The May Revision of California’s 2024-2025 state budget seeks to block refund claims, worth approximately $1.3 billion for historical tax years, and $200 million per year going forward, by codifying informal guidance recently rejected by the Office of Tax Appeal’s (OTA) decision in the Matter of the Appeal of Microsoft Corporation & Subsidiaries (Appeal of Microsoft) and by granting the Franchise Tax Board’s (FTB) quasi-legislative rulemaking authority exempt from the procedural protections afforded by the Administrative Procedure Act. The May Revision also proposes to suspend net operating loss (NOL) deductions and limit tax credit utilization to $5 million per year for tax years 2025-2027; however, the legislature proposes to apply the changes to tax years 2024-2026 instead..
Articles Posted in Apportionment
Reminder: “Gross” Does Not Mean “Net” – California OTA Holds All Repatriated Dividends Must Be Included in Sales Factor
The California Office of Tax Appeals (OTA), in a decision marked “not precedential” in the Matter of the Appeal of Microsoft Corporation & Subsidiaries, held 100 percent of repatriated dividends under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) must be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.
- 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.”
COST’s 2024 Spring Conference
SALT partners Zachary Atkins and Evan Hamme will speak at COST’s upcoming Spring Conference.
Maine Expressly Requires Express Scripts to Apportion Services Receipts Using a Look-Through Approach
On November 7, 2023, the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine held a taxpayer’s receipts from the performance of pharmacy benefit management (PBM) services should be apportioned using a look-through approach. Specifically, the court held such services receipts should be apportioned to the state where the prescription drug is dispensed by retail pharmacies to individual members (i.e., the market member method), rather than the state where the taxpayer’s client’s primary commercial and administrative headquarters is located (i.e., the market client method).
No Sugarcoating: The California Office of Tax Appeals Limits the California FTB’s Application of Legal Ruling 2006-01
In the Appeal of Southern Minnesota Beet Sugar Cooperative (2023-OTA-342P) (Beet Sugar), the California Office of Tax Appeals (OTA) issued a precedential opinion holding the California Franchise Tax Board (FTB) is not entitled to apply its FTB Legal Ruling 2006-01 (Apr. 28, 2006) to prohibit taxpayers from including in their apportionment factors property, payroll, and sales that generated statutorily deductible income. The OTA’s guidance on the FTB’s interpretation and application of Legal Ruling 2006-01 in this opinion also has implications beyond the specific issue in Beet Sugar, as the FTB has been attempting to expand the application of the limited legal ruling to other inapplicable situations. For example, an opinion by the OTA in the Appeal of Microsoft Corporation & Subsidiaries (OTA Case Number 21037336) is also anticipated to be issued soon, which appeal concerns whether the FTB is entitled to apply Legal Ruling 2006-01 to prohibit taxpayers from including in their apportionment sales factors statutorily deductible foreign dividend amounts.
New Jersey Enacts Significant Changes to Corporation Business Tax Law
On July 3, 2023, New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy signed A.B. 5323 into law to amend New Jersey’s Corporation Business Tax (CBT). The bill enacted a variety of clarifications, corrections and modifications to the CBT.
No Day Off for Buehler: California Sources Gain from Sale of Intangible to Domicile and Denies Other State Tax Credit
The California Office of Tax Appeals (OTA) held a California resident was not entitled to claim an other state tax credit (OSTC) for taxes paid to Massachusetts because gain from the sale of an LLC membership interest was wholly sourced to the taxpayer’s domicile under California law. Continue Reading ›
Certainly COP: Florida Court Rejects Department of Revenue’s Attempt to Conflate Costs of Performance Sourcing With Market-Based Sourcing
On March 1, 2023, a Florida trial court confirmed that costs of performance (COP) sourcing, not market-based sourcing, is Florida’s standard methodology for sourcing service receipts for apportionment purposes. In Billmatrix Corp. v. State of Florida, Department of Revenue, No. 2020-CA-000435 (Fla. 2d Cir. Ct. Mar. 1, 2023), the court strongly rebuked the Florida Department of Revenue for attempting to apply market-based sourcing in contravention of its own COP sourcing regulation. Continue Reading ›
Texas Comptroller Takes a Serious Look at Sourcing Regulation After SiriusXM Loss
The Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts has proposed significant amendments to its service receipts sourcing regulation in the wake of the Texas Supreme Court’s decision in Sirius XM Radio, Inc. v. Hegar, 643 S.W.3d 402 (Tex. 2022). The proposed amendments would dispense with the Comptroller’s long-standing “receipts-producing, end-product act” test and align the underlying regulation with the SiriusXM decision.
The California Franchise Tax Board Fails to Follow the Order of Its Market-Based Sourcing Cascading Rules
In the Appeal of Sheward, 2022-OTA-228P (May 25, 2022), the California Office of Tax Appeals (OTA) held the California Franchise Tax Board (FTB) failed to follow its own market-based sourcing apportionment regulation by prematurely using reasonable approximation to source the income of a multistate unitary business. During the tax year 2017, the taxpayer operated a business providing in-person services as a horse racetrack judge in California and Minnesota but failed to file a California return. Related to such services, the taxpayer received Form 1099s from the State of California, the State of Minnesota, and Minnesota Harness Racing, Inc.