a pinch of salt: what you need to know

56
22nd Annual Health Sciences Tax Conference A pinch of SALT: what you need to know December 3, 2012

Upload: ey

Post on 14-Jan-2015

740 views

Category:

Economy & Finance


3 download

DESCRIPTION

Covering trends in state and local taxes, we'll focus on the impact regarding income and franchise taxes whether from a compliance, controversy or tax planning perspective.

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: A pinch of SALT: what you need to know

22nd Annual Health Sciences Tax Conference A pinch of SALT: what you need to know December 3, 2012

Page 2: A pinch of SALT: what you need to know

A pinch of SALT: what you need to know Page 2

Disclaimer

► Any US tax advice contained herein was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state or local tax law provisions.

Page 3: A pinch of SALT: what you need to know

A pinch of SALT: what you need to know Page 3

Disclaimer

Ernst & Young refers to the global organization of member firms of Ernst & Young Global Limited, each of which is a separate legal entity. Ernst & Young LLP is a client serving member firm of Ernst & Young Global Limited operating in the US. For more information about our organization, please visit www.ey.com. This presentation is © 2012 Ernst & Young LLP. All rights reserved. No part of this document may be reproduced, transmitted or otherwise distributed in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including by photocopying, facsimile transmission, recording, rekeying, or using any information storage and retrieval system, without written permission from Ernst & Young LLP. Any reproduction, transmission or distribution of this form or any of the material herein is prohibited and is in violation of US and international law. Ernst & Young LLP expressly disclaims any liability in connection with use of this presentation or its contents by any third party. Views expressed in this presentation are not necessarily those of Ernst & Young LLP.

Page 4: A pinch of SALT: what you need to know

A pinch of SALT: what you need to know Page 4

Presenters

► David Farren Health Management Associates Naples, FL

► Keith Eisenstein Ernst & Young LLP New York, NY +1 212 773 9052 [email protected]

► Sid Silhan Ernst & Young LLP Atlanta, GA +1 404 817 5595 [email protected]

Page 5: A pinch of SALT: what you need to know

A pinch of SALT: what you need to know Page 5

Agenda

► State fiscal overview ► State income and franchise tax developments

► Nexus ► Combined reporting ► Tax base ► Allocation and apportionment ► State tax controversy and tax amnesty developments ► Other notable developments

Page 6: A pinch of SALT: what you need to know

State fiscal overview

Page 7: A pinch of SALT: what you need to know

A pinch of SALT: what you need to know Page 7

50-state study: state and local business taxes in FY 2010 – FY 2011

Business tax FY2010 (US$b)

FY2011 (US$b)

2011 % total taxes

One-year change

Business property taxes $248.6 $244.9 38.0% -1.5% Sales taxes on business inputs 123.3 129.7 20.1 5.2 Corporate income tax 42.7 46.3 7.2 8.5 Unemployment insurance 32.4 41.2 6.4 27.1

Business and corporate license 37.0 37.3 5.8 0.9 Individual income tax on passthru 33.0 36.3 5.6 10.0 Excise taxes 30.5 35.0 5.4 14.9 Public utility taxes 28.9 28.8 4.5 -0.3 Insurance premiums taxes 16.6 17.2 2.7 3.6 Severance taxes 11.3 14.8 2.3 30.9 Total business taxes $616.0 $643.9 100.0% 4.5% Note: Figures may not sum due to rounding. Prepared by Ernst & Young’s QUEST practice in conjunction with Council on State Taxation (COST).

Page 8: A pinch of SALT: what you need to know

A pinch of SALT: what you need to know Page 8

-1.5% 0.8% 0.9%

3.4% -0.8%

-2.1% -0.6%

1.3% 3.7%

5.7% 9.3%

10.0% 18.0%

20.7% 27.1%

9.8%

-5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

Property taxes Excise

Other business taxes General sales

TOTAL LOCAL BUSINESS TAX

Property taxes Public utility

Corporate & business license Insurance premiums

General sales Corporate income Individual income

Excise taxes Other business taxes

Unemployment insurance TOTAL STATE BUSINESS TAX

One-year growth in state and local business taxes, FY 2011

Prepared by Ernst & Young’s QUEST practice in conjunction with Council on State Taxation (COST).

Page 9: A pinch of SALT: what you need to know

A pinch of SALT: what you need to know Page 9

Where are we today?

