State & Local Tax Alert Breaking state and local tax developments from Grant Thornton LLP
|
|
- Kory Cooper
- 7 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 State & Local Tax Alert Breaking state and local tax developments from Grant Thornton LLP Idaho Supreme Court Addresses Cost of Performance Application On October 29, the Idaho Supreme Court upheld a district court decision and found that receipts from sales of Internet service to Idaho customers were sourced as Idaho receipts for purposes of computing the Idaho income tax sales factor. 1 Specifically, the ruling applied the cost of performance (COP) sourcing rule generally used in Idaho to determine the amount of receipts from sales of services sourced to Idaho. Background Cable One, Inc., a Delaware corporation headquartered in Arizona, provides cable and Internet services to customers located in various states, including Idaho. For the 2005 tax year, Cable One received receipts from its Idaho customers related to four activities: (i) the provision of cable television services; (ii) the provision of Internet access services; (iii) the provision of advertising services; and (iv) the leasing of cable modems. In computing its Idaho sales factor numerator, Cable One included revenues earned from Idaho customers related to all of the listed activities except for providing Internet access. Believing the receipts from the provision of Internet services were properly sourced to Arizona based on Idaho s COP rule, Cable One excluded these receipts from the numerator of its Idaho sales factor. The Idaho Tax Commission issued a notice of deficiency determination to Cable One for tax and related interest for the 2005 tax year based on the inclusion of the receipts from Idaho customers for Internet service in the numerator of the sales factor. The Tax Commissioner denied Cable One s timely filed petition for redetermination. Cable One then filed a complaint in the district court, 2 which ruled in favor of the Tax Commission. Cable One appealed that decision to the Idaho Supreme Court. Release date November 21, 2014 States Idaho Issue/Topic Corporate Income Tax Contact details Jamie C. Yesnowitz Washington, DC T E jamie.yesnowitz@us.gt.com Dale Busacker Minneapolis T E dale.busacker@us.gt.com Chuck Jones Chicago T E chuck.jones@us.gt.com Lori Stolly Cincinnati T E lori.stolly@us.gt.com Internet Access Service Cable One relied upon several distinct parts of its broadband cable networks to provide Internet access to its Idaho customers, as well as some services which were provided from its Arizona headquarters location. Specifically, Cable One relied upon the following components located in Idaho, which were defined at the district court level: (i) cable 1 Cable One, Inc. v. Idaho State Tax Commission, Idaho Supreme Court, Docket No , Oct. 29, Pursuant to IDAHO CODE (a)..
2 Grant Thornton LLP - 2 modem; (ii) drop; (iii) loop; (iv) nodes; (v) head end; and (vi) Internet backbone. Only a portion of the equipment used in the Internet backbone was owned by Cable One. Similarly, Cable One relied upon its Phoenix headquarters to provide certain services including a Solution Center and Network Operations Center, which were essential to providing Idaho customers with Internet access. Together, these services provided necessary personnel, routers, servers, and related equipment and software to support the Internet services provided by Cable One throughout its cable systems. Discrete parts of the back office as identified and defined by the district court included the following: (i) Internet backbone; (ii) router; (iii) solution center; (iv) network operations center; (v) provisioning module; (vi) LDAP module; (vii) SNMP module; (viii) DHCP module; (ix) TFTP module; (x) DNS module; (xi) associate module; (xii) billing module; (xiii) DAC (digital video) module; and (xiv) customer module. Again, only a portion of the equipment used in the Internet backbone was owned by Cable One. A portion of the Internet backbone used by Cable One was procured from two third-party providers to obtain high-speed data access to the World Wide Web. Specifically, the backbone consisted of both: (i) a local service connection including a fiber optic connection from Cable One s Arizona location to a facility owned by the third party; and (ii) a dedicated Internet access port at the local third-party provider facility that provided high speed data access to the World Wide Web. The Internet backbone was used to transmit data between customer locations in Idaho and Cable One s Arizona facility and to access the Internet. Application of COP Rule For a corporation transacting business within and outside Idaho, a formula is prescribed to compute Idaho taxable income. 3 A corporation s business income is apportioned to Idaho by multiplying its income by a fraction based upon the taxpayer s payroll factor, property factor, and two times the sales factor divided by four. 4 The dispute in this case focused on the calculation of the sales factor, which is generally computed based on the total sales of the taxpayer in Idaho divided by the total sales of the taxpayer everywhere for the period at issue. 5 Idaho treats sales from items other than sales of tangible personal property as Idaho sales if the income-producing activity is performed both in and outside this state and a greater proportion of the income-producing activity is performed in this state than in any other state, based on costs of performance. 6 The Court began its analysis by identifying the income-producing activity at issue. Pursuant to the regulation adopted by the Tax Commission, the term income-producing activity applies to each separate item of income and means the transactions and activity directly engaged in by the taxpayer in the regular course of its trade or business for the ultimate purpose of obtaining gains or profit. 7 An income-producing activity also includes the use of tangible and intangible property by the taxpayer in performing a 3 IDAHO CODE IDAHO CODE (i). 5 IDAHO CODE (p). 6 IDAHO CODE (r)(2). 7 IDAHO ADMIN. CODE
