Articles Posted in Apportionment

Posted

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

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.

Continue Reading ›

Posted

The California Court of Appeal held a nonresident S corporation shareholder’s pro rata share of gain on the sale of goodwill classified as business income by the S corporation has a California source and is subject to tax for personal income tax purposes to the extent of the S corporation’s California apportionment formula and is not sourced 100 percent to the nonresident shareholder’s domicile. Continue Reading ›

Posted

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

In One Technologies LLC v. Franchise Tax Board, an out-of-state California corporate taxpayer filed suit in California trial court challenging the state’s mandatory single sales factor apportionment formula on the basis its passage in 2012 via voter initiative Proposition 39 unconstitutionally violated the “single subject rule.”

Continue Reading ›

Posted

Pillsbury SALT attorney Jeff Phang will present during CLA’s taxation webinar on September 13. Jeff is partnering with Annie Rothschild (Eversheds Sutherland) to present on the topic, “Recent Developments in California Income Tax Apportionment and Sourcing Law.”CLA-300x66

Continue Reading ›

Posted

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court recently held that software vendors have a statutory right to apportion tax on the sale of prewritten computer software purchased for use in multiple states and that they may do so through the Commonwealth’s general tax abatement process.  The court’s decision in Oracle USA, Inc. v. Commissioner of Revenue, 487 Mass. 518 (2021) confirms that the ability to apportion tax on software is not contingent on strict compliance with the administrative procedures set forth in the Massachusetts Commissioner of Revenue’s apportionment regulation.  The tax abatement process is an acceptable mechanism for taxpayers to seek tax apportionment with respect to software purchased for use in multiple jurisdictions.images Continue Reading ›

Posted

On May 25, the U.S. Solicitor General filed its highly anticipated brief in New Hampshire v. Massachusetts https://seesalt.pillsburylaw.com/files/2021/06/Flag_of_the_United_States_Solicitor_General.svg-1.pngand recommended that the Court decline jurisdiction over the case.  Although the ultimate decision is yet to be issued, the U.S. Supreme Court generally follows the Solicitor General’s recommendations after, as here, the Court requests the U.S. government’s input.

Continue Reading ›

Posted

On February 15, 2021, the Maryland Court of Appeals issued a decision in Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. v. Director, Department of Finance of Baltimore City, Case No. 24-C-18-001778 (Md. 2021), upholding the constitutionality of a local ordinance that imposes an annual excise tax on businesses selling advertising space on off-site billboards.  The tax in question applies only to businesses that own or control off-site billboards in the City of Baltimore i.e., billboards that are not located on the premises where the goods or services being advertised are offered for sale.    Continue Reading ›

Contact Information