► State and local tax collections are slowly improving ► U.S. Census Bureau’s “Quarterly Summary of State and Local

Government Tax Revenue” (September 25, 2012) ► Q2 2012 tax revenues were up 3.3% from Q2 2011 ► Property and individual income tax showed growth over same quarter in 2011,

but corporate income tax and sales/use tax were down from the same quarter in 2011

► Q2 2012 local property tax collections up 6.2% from Q2 2011

► State budget gaps are projected to narrow ► National Governors Association (NGA)/National Association of State

Budget Officers (NASBO): “The Fiscal Survey of States” (June 2012) ► 19 states project US$30.7b in budget gaps for FY 2013 (four states have

US$3.1b in remaining FY 2012 gaps that must be closed by fiscal year-end) ► 11 states project US$23.3b in budget gaps for FY 2014

► This compares with US$146.3b=B in budget gaps over FY 2011–12

Page 10: A pinch of SALT: what you need to know

A pinch of SALT: what you need to know Page 10

States reacted to falling revenue by limiting headcount and expenditure growth

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50

Cum

ulat

ive

perc

ent c

hang

e si

nce

star

t of r

eces

sion

1973 1980 1990 2001 2007

Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (CES, seasonally adjusted).

1990

2001

1980

2007Months since start of recession

1973

State employment growth over past five recessions

Page 11: A pinch of SALT: what you need to know

A pinch of SALT: what you need to know Page 11

2012 state budget surpluses

► Overall ► 29 states and the District of Columbia are expecting to close out FY 2012 with balances >5%

(National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL)). ► Severance tax states are reporting the largest year-end balances, most >30%.

National Council of State Legislatures, Morgan Stanley Smith Barney, Ernst & Young

Page 12: A pinch of SALT: what you need to know

A pinch of SALT: what you need to know Page 12

Budget outlook for FY 2013

► FY 2013 state spending projected to rise by 2.4%* ► Indiana, South Carolina, Alaska projecting 9%+ spending increase ► Six states project spending cuts (AL, DE, ME, MD, TX, WY)

► FY 2013 state revenue projected to rise by 3.7%* ► 44 states project year-over-year revenue growth ► California projecting 10.1% revenue growth ► New Jersey projecting 8.0% revenue growth

► Largest state budget challenge is rising Medicaid costs ► Medicaid enrollment and cost levels are a major issue for 2013,

as spending related to federal health care reforms comes online ► State expansions required by federal health reform will create stress in FY

2013 budgets ► For the first time since before the 2008 economic downturn, no state

is projecting a deficit by the end of FY 2013 * Source: NCSL.

Page 13: A pinch of SALT: what you need to know

State income and franchise tax developments

Page 14: A pinch of SALT: what you need to know

Nexus

Page 15: A pinch of SALT: what you need to know

A pinch of SALT: what you need to know Page 15

Nexus

► Business Activity Tax Simplification Act ► H.R. 1439

► Would establish a bright-line rule that prohibits state taxation of an out-of-state entity unless such entity has a physical presence in the taxing state

► Expands the prohibition against state taxation of interstate commerce to include: ► Taxation of out-of-state sales transactions involving all forms of property, including

intangible personal property and services ► All other business activity taxes in addition to net income taxes ► Exempts from state taxation persons who enter a state merely to furnish information to

customers and affiliates, to cover news or other events or to gather information in the state

► Sets forth jurisdictional standards for states in imposing, assessing or collecting a net income tax or other business activity tax on interstate activities

► Sets forth rule for computing the net income tax or other business activity tax liability of an affiliated group

Page 16: A pinch of SALT: what you need to know

A pinch of SALT: what you need to know Page 16

Economic nexus (adopted since 2007) (all dollars in US)

► Factor presence standards adopted ► Multistate Tax Commission (MTC) model rule (October 2002) ($50,000 property, $50,000

payroll, $500,000 sales or 25% of property, payroll and sales) ► Bright-line sales factor presence standards adopted

► California — $500,000 effective January 1, 2011 ► Colorado — $500,000 effective April 30, 2010 ► Michigan — $350,000 effective January 1, 2008 ► New York — $1 million (for credit card banks only) effective January 1, 2008 ► New York City — $1 million (for credit card banks) effective January 1, 2011 ► Washington — $250,000 effective June 1, 2010

► Purposeful direction of business to the state/doing business in the state ► Connecticut — effective January 1, 2010* ► New Hampshire — effective July 1, 2007 ► Oregon — effective May 8, 2008 ► Wisconsin — effective January 1, 2009 *Does not apply to foreign corporations unless they have effectively connected income — effective January 1, 2011