3 Grant Thornton LLP - 3 service. 8 Based on this regulatory guidance, the Court found that the income-producing activity at issue was the provision of Internet services to customers located in Idaho, rather than, as Cable One argued, the provision of Internet services to customers located throughout nineteen states. Cable One contended that it purchased dedicated interstate services from its backbone service providers to connect each of its cable systems to each other and to its Arizona headquarters and that the service was provided through the use of a dedicated, point-topoint service between a router in Idaho and a router in Arizona. Furthermore, Cable One noted that it could not have operated its Idaho cable systems without connecting to its headquarters in Arizona via the connection facilitated by the Internet backbone services. Finally, Cable One argued that the location of the income-producing activity was irrelevant to the determination of the COP of the service. In rejecting this argument, the Court noted that in order for an income-producing activity to be performed in more than one state, the taxpayer must first have activities in more than one state that combine to produce the item of income at issue. Cable One s activities in both Idaho and Arizona combined to produce the revenue from sales of Internet services to Idaho customers. The COP of the activities that produced the relevant income is simply the metric used by Idaho to quantify the income-producing activity in each state in order to apportion income. Once the income-producing activity was identified, the Court addressed how to quantify the costs of performing that activity. COP is defined to include the direct costs determined according to generally accepted accounting principles and accepted conditions or practices of the taxpayer s trade or business. 9 To determine the direct costs incurred by Cable One to provide Internet access to Idaho customers, the Court relied upon a previously provided affidavit from Cable One. Specifically, the direct costs 10 included: (i) costs for Idaho employees and local offices; (ii) Idaho s share of the long distance communication services purchased from third parties by Arizona headquarters for use by all Cable One systems everywhere, and (iii) Idaho s share of the customer support services and Network Operations Center services provided from the Arizona headquarter location. The Court relied upon this affidavit, as well as district court evidence in the form of an accounting entry showing the amount paid to third parties for the Internet backbone, to determine the total direct costs incurred to provide Internet access to Idaho customers. The Court rejected Cable One s contention that it failed to distinguish direct costs from common costs since Cable One itself had referred to the included costs as being direct costs. 8 IDAHO ADMIN. CODE a. 9 IDAHO ADMIN. CODE (2005). 10 The district court had found that direct costs incurred in the provision of the Internet service by Cable One to its Idaho customers also included depreciation expense attributable to high speed data capacity and a percentage of the Idaho qualified broadband tax credit. However, these amounts proved immaterial in the final analysis of costs incurred in Idaho, so this issue was not addressed by the Court.
4 Grant Thornton LLP - 4 While the Idaho local office costs were incurred in Idaho and the allocated Arizona back office costs were incurred in Arizona, the costs related to the backbone services procured from third parties were incurred at multiple locations. Since Cable One was using equipment and the Internet backbone located in Idaho and owned by third parties in order to provide Internet services to Idaho customers, some of the income-producing activity to provide Internet services to Idaho customers occurred in Idaho. In conclusion, the Court relied upon the direct cost information to determine whether a greater proportion of the income-producing activity was performed in Idaho than in any other state, based on COP. Based upon the direct costs incurred by Cable One to provide Internet services to Idaho customers, 68 percent were incurred performing incomeproducing activities in Idaho. Thus, pursuant to the all-or-nothing COP rule applicable in Idaho, the revenue from the sales of Internet services to Idaho customers was found to be wholly includable in the numerator of Cable One s Idaho sales factor. Commentary While the trend towards market-based sourcing for sales factors only seems to be increasing in popularity, 11 proper application of existing COP rules in jurisdictions like Idaho remains relevant. Though these rules may appear simple to apply, in practice specific facts and circumstances can lead to unexpected results. The decision in the Cable One case was very fact-dependent and demonstrative of at least two differing approaches to determine where costs of performance were incurred. The taxpayer and the Tax Commission also differed in their interpretation of the service provided for which costs of performance needed to be determined. Taxpayers filing income tax returns in states using COP rules should refer to jurisdiction-specific guidance to ensure that they understand each jurisdiction s nuances of interpretation. While Idaho utilized an operational approach in analyzing the receipts at issue, other jurisdictions have applied a transactional approach. 12 Similarly, the Court s heavy reliance upon evidence originally produced by Cable One to support its decision should not go unnoticed. For example, Cable One s decision to label certain amounts as direct costs during the district court determination prevented an argument to treat the amounts as common costs at this level. Though not a novel concept, taxpayers should fully consider the implications and necessity of sharing information with taxing authorities during an audit or other formal proceeding. It is interesting to note that Cable One bore the burden of proving that the Commission s deficiency determination was erroneous in this case, based upon prior Court guidance. 13 Since the original issue arose as a result of a Tax Commission-initiated audit, the fact that Cable One was forced to bear the burden of proof could be perceived as unfair. 11 Rhode Island enacted market-based sourcing for sales factor purposes during 2014 with Ch. 145 (H.B. 7133), Laws New York took similar action with its enactment of Ch. 59 (A.B / S.B. 6359), Laws The bill modified New York apportionment to a single receipts factor with a set of intricate customer-based sourcing rules. Specific provisions were enacted for various types of sales including other business receipts, rents and royalties, and digital products. 12 AT&T Corp. v. Department of Revenue, Oregon Tax Court, T.C. 4814, June 28, Albertson s, Inc. v. Department of Revenue, State Tax Commission, 683 P.2d 846 (Idaho 1984).
