction combined reporting regulation. As a result, any gain from the sale would not be deferred.
On Aug. 22, the Supreme Court for Nassau County, N.Y., held that the metropolitan commuter transportation mobility tax is unconstitutional because the New York State Legislature did not follow proper procedures in enacting the law. However, the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance has announced that taxpayers who have been paying the MCTMT should continue to pay and file returns.
On June 29, New Jersey amended its unclaimed property statutes related to stored value cards. There are several important components to the new version of the stored value card law that will affect both holders and owners of unclaimed property, and possibly taxpayers subject to the New Jersey Corporation Business Tax.
On June 26, North Carolina adopted an omnibus tax bill, which provided many technical changes and clarifications, the most relevant of which are amendments to the Article 3J credits, the expanded definition of “holding company,” and the amended definitions for sales and use tax.
On Aug. 9, the California Court of Appeal surprisingly filed an order that mandates a rehearing of its decision in the Gillette case that was released on July 24. The Court granted the motion on its own order and vacated the decision and opinion for the case. In Gillette, the court had ruled in favor of a group of taxpayers electing to use the equally weighted three-factor apportionment formula provided by the Multistate Tax Compact.
The Florida Department of Revenue recently released two technical assistance advisements that address the sales factor apportionment treatment of certain receipts. On May 17, the department held that receipts from the provision of online courses are properly sourced to the students’ states of residence. On May 25, the department ruled that gross receipts from hedging commodity prices are not true sales.
Reversing an August 2011 decision of the Indiana Tax Court, the Indiana Supreme Court recently held that for purposes of the adjusted gross income tax, a taxpayer’s sales of products to Indiana customers who picked up the products through third-party common carriers outside the state should be sourced to Indiana.
The California Court of Appeal has ruled in favor of a group of taxpayers electing to use the equally weighted three-factor apportionment formula that is provided by the Multistate Tax Compact, in lieu of an apportionment formula requiring use of a double-weighted sales factor.
On July 2, Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett signed into law House Bill 761, which has become Act 85 of 2012 (Act 85). Act 85, among other things, completes Pennsylvania’s transition to single sales factor apportionment, extends the due date for filing a report of federal changes, amends provisions related to certain credits and makes several administrative/procedural changes, including changes related to the administrative appeals process and sales and use tax filing requirements.
On Aug. 7, Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn signed legislation that extends the state’s Enterprise Zone program and allows for new areas to be designated as “enterprise zones.” Specifically, the legislation (i) extends the sunset of the Illinois Enterprise Zone program, (ii) creates an Enterprise Zone Board and (iii) increases the reporting requirements of companies that receive tax benefits from the Enterprise Zone and High Impact Business programs.
On June 29, the New Jersey Division of Taxation issued a letter ruling addressing the application of the Corporation Business Tax (CBT) to the sourcing of income from a taxpayer’s sales of stored value cards, gift cards and gift certificates to retailers. The redemption fees attributable to a consumer’s redemption of gift cards in stores located in New Jersey, and the income recognized from dormant gift cards and deferred unredeemed gift cards, which were activated in New Jersey, were sourced to the numerator of the CBT sales factor.
On June 20, North Carolina Gov. Bev Perdue signed legislation providing that, except for a voluntary redetermination, the secretary of the North Carolina Department of Revenue may not redetermine the state net income of a corporation properly attributable to its business carried on in the state until an administrative rule is adopted and becomes effective.
On June 27, California Gov. Jerry Brown signed budget trailer legislation that repeals the Multistate Tax Compact and clarifies that an election to use the equally weighted three-factor apportionment formula provided in the Compact is not permitted in California. The legislation also clarifies more generally that tax elections must be made on original, timely filed returns and are binding on the taxpayer.
On June 21, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled that the income received by a package delivery corporation’s affiliated foreign reinsurance companies that insured risks located in Indiana was not subject to the state’s gross premium privilege tax, and as a result, not exempt from the state’s adjusted gross income tax.
On June 15, Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln D. Chafee signed budget legislation, enacting a state tax amnesty program that is set to run during a 75-day period from Sept. 2 through Nov. 15, 2012. For qualifying taxpayers, the Tax Administrator will generally waive penalties for any state tax liabilities for taxable periods ending on or prior to Dec. 31, 2011. In addition, the applicable interest rate will be reduced by 25 percent.
In a case involving the application of sales factor sourcing methods, the Mississippi Court of Appeals has held that the Mississippi Department of Revenue had the burden of proving that the use of alternative apportionment on the taxpayer’s income to Mississippi was appropriate.
On June 5, the Illinois Department of Revenue promulgated a new regulation addressing the computation of the sales factor used to determine a nonresident publisher’s taxable Illinois-sourced income.The regulation discusses the sourcing of sales of (i) tangible published materials, (ii) nontangible published materials and (iii) publishing services, and provides definitions of relevant terms such as “published material” and “publishing services.”
Louisiana has enacted legislation that expands single sales factor apportionment for purposes of the corporate income and franchise taxes to qualified businesses that participate in a new corporate tax apportionment program.
