SeeSALT Blog
- In a decision marked “not precedential,” the OTA held 100 percent of repatriated dividends must be included in the taxpayer’s sales factor denominator.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.”
The California Office of Tax Appeals (OTA), in a decision marked “not precedential” in the Matter of the Appeal of Microsoft Corporation & Subsidiaries, held 100 percent of repatriated dividends under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) must be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.
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.
The bill enacted a variety of clarifications, corrections and modifications to the CBT.
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. 