5 Grant Thornton LLP - 5 The information contained herein is general in nature and based on authorities that are subject to change. It is not intended and should not be construed as legal, accounting or tax advice or opinion provided by Grant Thornton LLP to the reader. This material may not be applicable to or suitable for specific circumstances or needs and may require consideration of nontax and other tax factors. Contact Grant Thornton LLP or other tax professionals prior to taking any action based upon this information. Grant Thornton LLP assumes no obligation to inform the reader of any changes in tax laws or other factors that could affect information contained herein. No part of this document may be reproduced, retransmitted or otherwise redistributed in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including by photocopying, facsimile transmission, recording, re-keying or using any information storage and retrieval system without written permission from Grant Thornton LLP. This document supports the marketing of professional services by Grant Thornton LLP. It is not written tax advice directed at the particular facts and circumstances of any person. Persons interested in the subject of this document should contact Grant Thornton or their tax advisor to discuss the potential application of this subject matter to their particular facts and circumstances. Nothing herein shall be construed as imposing a limitation on any person from disclosing the tax treatment or tax structure of any matter addressed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO. Docket No. 41305-2013 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No. 41305-2013 CABLE ONE, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. IDAHO STATE TAX COMMISSION, Defendant-Respondent. Boise, August 2014 Term 2014 Opinion No. 108
More informationState & Local Tax Alert
State & Local Tax Alert Breaking state and local tax developments from Grant Thornton LLP Maryland Tax Court Holds Intangible Holding Company Had Corporate Income Tax Nexus The Maryland Tax Court has held
More informationState & Local Tax Alert
State & Local Tax Alert Breaking state and local tax developments from Grant Thornton LLP Minnesota Tax Court Denies Use of Multistate Tax Compact s Equally-Weighted Three-Factor Apportionment Formula
More informationState & Local Tax Alert
State & Local Tax Alert Breaking state and local tax developments from Grant Thornton LLP Michigan Enacts Legislation Designed to Eliminate Multistate Tax Compact Apportionment Election Refunds Allowed
More informationState & Local Tax Alert
State & Local Tax Alert Breaking state and local tax developments from Grant Thornton LLP Michigan Court of Appeals Holds Certain Cloud Computing Not Subject to Use Tax On October 27, 2015, the Michigan
More informationState & Local Tax Alert
State & Local Tax Alert Breaking state and local tax developments from Grant Thornton LLP Nevada Enacts Budget Bill Including New Commerce Tax On June 9, 2015, Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval signed legislation
More informationState & Local Tax Alert
State & Local Tax Alert Breaking state and local tax developments from Grant Thornton LLP U.S. Bankruptcy Court Rules Imposition of Oregon Corporate Excise Tax on Out-of-State Holding Company Was Unconstitutional
More informationState & Local Tax Alert Breaking state and local tax developments from Grant Thornton LLP
State & Local Tax Alert Breaking state and local tax developments from Grant Thornton LLP North Carolina Enacts Significant Income, Franchise and Sales Tax Legislation, Contingent Upon Further Legislative
More informationState & Local Tax Alert
State & Local Tax Alert Breaking state and local tax developments from Grant Thornton LLP Minnesota Tax Court Holds Merchandisers Create Corporate Income Tax Nexus for Out-of-State Distributor The Minnesota
More informationState & Local Tax Alert Breaking state and local tax developments from Grant Thornton LLP
Release date State & Local Tax Alert Breaking state and local tax developments from Grant Thornton LLP New York Tax Tribunal Holds State Could Not Force Combined Reporting with One of Taxpayer s Subsidiaries
More informationState & Local Tax Alert
State & Local Tax Alert Breaking state and local tax developments from Grant Thornton LLP Texas Comptroller Rules on Electricity Transmission and Distribution Cost Inclusion in COGS Deduction On March
More informationState & Local Tax Alert Breaking state and local tax developments from Grant Thornton LLP
State & Local Tax Alert Breaking state and local tax developments from Grant Thornton LLP Release date October 19, 2011 New Jersey Throwout Rule Litigation and Potential Issues In Whirlpool Properties,
More informationState & Local Tax Alert
State & Local Tax Alert Breaking state and local tax developments from Grant Thornton LLP Texas ALJ Holds Software Delivered to Texas Is Taxable Use On July 2, 2015, a Texas Comptroller Administrative
More informationState & Local Tax Alert
State & Local Tax Alert Breaking state and local tax developments from Grant Thornton LLP Louisiana Enacts Three-Period Tax Amnesty Program Louisiana has enacted a tax amnesty program that will be held