The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals has held that an out-of-state company licensing intellectual property to out-of-state licensees did not have corporation net income tax or business franchise tax nexus. The court based its determination on the following facts of the case: (i) the licensor lacked a physical presence in the state and did not sell products or services within the state, (ii) the licensees manufactured the products bearing the trademarks and trade names outside the state, (iii) the licensor did not direct or dictate how the licensees distributed the products, and (iv) the licensees did not operate any stores in the state and only sold the products to wholesalers and retailers in the state.
Applicable to tax years ending on or after July 1, 2012, Tennessee Gov. Bill Haslam has signed legislation that amends the related-party add-back rules currently governing intangible expenses for purposes of the corporation excise (income) tax.
The Minnesota Tax Court has held that the in-state activities of merchandisers employed by an out-of-state distributor created corporate income tax nexus for the distributor. Specifically, the merchandisers’ activities exceeded the mere “solicitation of orders” that would receive immunity from a state’s income tax under Public Law 86-272 (P.L. 86-272).
A Virginia circuit court has held that a taxpayer was entitled to an exception to the general rule requiring the add-back of federal intangible expense deductions and costs to taxable income. Virginia law provides an exception for certain taxpayers that license intangible property to unrelated parties. The taxpayer was a franchisor that sublicensed the intangible property to franchises that were not related to the original licensor. The court determined that the original licensor met the “licensing to unrelated parties” requirement based on the sublicense agreements, and as a result, the franchisor taxpayer was entitled to a refund based on the exception to the add-back rule.
The District of Columbia Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) has issued an order reversing an assessment that was issued against a software company on the basis of a transfer pricing analysis.The OAH determined the transfer pricing study was “arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable” because it did not comport with appropriate transfer pricing methodology as allowed by the federal Treasury regulations interpreting Internal Revenue Code Section 482.
The South Carolina Court of Appeals has held that when the South Carolina Department of Revenue proposes an alternative apportionment method, it has the burden of proving that its alternative method of apportionment is the most appropriate.
The Oklahoma Supreme Court has held that an out-of-state company’s licensing agreement with another out-of-state company did not create Oklahoma corporation income tax nexus.
Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant has signed legislation which provides that a distributing corporation does not recognize gain for corporate income tax purposes on distributions of stock or securities of a controlled corporation (subsidiary) that satisfy certain federal provisions. Specifically, no gain is recognized if the distribution is part of a transaction or overall plan that qualifies for tax-free treatment under Internal Revenue Code (IRC) sections 3552 or 368(a)(1)(D).
On April 10, 2012, Mayor Michael Nutter signed legislation, which, effective for tax years beginning on or after Jan. 1, 2012, excludes an “investment company” and its owners from the Philadelphia business income and receipts tax (BIRT, until recently, known as the business privilege tax) and exempts net profits from “investment company” activities from the Philadelphia net profits tax. The legislation is part of an initiative by the city of Philadelphia to bring jobs and investment into the city.
The Texas comptroller’s Office has officially announced a new amnesty program set to run from June 12 through Aug. 17, 2012. Under the Project Fresh Start amnesty program, the state will waive penalties and interest associated with delinquent tax reports and underreported tax liabilities that are paid by eligible participants during the amnesty period. Only reports that were originally due before April 1, 2012, are eligible for the limited-time amnesty.
New York Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo has signed into law 2012-13 budget legislation that implements many tax changes. Highlights of the legislation include extensions of corporation franchise tax credits and the sales tax exemption for alternative fuels.The legislation also revises the sales tax collection requirements imposed on hotelroom remarketers.
On April 11, Kentucky enacted legislation authorizing a tax amnesty program to be conducted during the state’s 2012-2013 fiscal year, covering most tax types imposed by the state and applying to liabilities incurred during nearly 10 years of tax periods.
On April 10, Nebraska Gov. Dave Heineman signed tax legislation that, beginning Jan.1, 2014, will apportion sales of services, application services, and intangibles, for purposes of corporate income tax, based on a market-based source of income approach rather than the current “all-or-nothing” cost-of-performance approach.
In an administrative appeal from an assessment published as a Letter of Findings, the Indiana Department of Revenue recently determined that a corporate taxpayer could not factor foreign source dividend deductions into its net operating loss (NOL) deduction calculation.
The Indiana Supreme Court has reversed an Indiana Tax Court decision that required the Indiana Department of Revenue to consider alternative methods of apportionment before requiring a combined return. According to the Indiana Supreme Court, the department provided sufficient support to force combination, which required the taxpayer to provide evidence that combination was not appropriate.
This website supports Grant Thornton LLP’s marketing of professional services and is not written tax advice directed at the particular facts and circumstances of any person. If you are interested in the subject of this document we encourage you to contact us or an independent tax advisor to discuss the potential application to your particular situation. Nothing herein shall be construed as imposing a limitation on any person from disclosing the tax treatment or tax structure of any matter addressed herein. To the extent this document may be considered to contain written tax advice, any written advice contained in, forwarded with, or attached to this document is not intended by Grant Thornton to be used, and cannot be used, by any person for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed under the Internal Revenue Code.