Articles Posted in Market-Based Sourcing

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  In its unpublished April 11, 2024, opinion, the court rejected the argument that the law and regulations in effect during the tax years at issue, which preceded 2018 legislation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 ›

Posted

The Pennsylvania Governor signed H.B. 1342 to enact changes to the state’s corporate income tax.[1]  Pennsylvania-PA-State-SealThe legislation modifies the corporate income tax in three ways: (1) adopts a bright-line economic nexus standard; (2) adopts market sourcing for receipts from intangibles; and (3) reduces the corporate tax rate and gradually continues to reduce the rate over the next eight years. Continue Reading ›

Posted

Pillsbury SALT attorneys Carley RobertsRobert P. Merten IIIJeff Phang, and Lexi Louderback recently published “How to Be Reasonable When Reasonably Approximating the Market: Part II”  in Tax Notes State. Read more here.Tax-Notes-logo

Posted

hartman-300x101

Pillsbury SALT attorney Zachary Atkins will present

“Market-Based Sourcing, the Continuing Conundrum” during the 28th Annual Paul J. Hartman State and Local Tax Forum on October 28. The Professor Paul J. Hartman Memorial State and Local Tax (SALT) Forum, sponsored in conjunction with the Vanderbilt University Law School, provides industry, practitioners and state revenue employees the opportunity to participate in a quality forum exploring significant national developments and trends in state and local taxation.

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 ›