More informationState & Local Tax Alert Breaking state and local tax developments from Grant Thornton LLP
State & Local Tax Alert Breaking state and local tax developments from Grant Thornton LLP San Francisco Voters Approve New Gross Receipts Tax On November 6, San Francisco voters approved Measure E, which
More informationState & Local Tax Alert Breaking state and local tax developments from Grant Thornton LLP
State & Local Tax Alert Breaking state and local tax developments from Grant Thornton LLP Illinois Enacts Legislation to Create Independent Tax Tribunal On August 28, Illinois Governor Pat Quinn approved
More informationState & Local Tax Alert Breaking state and local tax developments from Grant Thornton LLP
State & Local Tax Alert Breaking state and local tax developments from Grant Thornton LLP Release date May 16, 2011 States California California Enacts Voluntary Compliance Initiative, Expands Tax Shelter
More informationState & Local Tax Alert Breaking state and local tax developments from Grant Thornton LLP
State & Local Tax Alert Breaking state and local tax developments from Grant Thornton LLP Major Nexus Developments of 2010 Examined; States Follow Trend of Adopting Bright-Line Nexus Standards During 2010,
More informationState & Local Tax Alert
State & Local Tax Alert Breaking state and local tax developments from Grant Thornton LLP Texas Comptroller Amends Revised Texas Franchise Tax Cost of Goods Sold Rule On June 5, the Texas Comptroller of
More informationState & Local Tax Alert
State & Local Tax Alert Breaking state and local tax developments from Grant Thornton LLP GT Perspective on the Marketplace Fairness Act The Marketplace Fairness Act (MFA), currently under consideration
More informationState & Local Tax Alert
State & Local Tax Alert Breaking state and local tax developments from Grant Thornton LLP New Mexico Supreme Court Holds Online Retailer Has Substantial Nexus for Gross Receipts Tax Due to In-State Retailer
More informationState & Local Tax Alert Breaking state and local tax developments from Grant Thornton LLP
State & Local Tax Alert Breaking state and local tax developments from Grant Thornton LLP Texas Comptroller Issues Letter Ruling Discussing Sales Tax Treatment of Various Internet and Cloud Computing Services
More informationState & Local Tax Alert
State & Local Tax Alert Breaking state and local tax developments from Grant Thornton LLP New York State Enacts FY15-16 Budget Legislation Providing Extensive New York State and City Tax Reform On April
More informationUNIFORM DIVISION OF INCOME FOR TAX PURPOSES ACT. Drafted by the NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF COMMISSIONERS ON UNIFORM STATE LAWS.
UNIFORM DIVISION OF INCOME FOR TAX PURPOSES ACT Drafted by the NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF COMMISSIONERS ON UNIFORM STATE LAWS and by it APPROVED AND RECOMMENDED FOR ENACTMENT IN ALL THE STATES at its ANNUAL
More informationOREGON Multistate Taxation and E-Commerce. John H. Gadon
OREGON Multistate Taxation and E-Commerce John H. Gadon Lane Powell Spears Lubersky LLP 601 S.W. Second Avenue, Suite 2100 Portland, Oregon 97204-3158 (503) 778-2100 www.lanepowell.com I. Oregon and the
More informationPerformance Marketing Ass n, Inc. v. Hamer, Illinois Supreme Court, No. 114496, October 18, 2013
October 2013 Illinois Provisions of Click-Through Nexus Law Held Void The Illinois Supreme Court held that the definition provisions in Public Act 96-1544 (H.B. 3659), Laws 2011, the sales tax click-through
More informationTitle: Life Insurance Company of Virginia. Oct 14, 1994 STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
Title: Life Insurance Company of Virginia Oct 14, 1994 STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE IN RE: PETITION OF CASE NO. 94-4-DS LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF VIRGINIA a Virginia corporation, DECLARATORY
More informationTennessee Dept. of Revenue Draft 10/07/2015 1320-6-1-.34 Sales Factor: Sales Other than Sales of Tangible Personal Property in this State
1320-6-1-.34 Sales Factor: Sales Other than Sales of Tangible Personal Property in this State (1) General Rules (a) Market-Based Sourcing. Sales, other than sales of tangible personal property, are in
More informationCopyright 2015 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved. Member of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited
March/April 2015 Discussion of common tax audit issues affecting California corporate taxpayers by E. Scott Ewing, Benjamin Elliott, and Natasha Ng, Deloitte Tax LLP Deloitte refers to one or more of Deloitte
More informationSTATE OF ARIZONA Department of Revenue Office of the Director (602) 716-6090 Janice K. Brewer Governor
STATE OF ARIZONA Department of Revenue Office of the Director (602) 716-6090 Janice K. Brewer Governor CERTIFIED MAIL [redacted] John A. Greene Director The Director's Review of the Decision ) O R D E
More informationBEFORE THE APPEALS DIVISION DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE STATE OF WASHINGTON.... ) Registration No... ) Doc. No.../Audit No... ) Docket No...