Page 17: A pinch of SALT: what you need to know

A pinch of SALT: what you need to know Page 17

Economic nexus

► West Virginia ► Conagra (WV Sup. Ct.) — in-state presence of trademarked property

does not create nexus for foreign licensor that has no physical presence in the state and did not sell or distribute trademarked products or provide services within the state. ► Imposition of tax satisfies neither “purposeful direction” under the Due Process

Clause nor “significant economic presence” under the Commerce Clause ► Decision begins to set boundary on reach of “significant economic

presence” standard ► Concurring judge would have overruled MBNA

► Oklahoma ► Scioto (Okla. Sup. Ct.) — amounts an out-of-state insurance company

received for use of its intellectual property by fast-food chain operating in state are not subject to Oklahoma’s corporate income tax because the company did not have nexus with Oklahoma. ► Imposition of tax offends due process

Page 18: A pinch of SALT: what you need to know

A pinch of SALT: what you need to know Page 18

Economic nexus: administrative developments

► Iowa ► Jack Daniels Property (Iowa Admin. Hearing Comm.) —

out-of-state intangible holding companies that have no property, employees, affiliates or retail operations in Iowa are liable for corporate income tax on royalty income from Iowa sales made by third-party retailers. ► Administrative Law Judge dismissed the fact that the company was set up for

non-tax purposes

► California ► Franchise Tax Board (FTB) Chief Counsel Ruling 2012–03

► Addresses impact of economic nexus and throwback for sales of tangible personal property (TPP)

► Holdings include: ► No throwback of foreign sales to CA if TPP sales to that

jurisdiction > US$500k

Page 19: A pinch of SALT: what you need to know

A pinch of SALT: what you need to know Page 19

Economic nexus: administrative developments (cont.)

► California (cont.) ► FTB Chief Counsel Ruling 2012-03 (cont.)

► According to California Revenue and Taxation Code Section 25122 and regulations thereunder, taxpayer would be taxable in that foreign jurisdiction

► No PL 86-272 protection available for foreign sales ► No throwback to CA of sales to a specific state if TPP sales to the state >

US$500k ► An affiliate/member of the taxpayer’s combined reporting group has

constitutional nexus in that state

Page 20: A pinch of SALT: what you need to know

A pinch of SALT: what you need to know Page 20

Nexus: ownership of limited partnership (LP) interest

► Louisiana ► UTELCOM, Inc. (La. App. Ct.) — corporations that were limited partners

in LPs did not have franchise tax nexus when their only contact with Louisiana was ownership of limited partnership interests in a LP that conducted business in Louisiana.

► New Jersey ► BIS LP, Inc. (NJ Superior Ct.) (unpublished) — limited partnership interest

in a partnership doing business in the state does not by itself create corporation business tax nexus for a foreign corporate limited partner.

Page 21: A pinch of SALT: what you need to know

A pinch of SALT: what you need to know Page 21

Nexus: clinical trials

► Indiana ► Indiana Department of State Revenue, Letter of Findings ► 02-20110552 (July 25, 2012) ► The Department agreed that Taxpayer (an un-named pharmaceutical

company) did not have to throw back sales into states where it could demonstrate it had nexus due to the supervision of clinical trials in those states. ► Taxpayer argued it had nexus in those states where it employed individuals to

supervise independent investigators/physicians. ► The Department sent the case back to audit to allow Taxpayer to demonstrate

the existence, and its supervision of, clinical trials in those states in which sales were thrown back to Indiana.

Page 22: A pinch of SALT: what you need to know

Combined reporting

Page 23: A pinch of SALT: what you need to know

A pinch of SALT: what you need to know Page 23

Combined reporting

► District of Columbia ► B19-203 (enacted September 14, 2011) — adopts mandatory combined

reporting ► Effective for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2010 ► Default is water’s-edge, with a worldwide election ► No sharing of net operating losses (NOLs) or credits among members of the

group ► Regulation § 56, et seq. adopted September 14, 2012 addresses a variety

of provisions, including: ► Determination of taxable income or loss of the combined group ► Apportionment (DC adopts the Joyce rule) issues ► Guidance on including unincorporated business entities/partnerships in the

combined report ► The financial accounting deduction

Page 24: A pinch of SALT: what you need to know

A pinch of SALT: what you need to know Page 24

Combined reporting (cont.)

