Posted
by and

Under a new bill signed into law on March 11, 2024, the South Carolina Department of Revenue will have to satisfy additional standards before it may force affiliated corporate taxpayers to file a unitary combined return.  These new standards, enacted as part of Senate Bill 298, are expected to rein in the Department’s aggressive use of forced combination, which has led to considerable tax controversy in the state.

Modeled on section 18 of the Uniform Division of Income for Tax Purposes Act, section 12-6-2320 of the South Carolina Code of Laws has long authorized the Department to require, and taxpayers to petition for, a reasonable alternative apportionment methodology when the standard apportionment provisions do not fairly represent the extent of the taxpayer’s in-state business activity.  However, until Senate Bill 298, no standards or guidelines—other than those in the statute itself—existed for invoking and applying this alternative apportionment authority.  The absence of any standards or guidelines created considerable uncertainty for taxpayers.

Senate Bill 298 shifts the landscape.  Now, before it may require the filing of a unitary combined return, the Department must find that the taxpayer’s intercompany transactions lack economic substance or are not at fair market value.  To determine whether intercompany transactions are at fair market value, Senate Bill 298 specifies the Department must apply the federal transfer pricing standards contained in the Treasury Regulations.  When the Department finds that a combined return is required, it must provide the taxpayer with a written statement detailing the facts, circumstances, and reasons supporting the Department’s finding no later than ninety days after issuing a proposed assessment.

Two other features of Senate Bill 298 are noteworthy.  In determining whether intercompany transactions lack economic substance or are not at fair market value, the Department must consider each tax year separately.  In addition, when a taxpayer appeals a final determination by the Department under section 12-6-2320 to the South Carolina Administrative Law Court in a contested tax case, Senate Bill 298 requires the administrative law judge to review de novo each of the following:

  • Whether intercompany transactions lacking economic substance or not at fair market value cause the taxpayer’s separate returns to unfairly represent the extent of the taxpayer’s in-state business activity;
  • Whether the Department’s means of determining the taxpayer’s state net income under section 12-6-2320 is an appropriate means of determining the taxpayer’s state net income properly attributable to South Carolina; and
  • To the extent the Department required a combined return, whether adjustments other than requiring the filing of a combined return are adequate under the circumstances to redetermine state net income.

The new law is effective March 11, 2024 and applies to all open tax periods, but not assessments under judicial review by the Administrative Law Court, the South Carolina Court of Appeals, or the South Carolina Supreme Court as of that date.

Posted
by , , and
  • In a decision marked “not precedential,” the OTA held 100 percent of repatriated dividends must be included in the taxpayer’s sales factor denominator.OTA
  • First, the OTA rejected the “matching principle” included in FTB Ruling 2006-01, and supported its holding based primarily on the plain language of Cal. Rev. & Tax. Code § 25120(f)(2), and legislative history.
  • Second, the OTA rejected the FTB’s argument that repatriated dividends constitute a substantial and occasional sale of property under FTB Regulation 25137(c)(1)(A).
  • Last, the OTA determined the FTB failed to carry its burden to show the taxpayer’s inclusion of 100 percent of repatriated dividends in the sales factor denominator is distortive under Cal. Rev. & Tax. Code § 25137.
  • Anyone may submit a request to the OTA requesting the decision be marked “precedential.”

The California Office of Tax Appeals (OTA), in a decision marked “not precedential” in the Matter of the Appeal of Microsoft Corporation & Subsidiaries, held 100 percent of repatriated dividends under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) must be included in the taxpayer’s sales factor denominator.

Continue Reading ›

Posted
by , and

The California Franchise Tax Board (FTB), California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA) and California Employment Development Department (EDD) announced tax relief for certain California counties affected by severe winter storms.

https://seesalt.pillsburylaw.com/files/2020/05/250px-Seal_of_California.svg_.png

Continue Reading ›

Posted
by and

The Supreme Court of Ohio has held the Ohio legislature did not violate the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution by directing an Ohio citizen to pay taxes to the municipality where the employee’s principal place of work was located rather than to where the employee actually worked.

image-removebg-preview-5-298x300

Continue Reading ›

Posted
by , and

A California trial court denied the Franchise Tax Board’s (FTB) motion to vacate and modify the judgment declaring FTB Technical Advice Memorandum (TAM) 2022-01 and FTB Publication 1050 invalid underground regulations adopted in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act.FTB

 

Continue Reading ›

Posted
by and

https://seesalt.pillsburylaw.com/files/2020/04/Seal_of_New_York.svg_-300x300.png

The New York State Tax Appeals Tribunal (Tribunal) held that a taxpayer’s distributive share income from a partnership was intangible income properly sourced to the taxpayer’s residence and not to the location of the partnership’s underlying operations. In the Matter of Greenberg, the taxpayer was a New York resident partner in a partnership operating an investment fund from Connecticut. The taxpayer sought to credit her tax paid to Connecticut against her 2014 and 2015 New York State personal income tax liability. On audit, the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance (Department) disallowed the credit, asserting that a partner’s “carried interest” income (i.e., a partner’s compensation based on the performance of the fund’s investments) is sourced as intangible income to the taxpayer’s residence. The Department thus asserted that the taxpayer was not eligible for the credit because the income was sourced to the taxpayer’s New York residence and not to Connecticut where the partnership operated.

Continue Reading ›