Det. No. 05-0325, 27 WTD 99 (July 24, 2008) 99 Cite as Det. No. 05-0325, 27 WTD 99 (2008) BEFORE THE APPEALS DIVISION DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE STATE OF WASHINGTON In the Matter of the Petition For Correction
More informationThe State of State and Local Taxation and How it Impacts Your Law Firm
The State of State and Local Taxation and How it Impacts Your Law Firm Presentation to the Association of Legal Administrators February 20, 2014 Steven D. Lando, CPA Tax Partner Anchin, Block & Anchin
More informationEntertainment, Media, and Communications Tax Newsletter Volume 24/February 2015 In focus In brief www.pwc.com
Entertainment, Media, and Communications Tax Newsletter Volume 24/February 2015 Contributed by the Washington National Tax Services practice Recent IRS guidance provides safe harbor accounting methods
More informationWhat s News in Tax Analysis That Matters from Washington National Tax
What s News in Tax Analysis That Matters from Washington National Tax Let s Get Personal About Sourcing Sales of Personal Services Out-of-state service providers should be familiar with how states source
More informationReg. IV.18.(i). Special Rules: Telecommunications and ancillary service providers. [Adopted July 31, 2008]
Reg. IV.18.(i). Special Rules: Telecommunications and ancillary service providers. [Adopted July 31, 2008] The following special rules are established with respect to the apportionment of income from the
More informationWithumSmith+Brown, PC
WITHUMSMITH+BROWN TAX SERVICES TEAM S NEWSLETTER State And Local Tax BE IN A POSITION OF STRENGTH SM FEATURE State Apportionment is the most critical step in the state tax compliance process. Why is it
More informationThe ruling is requested for tax years ended on or after December 31, 2009.
IT 14-0003 PLR 04/24/2014 APPORTIONMENT SALES FACTOR For sales factor purposes, cloud computing services described in this ruling request re sales of service, not rental of tangible personal property or
More informationSTATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS PROVIDENCE, SC. DISTRICT COURT SIXTH DIVISION THOMAS A. PALANGIO D/B/A : CONSUMER AUTO SALES : : v. : A.A. No. 11-093 : DAVID M. SULLIVAN, TAX : ADMINISTRATOR
More informationAPPEARANCES: XXXXX, on behalf of XXXXX, et al.; Mr. Sean P. Cullinan, Special Assistant Attorney General, on behalf of the Department
IT 95-42 Tax Type: INCOME TAX Issue: Unitary Apportionment 1005 Penalty (Reasonable Cause Issue) STATE OF ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS CHICAGO, ILLINOIS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
More informationThe nuances of market-based sourcing of service revenue: Not all markets look the same
The nuances of market-based sourcing of service revenue: Not all markets look the same Giles Sutton, Jamie Yesnowitz, Chuck Jones and Terry F. Conley * The nuances of market-based sourcing of service revenue
More informationInspection of Jewett, Schwartz, Wolfe & Associates (Headquartered in Hollywood, Florida) Public Company Accounting Oversight Board
1666 K Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 207-9100 Facsimile: (202) 862-8433 www.pcaobus.org Inspection of Jewett, Schwartz, Wolfe & Associates (Headquartered in Hollywood, Florida) Issued
More informationBitcoin/Virtual Currency: Is it time for my state to provide formal guidance?
Bitcoin/Virtual Currency: Is it time for my state to provide formal guidance? Joel Waterfield Managing Director joel.waterfield@us.gt.com 703.847.7595 2014 Grant Thornton LLP. All rights reserved. Discussion
More informationFederal Change Reporting: Hot Topics & Current Issues
Houston Tax Executives Institute May 7, 2013 Federal Change Reporting: Hot Topics & Current Issues Jordan M. Goodman (312) 606-3225 jgoodman@saltlawyers.com Marilyn A. Wethekam (312) 606-3240 mwethekam@saltlawyers.com
More informationInsurance Company Issues Reasonable Cause Asserted On Application of Penalties
IT 98-2 Tax Type: Issue: INCOME TAX Insurance Company Issues Reasonable Cause Asserted On Application of Penalties STATE OF ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
More informationSUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA En Banc
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA En Banc CITY OF PEORIA, a municipal ) Arizona Supreme Court corporation; and CITY OF PHOENIX, ) No. CV-10-0218-PR a municipal corporation, ) ) Court of Appeals Plaintiffs/Defendants/
More informationJune 4, 2014. Request for Private Letter Ruling COMPANY. Dear Xxxx:
IT 14-0004 PLR 6/04/2014 Apportionment Sales Factor Method proposed by taxpayer to allocate sales of telecommunications services is reasonable under IITA Section 304(a)(3)(B-5)(vii)(d), and therefore may
More informationTIP on Tax: How cloud computing providers can weather the on-going tax storm
TIP on Tax: How cloud computing providers can weather the on-going tax storm By Joel Waterfield, Director, State and Local Tax Services and Steve Skiba, Director, State and Local Tax Services As cloud
More information2011 Tax Expenditure Report
STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE Prepared By The Department of Revenue Administration January 31, 2012 In accordance with RSA 77-A:5-a For The New Hampshire General Court - and - His Excellency, Governor John Lynch
More informationReg. 1.5833-1 (Effective for tax years beginning on and after January 1, 1998) Allocation and apportionment of Vermont net income by corporations
Reg. 1.5833 ALLOCATION AND APPORTIONMENT OF INCOME Reg. 1.5833-1 (Effective for tax years beginning on and after January 1, 1998) Allocation and apportionment of Vermont net income by corporations (a)
More informationReg.IV.18.(d). Special Regulation: Construction Contractors. [Adopted July 10, 1980]