► New York ► Issue date of proposed regulations: August 23, 2012 ► Impacts: Changes will impact various corporate franchise tax regulations

and codify the New York Department of Taxation and Finance’s interpretation of combined reporting requirements

► Purpose: To provide additional guidance regarding the January 2007 changes to combined reporting provisions

► Incorporates: Updated regulations for the Department’s previously issued Technical Services Memorandum (TSB-M-08(2)C) issued on March 3, 2008

Page 25: A pinch of SALT: what you need to know

A pinch of SALT: what you need to know Page 25

Combined reporting (cont.)

► New York combined reporting: key provisions in proposed regulations ► Unitary business requirement — Proposed Reg. Sec. 6-2.1(a)

► Combined reporting is now required when three requirements are satisfied: ► Unitary business — the group of corporations is engaged in a

unitary business ► Capital stock requirement — the capital stock requirements are met ► Substantial inter-company transaction (SIT) — the corporations meet the SIT

requirements ► Exception: combined reporting may still be required “under certain

circumstances” when the group of corporations is engaged in a unitary business. ► Caveat: the phrase “under certain circumstances” has not been defined and provision

is unclear. See Proposed Reg. Sec. 6-2.3(d).

Page 26: A pinch of SALT: what you need to know

A pinch of SALT: what you need to know Page 26

Combined reporting (cont.)

► New York combined reporting: key provisions in proposed regulations (cont.) ► Proposed regulations update expansion of the definition of SIT

► Two additional categories of transactions can now establish SIT: ► Incurring expenses that benefit, directly or indirectly, one or more relating corporations ► Transferring assets, including assets such as accounts receivable, patents or

trademarks, from one or more related corporations (Proposed Reg. Sec. 6-2.3). ► Additional considerations for SIT:

► Dividends are not considered for SIT purposes ► Exception: dividends will be considered for purposes of the asset transfer test

► Interest is considered including interest on loans that constitutes subsidiary capital (change in Dept. policy)

► Exclusions: proposed regulations expand service functions not considered for SIT test by including centralized payroll and inter-corporate costs allocation functions.

Page 27: A pinch of SALT: what you need to know

A pinch of SALT: what you need to know Page 27

Combined reporting (cont.)

► North Carolina ► S.B. 824 (enacted June 20, 2012) — Revenue Secretary must use

expedited rule-making process to describe circumstances under which the adjustment of a taxpayer’s net income or a combined income tax return will be required. ► Until a final rule is approved, the Secretary is prohibited from making such

adjustment or requiring a combined return. ► But, the Secretary and taxpayers can agree to voluntary re-determinations in

the absence of a final rule. ► Delhaize (N.C. App. Ct.) — The Department of Revenue’s (DOR) use of

forced combination to more accurately reflect a company’s true earnings in North Carolina did not violate procedural due process. ► DOR’s imposition of a 25% penalty does not violate due process.

Page 28: A pinch of SALT: what you need to know

A pinch of SALT: what you need to know Page 28

Combined reporting (cont.)

► North Carolina (cont.) ► H.B. 619 (enacted June 30, 2011) — provides guidance to taxpayers as to when

the DOR will require taxpayers to either: ► File a combined return or ► Add back, eliminate or otherwise adjust income reported to the state due to inter-company

transactions ► Generally effective January 1, 2012

► Rhode Island ► Pro forma combined report required for 2011 and 2012 ► At a minimum, the combined report must include the following:

► The difference in tax owed as a result of: (1) filing a combined report versus separate entity returns, and (2) using a single sales factor formula versus an equally weighted three-factor formula

► If any individual member does not have nexus with the state, taxpayer must compute its sales factor comparing Joyce and Finnigan

► Volume of sales/taxable income in the state and worldwide

Page 29: A pinch of SALT: what you need to know

A pinch of SALT: what you need to know Page 29

Combined reporting (cont.)

► Wisconsin ► A.B. 40 (enacted June 26, 2011) implements the 2011–13 Executive

Budget Bill. Key tax changes will: ► Amend combined reporting provisions to allow combined groups, effective for

taxable years beginning after December 31, 2011, to share net business loss carryforwards incurred by group members before January 1, 2009, with certain limitations ► Unused losses can be carried forward for up to 19 years

► Prohibit the Department of Revenue from disregarding a taxpayer’s election to include a controlled business in the combined group, effective retroactively to taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2009

► Establish a qualified production activities income tax credit, the amount of which would increase from 1.875% in 2012 up to 7.5% for 2015 and thereafter

Page 30: A pinch of SALT: what you need to know

Tax base

Page 31: A pinch of SALT: what you need to know

A pinch of SALT: what you need to know Page 31

Related-party add-backs

► Indiana ► Letter of Findings No. 02-20110459 (September 27, 2012 — a corporation was not

required to add back intangible expense paid, accrued or incurred by a related LLC taxed as a partnership, because the definition of “affiliated group” does not include such LLCs.

