Articles Posted in Market-Based Sourcing

Posted

After nearly a decade in development, the California Franchise Tax Board (FTB) has finalized its amended market-based sourcing regulation under Regulation Section 25136-2, which governs the sourcing of receipts from services and intangible property.

The regulation was approved by the Office of Administrative Law and filed with the Secretary of State on August 27, 2025.  The revised rules will apply to tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2026.  Among the most significant changes to the regulation are:Capture-2-300x101

  • For purposes of population-based reasonable approximation, taxpayers are limited to populations of specific foreign jurisdictions or geographic areas where sales can be substantiated, rather than the broader population of the country. The regulation does not resolve whether California’s population—the numerator—may similarly be confined to the localities where sales occur.
  • A new framework and examples for sourcing receipts from services, beginning with a presumption of where the benefit of the service is received depending on whether the service primarily relates to real property, tangible personal property, intangible property, or individuals.
    • The location of the benefit is then substantiated through cascading rules: (1) contracts or the taxpayer’s books and records, (2) all other sources of information, (3) reasonable approximation, or (4) the customer’s billing address.
    • For services provided to the U.S. government, if none of the first three rules apply, the receipts are sourced based on the ratio of California’s population to the national population.
    • New examples address logistics services (sourced to the tangible property delivery location), pharmaceutical development services (sourced to the clinical trial testing location), digital advertising services (sourced via look-through to the individual ad viewer’s location), and call center services (sourced via look-through to the customer’s own individual customers).
  • New definitions, sourcing methodology and examples for asset management services, assigning receipts based on the average value of assets held by investors or beneficial owners domiciled in California.
  • New definitions, sourcing methodology and examples for select types of professional service providers with more than 250 customers.
  • Use of reasonable approximation to determine the location where an intangible is to be used following a complete transfer of property rights.
  • New rules and an example for bundled sales of services and tangible and intangible property.
  • Definition of “customer” of marketable securities, excluding intermediaries.
  • New rule that the taxpayer’s reasonable approximation method or location of the customer for marketable securities will be accepted unless the FTB can prove by a preponderance of the evidence that it is unreasonable.

Posted

OTA

The California Attorney General has confirmed the Office of Tax Appeals (OTA) may decline to apply a tax regulation in a taxpayer appeal if it conflicts with the relevant statute. OTA must afford appropriate deference to the issuing agency, but its authority extends to setting aside the regulation for that appeal. OTA lacks authority to invalidate or repeal the regulation more broadly or to apply its conclusions outside the specific appeal.

Continue Reading ›

Posted

The California Franchise Tax Board (FTB) announced it has initiated the formal rulemaking process to amend Regulation Section 25136-2, which governs the sourcing of receipts from services and intangible property.  The proposed changes would apply to taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2024.Capture-2-300x101 Continue Reading ›

Posted

seal-of-new-jersey_800-300x300

The New Jersey Tax Court held that a taxpayer was entitled to a refund of corporation business tax (CBT) for tax years 2011 and 2012 after determining the taxpayer correctly used a market-based sourcing methodology to source service receipts to New Jersey.  In its unpublished April 11, 2024, opinion, the court rejected the argument that the law and regulations in effect during the tax years at issue, which preceded 2018 legislation adopting market-based sourcing, required the use of a cost of performance (COP) methodology.

Continue Reading ›

Posted

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).

maine-2-300x54

Continue Reading ›

Posted

Florida-300x300On 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 ›

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 ›