Reg.IV.18.(d). Special Regulation: Construction Contractors. [Adopted July 10, 1980] The following special rules are established in respect to the apportionment of income of long-term construction contractors:
More informationDetermining What s Unitary: Combined Filing Requirements and Options
NAVIGATING STATE TAXATION IN A GLOBAL BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT Determining What s Unitary: Combined Filing Requirements and Options Peter Leonardis AIG Alysse McLoughlin McDermott Will & Emery LLP David Vistica
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from the Arizona Tax Court
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE CITY OF PEORIA, a municipal corporation; and CITY OF PHOENIX, a municipal corporation, v. Plaintiffs/Defendants/ Appellees, BRINK S HOME SECURITY,
More informationState Tax Bad Debt Recovery Issues. Agenda
2015 COST ANNUAL MEETING Chicago, Illinois State Tax Bad Debt Recovery Issues John Allan Partner, Jones Day Atlanta, Georgia Frank Julian Vice President, Macy s Cincinnati, Ohio David Otero Partner, Akerman
More informationArizona Form 2007 Exempt Organization Business Income Tax Return 99T
Arizona Form 2007 Exempt Organization Business Income Tax Return 99T Obtain additional information or assistance, tax forms and instructions, and copies of tax rulings and tax procedures by contacting
More informationSTATE OF ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS
IT 12-09 Tax Type: Income Tax Tax Issue: Non-resident Exemption STATE OF ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE OF THE STATE OF
More informationT.C. Memo. 2010-235 UNITED STATES TAX COURT. GARY LEE COLVIN, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
T.C. Memo. 2010-235 UNITED STATES TAX COURT GARY LEE COLVIN, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent Docket No. 17167-09L. Filed October 26, 2010. Gary Lee Colvin, pro se. Chris Sheldon,
More informationCase 0:15-cv-60423-WJZ Document 6-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/03/2015 Page 1 of 21
Case 0:15-cv-60423-WJZ Document 6-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/03/2015 Page 1 of 21 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 0:15-cv-60423-WJZ FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, STATES
More informationICC UNIFORM RULES FOR CONTRACT BONDS
ICC UNIFORM RULES FOR CONTRACT BONDS issued as ICC publication No. 524, adopted by the ICC Executive Board on 23 April 1993, come into effect on 1 January 1994 Copyright 1993 International Chamber of Commerce.
More informationT.C. Memo. 2014-250 UNITED STATES TAX COURT. STEVEN EDWARD HILLMAN, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
T.C. Memo. 2014-250 UNITED STATES TAX COURT STEVEN EDWARD HILLMAN, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent Docket No. 30942-12. Filed December 15, 2014. Steven Edward Hillman, pro se.
More informationBEFORE THE APPEALS DIVISION DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE STATE OF WASHINGTON. ) No. 15-0026... ) ) Registration No...
Det. No. 15-0026, 34 WTD 373 (August 31, 2015) 373 Cite as Det. No. 15-0026, 34 WTD 373 (2015) BEFORE THE APPEALS DIVISION DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE STATE OF WASHINGTON In the Matter of the Petition for Refund
More informationTHE PROPERTY TAX PROTEST PROCESS
THE PROPERTY TAX PROTEST PROCESS A summary of the appeal procedures under the Texas Property Tax Code Presented by: Jason C. Marshall THE MARSHALL FIRM PC 302 N. Market Suite 510 Dallas TX 75202 214.742.4800
More informationState Taxes and Fees Applicable to Voice, Video, and Data Service Providers
INFORMATION BRIEF Minnesota House of Representatives Research Department 600 State Office Building St. Paul, MN 55155 November 1999 Jeanne Cochran, Legislative Analyst, 651-296-8961 Pat Dalton, Legislative
More informationMTC APPORTIONMENT AND ALLOCATION RULES FOR FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS
MTC APPORTIONMENT AND ALLOCATION RULES FOR FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS On the July 8, 2008 definitions working group conference call, states were asked to submit written comments outlining the issues that each
More informationSTATE OF ARIZONA Department of Revenue Office of the Director (602) 716-6090
STATE OF ARIZONA Department of Revenue Office of the Director (602) 716-6090 Janet Napolitano Governor CERTIFIED MAIL [redacted] Gale Garriott Director The Director's Review of the Decision ) O R D E R
More informationIII. Nexus Expansion Section 2 sets forth various provisions a state could use to expand a definition of doing business.
I. Introduction The attached model legislative language is a proposal for expanding sales/use tax collection requirements through state lawmaking. The proposal consists of three primary parts: 1. Nexus
More informationGuidelines for Computing the Sales Factor Based on Market- Based Sourcing
Guidelines for Computing the Sales Factor Based on Market- Based Sourcing INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY On October 1, 2015, Governor Pat McCrory signed into law House Bill 259 (S.L. 2015-268). Provisions in
More informationT.C. Memo. 2009-266 UNITED STATES TAX COURT. JOEL I. BEELER, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
T.C. Memo. 2009-266 UNITED STATES TAX COURT JOEL I. BEELER, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent Docket No. 20892-07L. Filed November 24, 2009. Richard S. Kestenbaum and Bernard S.
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1764 Vonage Holdings Corp.; Vonage Network, Inc., Plaintiffs - Appellees, v. Nebraska Public Service Commission; Rod Johnson, in his official
More informationPURSUANT TO INTERNAL REVENUE CODE SECTION 7463(b),THIS OPINION MAY NOT BE TREATED AS PRECEDENT FOR ANY OTHER CASE.