► New Jersey ► Add-back exception provided for intangible expenses paid to a related member in a

foreign nation that has a tax treaty with the US ► TAM 2011-22 (December 7, 2011) — when a domestic affiliate pays royalties or

expenses to a foreign affiliate or parent for use of an intangible in New Jersey, the Division of Taxation will examine the transaction to ensure that the domestic entity reports an accurate amount of expenses and deductions

► Analysis is similar to arm’s-length pricing requirement in Internal Revenue Code (IRC) § 482

► Division of Taxation can make adjustments if the domestic taxpayer’s entire net income is not fairly reflected

Page 32: A pinch of SALT: what you need to know

A pinch of SALT: what you need to know Page 32

Related-party add-backs (cont.)

► Virginia ► Wendy’s International Inc. (Va. Cir. Ct., City of Richmond) — the

restaurant chain parent is entitled to a refund of income tax paid on amounts of royalties deducted on its federal return that were added back to the Virginia return because the amounts qualified for the conduit exception to related-party add-back rule.

Page 33: A pinch of SALT: what you need to know

A pinch of SALT: what you need to know Page 33

Treatment of alternative state business taxes

► Whether a state will provide a tax credit or require an add-back for the Texas margin tax, Ohio commercial activity tax (CAT) or other alternative tax depends on if the tax is based on net income. ► California — margin tax: depends on the method used to compute the tax ► Georgia — margin tax: not considered an income tax ► Kansas — margin tax: is a tax based on net income ► Minnesota — CAT and margin tax: neither is based on net income ► South Carolina — business income tax portion of the Michigan business

tax (MBT), the margin tax and CAT: neither allowed as a deduction, but modified gross receipts tax portion of the MBT and the Ohio CAT can be deducted

► Virginia — margin tax: not based on net income ► Wisconsin — MBT and margin tax: may qualify as net income tax if

certain conditions are met ► Consistency

Page 34: A pinch of SALT: what you need to know

A pinch of SALT: what you need to know Page 34

NOLs

► Suspended — California, Illinois, Maine ► Legal Ruling 2011-04 (September 23, 2011) — Franchise Tax Board

(FTB) takes the position that only an NOL that could have been used to offset taxable income generated in the suspension year is allowed an extension of the carryover period.

► Usable amount limited — Colorado, Illinois, New Hampshire ► Illinois amended the net loss deduction suspension to allow a deduction

not to exceed US$100,000 for a taxable year ending on or after December 31, 2012 and prior to December 31, 2014.

► New Hampshire increased the cap from US$1m to US$10m. ► Carryback eliminated — Indiana ► Carryforward extended — Arizona (up 20 years, from five years) ► NOLs eliminated — MBT NOLs eliminated with adoption of corporate

income tax (CIT)

Page 35: A pinch of SALT: what you need to know

A pinch of SALT: what you need to know Page 35

NOLs (cont.)

► Pennsylvania ► 2010 and thereafter, cap on NOL is the greater of US$3 million or 20% of

taxable income ► North Carolina (NC)

► Historically, taxpayers required to reduce NC-apportioned net economic loss (NEL) in year generated by amount of all “income not taxable”

► Under the DOR’s revised interpretation of law, income properly deducted either by virtue of the IRC or NC statute is included as “allowable deductions” and does not reduce the NEL in the year generated

► Income deducted under IRC or NC statute still required to offset NEL carryforward in year(s) following initial generation before the NEL can be deducted on a return

Page 36: A pinch of SALT: what you need to know

A pinch of SALT: what you need to know Page 36

Federal conformity issues: bonus depreciation and increased expensing

Arizona Hawaii Maryland New York* South Carolina*

Arkansas Idaho* Massachusetts* North Carolina* Tennessee*

California Illinois*^ Michigan* Ohio Texas

Connecticut* Indiana Minnesota Oregon Vermont*

District of Columbia

Iowa* Mississippi* Pennsylvania*^

Virginia*

Florida Kentucky New Hampshire Rhode Island Wisconsin

Georgia Maine New Jersey *Decouple from IRC § 168 but not IRC § 179 (some states may only conform to the IRC§ 179 increase under the Hiring Incentive to Restore Employment (HIRE )Act part ^IL and PA conform to the 100% bonus but not to the 50% bonus

► Small Business Jobs Act extends bonus depreciation through 2010 ► Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization and Job

Creation Act of 2010 allows 100% expensing for capital investments through 2011, 50% bonus depreciation in 2012

States decoupling from 2010 bonus depreciation and increased expense limit

Page 37: A pinch of SALT: what you need to know

A pinch of SALT: what you need to know Page 37

Federal conformity issues (cont.)

