COMBINED REPORTING ON THE CLOCK IN NEW JERSEY

A bill (S 61) was introduced in the New Jersey Senate on January 12, 2016 that would require combined reporting of the corporation business tax by certain members of unitary business groups. 

According to the media, the version of the bill on New Jersey's legislature website is not accurate. The new version of the bill includes a water's-edge election and language regarding tax havens.

You may recall that a New Jersey think tank recommended New Jersey adopt combined reporting last year. The think tank estimated that New Jersey is losing out on $200 million per year to more than $400 million in tax revenue per year due to multistate corporations shifting profits out of state.

According to a New Jersey Senator, "by closing this loophole, we would end unfair -- and often unscrupulous -- tax avoidance on the part of multi-state (and in many cases multi-national) companies. In short, it's not a tax increase we're after, it's tax fairness."

The bill itself describes combined reporting as an "enhanced compliance tool." The bill also states:

"Most large businesses are structured as a family of corporations, commonly consisting of a “parent” corporation and its subsidiaries. Many corporate tax shelters depend on the relationship, or legal distance, among related corporations. Combined reporting, by effectively treating the parent and most or all of its subsidiaries as a single corporation for state income tax purposes. wipes out the intercorporate transactions that effectuate these shelters.

More than half of the states with corporate income taxes have adopted combined reporting. A major reason for states' growing interest is their recognition of how badly corporate tax shelters that exploit separate reporting are eroding state corporate income tax payments. Corporations have devised a wide variety of strategies to artificially shift profits to out-of-state subsidiaries to reduce their tax liabilities. Combined reporting largely squelches these strategies by enabling a state to tax a fair share of the profit that would otherwise be shifted into a related, out-of-state corporation.

New Jersey has been a leader in combating avoidance techniques by “traditional” means: case-by-case litigation of particular transactions and the development of anti-shelter legislation targeting classes of abusive inter-corporate arrangements. These traditional means are time consuming and labor intensive. Combined reporting, which eliminates most profit-shifting strategies, can be an important component of maintaining a fair and effective state corporate income tax."

State legislatures often use these arguments to persuade other members of the state government to enact combined reporting. However, these efforts can backfire and cause large corporations to leave the state (i.e., Connecticut combined reporting and General Electric).

INDIANA: THINKING ABOUT COMBINED REPORTING

The Indiana Senate introduced a bill (SB 323) on January 7, 2016 that would require taxpayers conducting a unitary business to file and pay adjusted gross income taxes on the combined income of the unitary group, effective January 1, 2017. 

However, the bill (SB 323) was amended on January 28, 2016 to study combined reporting instead of enact combined reporting. The amended bill requires the legislative services agency to:

1. study the combined reporting approach to apportioning income for income tax purposes; and
2. report the results of the study before October 1, 2016, to the legislative council and to the interim study committee on fiscal policy.

The bill also requires the interim study committee on fiscal policy to hold at least one public hearing at which the legislative services agency presents the results of the study.

As of today, the bill passed the Indiana Senate and has been referred to the House.

Rhode Island Re-Issues Proposed Combined Reporting Regulations

Rhode Island has re-issued (updated) proposed combined reporting regulations. A public hearing to consider the proposed regulation will be held on February 22, 2016 at 10:30 a.m. Eastern Time at the Rhode Island Division of Taxation, One Capitol Hill, Providence, Rhode Island.

Written or oral comments concerning the proposed regulations may be submitted to Michael F. Canole, Rhode Island Division of Taxation, One Capitol Hill, Providence, R.I. 02908 or via his telephone number (401) 574-8729 or e-mail: michael.canole@tax.ri.gov. by February 22, 2016. 

The following is a high-level summary (from the preamble of the proposed regulations). 

Staying the Same

The Division of Taxation has carried forward a number of elements of Regulation CT 11-15 into the new proposed regulations:  

For example:

• Definitions of certain key terms – including “combined group” and “common ownership” – remain the same or substantially the same as in the prior regulation.
• The basic approach to determining the composition of a combined group is largely the same.
• Water’s edge” treatment is mandatory.
• The basic approach to determining the unitary business remains the same – relying largely on tests set forth in certain U.S. Supreme Court cases.
• For Rhode Island combined reporting purposes, an affiliated group is still able to elect to use the same members that the affiliated group includes in filing its federal consolidated return.
• A tracing protocol applies to net operating losses (NOLs).
• A tracing protocol applies to tax credits.
• The combined group still must appoint a designated agent. The agent is required to act on behalf of the combined group in its own name in all matters related to the combined return.
• For a combined group filing on extension, the extended due date will be seven months after the normal filing deadline. Thus, for a combined group whose return is due March 15, the deadline will be October 15.

Differences

The proposed regulation differs from the pro forma regulation in a number of ways,
partly due to changes in statute.

