SeeSALT Blog
A Delaware state court invalidated the Delaware Division of Revenue’s policy limiting net operating loss (NOL) deductions 
for members of federal consolidated groups, holding that the policy violated the Uniformity Clause of the state constitution. Verisign, Inc. v. Director of Revenue, No. N19C-08-093 JRJ (Del. Super. Ct. Dec. 17, 2020). The decision presents a potential refund opportunity for Delaware corporate taxpayers who were members of a federal consolidated group, and for Delaware corporate income tax purposes had their separate-company NOL deductions limited to the group’s consolidated NOL.
Pillsbury attorney Zack Atkins explains.
To read the full article, please click here.
A federal district court held that under comity principles, Indiana state court is a more appropriate venue for a putative class action brought by three Indiana municipalities seeking to impose franchise fees on a group of online video providers. Order, 
Partnering with Robert Johnson (Crowe), Eran Liron (PwC) and Ruben Sislyan (Greenberg Traurig), Annie will present “Market Sourcing through Alternative Apportionment or Creative Characterizations of Activity,” moderated by Stephanie Do (COST). Few issues have created greater angst or spawned more litigation than state efforts to impose market sourcing of services on out-of-state taxpayers. As the service sector has grown, so has single-sales factor apportionment, which often makes market sourcing an all-or-nothing proposition to both states and taxpayers. Although many states have modified UDITPA to move from COP to market sourcing, many have not and are using tools such as Sec. 482, forced combination, and creative characterizations of benefits received. And states that changed are trying to stanch the revenue outflow from in-state service companies as well. This session will provide an overview and discussion of some of the more bizarre and inconsistent approaches taken by states on this issue.
Pillsbury partners 
A New York trial court held that charges for storage services rendered in New Jersey were not subject to New York sales tax despite the fact that the property was originally picked up in New York.