► Cancellation of debt income deferral election under IRC § 108(i) ► States that decoupled or do not conform due to IRC conformity date

► Production deduction (IRC § 199) ► States that decoupled or do not conform due to IRC conformity date

► Alabama ► GKN Westland Aerospace (Ala. Dept. of Rev.) — manufacturer that generated a § 199

production deduction but was not allowed to claim it on its federal return because it incurred a consolidated NOL was allowed to claim it on its separate-entity-filed Alabama return.

► Virginia ► PD 11-181 (November 1, 2011) — taxpayers that joined in the filing of a federal consolidated

return but filed on a separate-company basis in Virginia may claim a Section 199 deduction for Virginia only, despite being ineligible for federal tax purposes.

► H.B. 1153 (enacted March 22, 2012) — allows subtraction of the full amount of the IRC § 199 domestic production activities deduction, effective for taxable years beginning on and after January 1, 2013 ► For tax years 2010–12, the § 199 deduction is limited to two-thirds of the amount of the federal deduction

Page 38: A pinch of SALT: what you need to know

A pinch of SALT: what you need to know Page 38

Federal conformity issues (cont.)

► Mississippi ► H.B. 1519 (enacted April 23, 2012)

► Mississippi did not conform to federal tax-free rules for spin-offs. ► The new law provides that the distributing corporation will not recognize gain

from the distribution of stock or securities of a controlled corporation if the distribution is a part of a transaction qualifying for tax-free treatment under IRC § 355 or § 368(a)(1)(D), or it is pursuant to an overall plan to facilitate an ultimate distribution that qualifies for tax-free treatment under §§ 355 or 368(a)(1)(D).

Page 39: A pinch of SALT: what you need to know

Allocation and apportionment

Page 40: A pinch of SALT: what you need to know

A pinch of SALT: what you need to know Page 40

Increase the sales factor and move to market-based sourcing

► Sales factor changes ► Single sales factor (SSF) adopted: Michigan (part of the CIT),

Pennsylvania (2013), City of Philadelphia ► SSF being phased-in: Minnesota, New York City, New Jersey, Utah ► SSF (elective): Arizona, California (initiative would repeal SSF election;

impact of Gillette decision) ► SSF-specific industry or as an incentive: Florida, Louisiana, Virginia ► Double-weighted sales factor increased: Alabama, District of Columbia

► Market-based sourcing adopted ► Alabama ► Arizona (a phased-in election for multistate service providers) ► California (tied to SSF) ► Nebraska

Page 41: A pinch of SALT: what you need to know

A pinch of SALT: what you need to know Page 41

MTC apportionment election

► The MTC allows taxpayers to elect to apportion their income in accordance with the MTC standard three-factor formula or in accordance with the state’s statutes. ► California

► S.B. 1015 (enacted June 27, 2012) — repeals all provisions related to the MTC, effective immediately ► California no longer “sovereignty member” of the MTC ► Not approved by two-thirds vote of either house — Prop 26 problem? ► Doctrine of election — Legislative Counsel’s Digest — Legislature “intended” that any

election must be made on an originally filed return ► Gillette Co. (Cal. App. Ct.) — the 1993 law change mandating the double-

weighted sales factor be used did not repeal the MTC election and, therefore, taxpayers were entitled to make the MTC election. ► The MTC is a valid compact that California as a signatory state is bound by until the

state withdraws from the MTC.

Page 42: A pinch of SALT: what you need to know

A pinch of SALT: what you need to know Page 42

MTC apportionment election (cont.)

► Gillette Co. ► On October 2, 2012, the California Court of Appeal issued its new opinion. ► The Court held taxpayers were entitled to elect to use the MTC standard three-

factor apportionment formula instead of the state-mandated double-weighted sales factor apportionment formula.

► Further, the MTC is a valid compact that California as a signatory state is bound by, including the apportionment election provision, until the state withdraws from the MTC and repeals the apportionment election provision.

► Implications ► CA withdrew from the MTC effective June 27, 2012 ► Gillette has been remanded to the Superior Court ► Issue exists whether the MTC election can be made on a refund claim ► A final determination on Gillette is likely a long way off

Page 43: A pinch of SALT: what you need to know

A pinch of SALT: what you need to know Page 43

MTC apportionment election (cont.)