For example:

• While “water’s edge” treatment continues to be mandatory, and the basic approach to determining the composition of a combined group is largely the same, the following regulation incorporates a definition of the term “tax haven” to reflect the definition in statute. As a result, certain corporations may or may not have to be included in the combined group.
• Under the regulation for pro forma combined reporting, corporations had to apportion income using two methods that are named for seminal California court cases: the Joyce and Finnigan methods. As the following regulation spells out, only the Finnigan method is now used for apportionment by entities that are treated as C corporations for federal income tax purposes.
• When the prior regulation was promulgated, three-factor apportionment applied, using sales (total receipts), property, and payroll. However, for tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2015, a single factor – sales (total receipts) – is used for apportionment purposes by entities that are treated as C corporations for federal income tax purposes, whether or not part of a combined group.
• When the prior regulation was promulgated, the sales factor forapportionment purposes was determined by C corporations using the cost-of-performance method. However, for tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2015, market-based sourcing is used by entities treated as C corporations for federal income tax purposes, whether or not part of a combined group, in place of the cost-of-performance method.
• For Rhode Island combined reporting purposes, an affiliated group of corporations uses the same members that the affiliated group includes in filing its federal consolidated return. However, effective for tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2015, once the election is made, it must continue for five years, including the year the election is made. (For purposes of pro forma combined reporting, the election was binding for two years.)
• The prior regulation asked affected taxpayers to calculate a deduction, related to their balance sheets, in accordance with Financial Accounting Standard 109 (FAS 109).  However, the deduction is not prescribed by statute for purposes of Rhode Island mandatory unitary combined reporting.
• When the prior regulation was promulgated, a corporation’s Rhode Island tax was the greater of the franchise tax or the corporate income tax, and the corporate income tax rate was nine percent (9%). For tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2015, the franchise tax is repealed and the corporate income tax rate is seven percent (7%).
• The following regulation clarifies that, for purposes of combined reporting, gross receipts include, among other things, gross income from intangible personal property as well as from the performance of services.
• The following regulation makes clear that “captive insurance companies” taxed under RIGL Chapter 27-43 should not be included in a combined return.

To view more details and follow the status of the regulations, go to Rhode Island's combined reporting web page.

Update: Nevada Commerce Tax

Nevada recently published a Commerce Tax Registration Process Informational Chart. It is a flow-chart that can help your corporation determine if they need to register.

If your corporation is organized or incorporated in Nevada, it will be registered automatically. All other corporations should make the determination based on answering a nexus questionnaire. 

At the end of March, beginning of April, corporations will receive a "Welcome to Commerce Tax" letter (how nice). The letter will have your corporation's Tax ID number on it. Go to the chart for additional details.

Also, check out Nevada's website or my previous posts on the Nevada Commerce Tax.

UPDATE: North Carolina Publishes Guidelines for Market-Based Sourcing 2015 Filing Requirement

As an update to yesterday's post regarding North Carolina's market-based sourcing information reporting requirement, North Carolina has published guidelines.

1. Introduction and Summary - Guidelines for Market-Based Sourcing
2. Guidelines for Computing the Sales Factor Based on Market-Based Sourcing

North Carolina Imposes Additional Filing Requirement on Corporations for 2015

In September, 2015, the Governor of North Carolina signed HB 97. HB 97 made several changes to North Carolina tax law such as phasing-in single-sales factor apportionment. However, the one key change I want to bring to your attention is the "informational reporting requirement" that North Carolina is imposing on corporations (see Section 32.14 of HB 97).

HB 97 directs the Revenue Laws Study Committee to study the calculation of the sales factor using market‑based sourcing. To help the Committee determine the effect of market‑based sourcing on corporate taxpayers, each corporate taxpayer with apportionable income greater than ten million dollars ($10,000,000) and a North Carolina apportionment percentage less than one hundred percent (100%) is required to file an informational report with the Department of Revenue as part of its 2015 income tax return.

What Is Required to Be Reported?

The report is required to show the calculation of the taxable year 2014 sales factor using market‑based sourcing. 

The informational report must contain the following information:

• The corporation's 2014 apportionment percentage used on the corporation's 2014 North Carolina corporate tax return.
• The corporation's 2014 apportionment percentage as calculated using market-based sourcing.
• The corporation's primary industry code under NAICS. 
• Any other information prescribed by the Secretary.

How is Market-Based Sourcing Calculated?

In general terms, the sales factor calculation is based on the model market‑sourcing regulations drafted by the Multi‑State Tax Commission. 

Specifically:

• The sale, rental, lease, or license of real property is sourced to North Carolina if it is located in North Carolina.
• The rental, lease, or license of tangible personal property is sourced to North Carolina if it is located in this State.
• Services are sourced to North Carolina if the service is delivered to a location in North Carolina.
• Intangible property that is rented, leased, or licensed is sourced to North Carolina if it is used in North Carolina. Intangible property utilized in marketing a good or service to a consumer is "used in this State" if that good or service is purchased by a consumer who is in North Carolina.  A contract right, government license, or similar intangible property that authorizes the holder to conduct a business activity in a specific geographic area is "used in this State" if the geographic area includes all or part of North Carolina.
• Receipts from intangible property sales that are contingent on the productivity, use, or disposition of the intangible property are treated as receipts from the rental, lease, or licensing of the intangible property. All other receipts from a sale of intangible property are excluded from the numerator and denominator of the sales factor.

When Is It Due?

The informational report is due at the time corporate taxpayer's return is due for the 2015 taxable year. No extensions. 

What If I Don't Comply?

North Carolina can assess a $5,000 penalty for failure to timely file an informational report.

Form

Here is a link to the form, Form CD-400MS.  

Problems With This Requirement?

North Carolina should not impose a penalty for non-filing. I know North Carolina needs an incentive to make taxpayers comply, but a $5,000 penalty (or 'stick') is not the way to do it. North Carolina could offer a 'carrot' instead. Perhaps a credit or something similar could be offered.

Taxpayers should be able to obtain an extension for filing the form. If the taxpayer extends its 2015 return, it should not be forced to file Form CD-400MS earlier. This creates an extra compliance burden on taxpayers that just isn't necessary.

Sidebar: All information reporting requirements like this one, remind me of the Maryland combined reporting information requirement 'debacle' a few years ago. 

What do you think?