PURSUANT TO INTERNAL REVENUE CODE SECTION 7463(b),THIS OPINION MAY NOT BE TREATED AS PRECEDENT FOR ANY OTHER CASE. T.C. Summary Opinion 2012-110 UNITED STATES TAX COURT THOMAS TRAN, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER
More informationCHAPTER 57-34 TELECOMMUNICATIONS CARRIERS TAXATION
CHAPTER 57-34 TELECOMMUNICATIONS CARRIERS TAXATION 57-34-01. Definitions. The definitions in this section may not be construed to subject a telecommunications carrier or telecommunications service to the
More informationPursuant to A.R.S. 12-1831, et seq., plaintiffs allege:
1 1 1 1 MOONEY, WRIGHT & MOORE, PLLC Paul J. Mooney (No. 000) Jim L. Wright (No. 01) Mesa Financial Plaza, Suite 000 South Alma School Road Mesa, Arizona 0-1 Telephone: (0) 1-00 Email: pmooney@azstatetaxlaw.com
More informationUNITED STATES TAX COURT. LATTICE SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
T.C. Memo. 2011-100 UNITED STATES TAX COURT LATTICE SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent Docket No. 13109-08. Filed May 9, 2011. Steven
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
(Bench Opinion) OCTOBER TERM 2004 1 NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes
More informationGROSS RECEIPTS TAX AND BUSINESS REGISTRATION FEES ORDINANCE 2014
GROSS RECEIPTS TAX AND BUSINESS REGISTRATION FEES ORDINANCE 2014 CHANGE IS COMING! If there are three things you take away from this presentation 1Registration Fees for All Businesses are Increasing in
More informationBEFORE THE HEARING OFFICER OF THE TAXATION AND REVENUE DEPARTMENT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO DECISION AND ORDER
BEFORE THE HEARING OFFICER OF THE TAXATION AND REVENUE DEPARTMENT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO IN THE MATTER OF THE PROTEST OF CHARLES L. FORKNER NO. 98-32 ID. NO. 02-327122-00 1, PROTEST TO ASSESSMENT NO.
More informationNote: Admin rules mis-numbered see 8721 also THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE ADMINISTRATION IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF
Note: Admin rules mis-numbered see 8721 also THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE ADMINISTRATION IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF AB, Inc. FOR A DECLARATORY RULING # 8761 Pursuant to RSA 541-A:1,
More informationPURSUANT TO INTERNAL REVENUE CODE SECTION 7463(b),THIS OPINION MAY NOT BE TREATED AS PRECEDENT FOR ANY OTHER CASE.
PURSUANT TO INTERNAL REVENUE CODE SECTION 7463(b),THIS OPINION MAY NOT BE TREATED AS PRECEDENT FOR ANY OTHER CASE. T.C. Summary Opinion 2001-187 UNITED STATES TAX COURT RONALD AND NANCY SWEET, Petitioners
More informationDevelopments in Sourcing
TEI - Denver Chapter May 13, 2015 Michele Borens Marc Simonetti Developments in Sourcing Agenda Introduction Market Sourcing Professional Services E-Services Financial Services Cable Service 2 3 Market
More informationPART ONE PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE (60 minutes)
PART ONE PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE (60 minutes) ANSWER THE QUESTIONS IN THIS PART OF THE EXAMINATION IN ANSWER BOOK/S SEPARATE FROM THE ANSWER BOOK/S CONTAINING ANSWERS TO OTHER PARTS OF THE EXAMINATION Question
More informationSOURCING OF SALES APPORTIONMENT FACTOR OF THE NH BUSINESS PROFITS TAX
SOURCING OF SALES APPORTIONMENT FACTOR OF THE NH BUSINESS PROFITS TAX Income from Services and Intangibles New Hampshire Department of Revenue Administration Presentation to the House Ways & Means Committee
More informationHOSPITAL MEDICAL COLLECTIONS, INC. et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES et al., Defendants and Appellants
65 Cal. App. 3d 46, *; 1976 Cal. App. LEXIS 2189, **; 135 Cal. Rptr. 147, *** HOSPITAL MEDICAL COLLECTIONS, INC. et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES et al., Defendants and Appellants
More informationStatement of Franklin Templeton in Support of Symposium Regarding Alternative Apportionment for Mutual Fund Service Providers
Statement of Franklin Templeton in Support of Symposium Regarding Alternative Apportionment for Mutual Fund Service Providers Executive Summary: The generic allocation and apportionment provisions of the
More informationFAQ: Golden parachute payments under Section 280G
FAQ: Golden parachute payments under Section 280G Companies that are planning for a merger or acquisition have various issues to consider as they prepare for the transaction, one of the issues being golden
More informationSLIP OPINION NO. 2016-OHIO-2813 IN RE APPLICATION OF SWENDIMAN.
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as In re Application of Swendiman, Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-2813.] NOTICE This slip opinion is subject to formal
More informationCLINTON COUNTY BOARD OF REVISION RULES OF PROCEDURE
CLINTON COUNTY BOARD OF REVISION RULES OF PROCEDURE The Board of Revision hereby enacts the following as its Rules of Procedure pursuant to the Ohio Revised Code (ORC) 5715.02 et seq. and HB294 323.66.