► Gillette Co. (cont.) ► Taxpayers that can benefit from making an MTC election should consider

filing refund claims. ► However, although election may result in a taxpayer being allowed to use the

three-factor formula with a single-weighted sales factor, the election may carry other consequences with it. ► For example, a taxpayer using a special industry apportionment formula (e.g.,

broadcasting, transportation companies) in California may not be eligible to use the MTC election.

Page 44: A pinch of SALT: what you need to know

A pinch of SALT: what you need to know Page 44

California Proposition 39

► Approved by California voters on November 6, 2012 ► Mandatory SSF with market-based sourcing, effective January 1, 2013 ► Applies to all apportioning trades or business that are not predominantly

engaged in “banking or financial business activity” ► Apportionment in prior years

► Pre-2011 state used a double-weighted sales factor ► 2011–12 taxpayers can elect SSF (with market sourcing) or three-factor

double-weighted sales factor apportionment formula (with costs-of-performance sourcing)

► Pre-2012 taxpayers could elect to use the MTC equally weighted three-factor formula

► MTC election for 2012 and forward will depend on whether legislation repealing the MTC was passed within the standards set forth in Prop. 26

► Estimated cost to business of mandatory single-sales-factor apportionment = US$+1b/yr starting in 2013–14

Page 45: A pinch of SALT: what you need to know

A pinch of SALT: what you need to know Page 45

MTC apportionment election

► Michigan ► H.B. 4479 (enacted May 25, 2011) —beginning January 1, 2011, taxpayers cannot

apportion/allocate income in accordance with the MTC, but rather must use the method provided by the Michigan Business Tax (MBT) and CIT.

► Litigation (IBM) is currently before the Court of Appeals on whether the election is allowed under the MBT.

► Oregon ► ORS 314.606 specifically provides that when the MTC provisions are inconsistent

with the Uniform Division of Income for Tax Purposes Act, the Oregon statutory provisions “shall control.”

► Litigation (HealthNet) is currently before the Tax Court.

► Texas ► Hearing No. 106,508 (Tex. Comp. of Pub. Accts.) — taxpayers cannot elect to use

the MTC three-factor formula instead of the single-sales factor.

Page 46: A pinch of SALT: what you need to know

A pinch of SALT: what you need to know Page 46

Other apportionment and allocation matters

► California ► General Mills, Inc. (Cal. Ct. App.) — inclusion of gross receipts from

hedging activities in the apportionment formula does not fairly represent the manufacturer’s business activity in California, thus allowing the FTB to use an alternative apportionment formula.

► Florida ► H.B. 142 (enacted May 31, 2011) — certain taxpayers that make qualified

capital expenditures of at least US$250 million can elect to use a single-sales-factor apportionment formula.

► Mississippi ► S.B. 3097 (enacted April 25, 2011) — receipts for sales to a distribution facility

for certain pharmaceutical products by certain major suppliers are not included in the Mississippi apportionment factors for purposes of determining franchise tax.

Page 47: A pinch of SALT: what you need to know

State tax controversy and tax amnesty developments

Page 48: A pinch of SALT: what you need to know

A pinch of SALT: what you need to know Page 48

Controversy: burden of proof cases

► Indiana ► Rent-A-Center East (Ind. Sup. Ct.) — when the DOR makes a proposed

assessment of tax liability based upon a reasonable belief that a person has not reported the proper amount of tax due, such assessment constitutes prima facie evidence that its claim for unpaid tax is valid.

► Mississippi ► Equifax Credit Information Services (Miss. App. Ct.) — a lower court, in considering

the taxpayers’ challenge to the assessment, applied the wrong standard of review, and by doing so effectively switched the burden of proof from the DOR to the taxpayers.

► South Carolina ► CarMax (S.C. Ct. App.) — a taxpayer did not bear the burden of proving that an

alternate apportionment method proposed by the DOR was not reasonable, and the DOR was required to establish that its proposed method was “not only appropriate, but more appropriate than any competing methods.”

Page 49: A pinch of SALT: what you need to know

A pinch of SALT: what you need to know Page 49

Current tax amnesty programs

► Kentucky ► October 1, 2012 through November 30, 2012 ► Qualified taxpayers will receive waiver of all penalties and waiver of 50%

of interest due ► Maine

► October 1, 2012 through November 30, 2012 ► For use tax only ► All penalties and interest waived, payment plans available

► Rhode Island ► September 2, 2012 through November 15, 2012 ► Qualified taxpayers will receive waiver of all penalties and waiver of 25%

of interest due

Page 50: A pinch of SALT: what you need to know

A pinch of SALT: what you need to know Page 50

Current tax amnesty programs (cont.)

► New Jersey Voluntary Disclosure Initiative ► The Lanco (2006) and Praxair (2009) cases have upheld New Jersey’s

economic nexus provisions, introduced with the addition of an example to the regulations in 1996

► New Jersey recently announced the Intangible Asset Nexus Initiative, running from September 15, 2012 to January 15, 2013 ► For companies that

► Own intangible assets ► Derive income from the use of those assets in New Jersey

► Specific requirements in addition to standard Voluntary Disclosure Agreement (VDA) procedures ► Look back limited to later of period after December 31, 2003 or date business

commenced (the Division has stated they will look back to 1996 outside of VDA) ► All required returns must be filed and all payments submitted within 90 days of

execution of VDA ► Taxpayer must pay interest and amnesty penalty within 30 days of assessment ► All returns subject to routine audit with respect to issues not covered by VDA

Page 51: A pinch of SALT: what you need to know

A pinch of SALT: what you need to know Page 51

Current tax amnesty programs (cont.) Key features Implications

► All penalties waived, except for 5% amnesty penalty for returns due prior to February 2009

► Taxpayer-friendly terms when compared to alternative 35% penalties

► Throw-out relief in form of averaging a throw-out receipts fraction with non-throw-out receipts fraction will be considered

► NJ has stated that it will use discretion and is willing to consider proposals for settlement

► Proposals should be included in initial contact ► Settlement will be binding and if no settlement

reached, Division will hold for future determination

► Operating companies that pay royalties to intangible holding companies participating in program likely added back royalties for NJ entire net income purposes

► Operating companies may submit amended returns, subject to the statute of limitations, in order to claim an add-back exception for royalties paid

► Division willing to entertain proposals for intangible holding companies in place prior to 12/31/03 that were unwound prior to 12/31/03

► Proposals may be submitted in the same manner and the same treatment is anticipated

New Jersey Voluntary Disclosure Initiative (cont.)

Page 52: A pinch of SALT: what you need to know

Other notable developments

Page 53: A pinch of SALT: what you need to know

A pinch of SALT: what you need to know Page 53

Other legislative developments

► Missouri ► S.B. 19 (enacted April 26, 2011) — phases-out the franchise tax

beginning in tax year 2012, with full phase-out by 2016 ► New Jersey

► Research and Development Credit Limit Elimination ► Beginning January 1, 2012, New Jersey has eliminated the limit on the

research and development (R&D) credit ► The R&D credit may be used to eliminate corporation business tax liability (subject to

the statutory minimum) ► Unused R&D credits may be carried forward for up to seven years

Page 54: A pinch of SALT: what you need to know

A pinch of SALT: what you need to know Page 54

Other legislative developments (cont.)

► Pennsylvania ► H.B. 761 (enacted July 2, 2012) — key changes

► Time period for reporting changes to federal income increased to six months (from 30 days)

► Eliminate the December 31, 2015 sunset of the R&D tax credit ► Capital Stock and Franchise Tax expires after December 31, 2013

► North Carolina ► H.B. 200 (enacted June 15, 2011) — exclusion of reserves for

amortization of intangible assets from the capital base in determining the taxpayer’s franchise tax liability ► Applicable to tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2007

► Texas ► Comptroller of Public Accounts revised its policy to allow taxpayer to

change or elect to take the cost of goods sold or compensation deduction on an amended long-form franchise tax report

Page 55: A pinch of SALT: what you need to know

A pinch of SALT: what you need to know Page 55

Other judicial developments

► New York ► The Metropolitan Commuter Transportation Mobility Tax declared

unconstitutional — Mangano v. Silver (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nassau County) ► Nassau County Supreme Court (trial level) declared that the tax was

unconstitutionally enacted ► New York State Department of Taxation and Finance has issued guidance

concerning protective refund claims ► The deadline for filing a protective refund claim for the first period at issue was

November 2, 2012 (subsequently extended to November 14) for employers and is April 30, 2013 for self-employed individuals

► Protective refund claims may still be filed for all periods that are still within the statute of limitations

► Three ways to file: ► Login through existing Online Service account ► Complete electronic form available on Department’s website ► Call +1 518 485 2392

Page 56: A pinch of SALT: what you need to know

Questions?