More informationBy: Pat Derdenger, Partner Steptoe & Johnson LLP 201 East Washington Street, 16 th Floor Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2382. Sub
ARIZONA TAX: CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND THE ORMOND CASE; THE COURT OF APPEALS FINALLY ANSWERS THE QUESTION OF WHETHER A CONSTRUCTION MANAGER IS A PRIME CONTRACTOR SUBJECT TO THE ARIZONA TRANSACTION PRIVILEGE
More informationT.C. Memo. 2010-254 UNITED STATES TAX COURT. THOMAS M. AND DONNA GENTILE, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
T.C. Memo. 2010-254 UNITED STATES TAX COURT THOMAS M. AND DONNA GENTILE, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent Docket No. 14226-08. Filed November 18, 2010. R determined a deficiency
More informationColorado Bar Association 2014 Annual Case Law Update Tax Law Update
Colorado Bar Association 2014 Annual Case Law Update Tax Law Update Tyler Murray 1 Sales and Use Tax Dep t of Revenue v. Public Service Co. of Colo., 330 P.3d 385, (Colo. 2014). Public Service Company
More informationSTATE OF ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
ST 09-1 Tax Type: Issue: Sales Tax Bad Debt Write-Off STATE OF ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS CHICAGO, ILLINOIS ABC, INC., ) Docket No. 07-ST-0000 Taxpayer ) Claim Periods
More informationT.C. Memo. 2014-96 UNITED STATES TAX COURT. DANIEL RICHARD KURKA, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
T.C. Memo. 2014-96 UNITED STATES TAX COURT DANIEL RICHARD KURKA, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent Docket No. 9365-12L. Filed May 21, 2014. Daniel Richard Kurka, pro se. Melanie
More informationBEFORE THE TAX COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF IDAHO ) ) ) ) ) ) [Redacted] (taxpayers) protested the Notice of Deficiency Determination dated May 16,
BEFORE THE TAX COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF IDAHO In the Matter of the Protest of, Petitioners. DOCKET NO. 25051 DECISION (taxpayers protested the Notice of Deficiency Determination dated May 16, 2012, asserting
More informationFiling Claims for Refund of Sales or Use Tax
State of Wisconsin Department of Revenue Important Change The football stadium district tax in Brown County ends on September 30, 2015. Filing Claims for Refund of Sales or Use Tax Includes information
More informationBEFORE THE HEARING OFFICER OF THE TAXATION AND REVENUE DEPARTMENT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
BEFORE THE HEARING OFFICER OF THE TAXATION AND REVENUE DEPARTMENT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO IN THE MATTER OF THE PROTEST OF ITT EDUCATIONAL SERVICES, INC., NO. 97-02 I.D. NO. 02-133184-00 7, PROTEST TO
More informationQUESTION: What portion of Taxpayer s advertising receipts should be sourced to Florida and included in the numerator of the sales factor?
Executive Director Marshall Stranburg QUESTION: What portion of Taxpayer s advertising receipts should be sourced to Florida and included in the numerator of the sales factor? ANSWER: In conclusion, licensing
More informationPURSUANT TO INTERNAL REVENUE CODE SECTION 7463(b),THIS OPINION MAY NOT BE TREATED AS PRECEDENT FOR ANY OTHER CASE.
PURSUANT TO INTERNAL REVENUE CODE SECTION 7463(b),THIS OPINION MAY NOT BE TREATED AS PRECEDENT FOR ANY OTHER CASE. T.C. Summary Opinion 2004-75 UNITED STATES TAX COURT STEVEN H. AND ANNA J. JENSEN, Petitioners
More informationUNITED STATES OF AMERICA CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU
2016-CFPB-0007 Document 1 Filed 03/02/2016 Page 1 of 25 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING File No. 2016-CFPB-0007 In the Matter of: CONSENT ORDER Dwolla,
More information211 CMR: DIVISION OF INSURANCE 211 CMR 142.00: INSURANCE SALES BY BANKS AND CREDIT UNIONS
211 CMR 142.00: INSURANCE SALES BY BANKS AND CREDIT UNIONS Section 142.01: Scope and Purpose 142.02: Applicability 142.03: Definitions 142.04: Licensing 142.05: Consumer Protection Terms and Conditions
More informationState Income Taxation of Trusts - Fifty-One Different Stories and a Few Surprise Endings
Chicago Estate Planning Council January 22, 2012 State Income Taxation of Trusts - Fifty-One Different Stories and a Few Surprise Endings Christine L. Albright Holland & Knight LLP This document is not
More informationT.C. Memo. 2005-14 UNITED STATES TAX COURT. ASSAF F. AL ASSAF AND REHAB ASSAF, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
T.C. Memo. 2005-14 UNITED STATES TAX COURT ASSAF F. AL ASSAF AND REHAB ASSAF, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent Docket No. 770-03. Filed January 31, 2005. Rehab R. Assaf, for
More informationState Tax Return. Georgia Court Ruling Spotlights Significant Complexities of 338(h)(10) Elections for State Income Tax Purposes
June 2009 State Tax Return Volume 16 Number 2 Georgia Court Ruling Spotlights Significant Complexities of 338(h)(10) Elections for State Income Tax Purposes Kirk Kringelis Atlanta (404) 581-8565 In most
More information