don't let uncertain state tax positions surprise your company or client

Uncertain state tax positions are everywhere. Your company or your clients likely have them. Have you identified them? Have you addressed them?

During ‘busy season’ or ‘tax season, state tax questions often arise or lay there quietly in the background while federal tax issues get all of the attention.

State tax issues or the state tax impact of an issue or transaction is generally considered after the federal tax impact is addressed.

Non-state tax experts are sometimes just too busy to give state tax issues adequate time before a deadline. In other situations, non-state tax experts may simply view a state tax issue as less complicated than it really is. Consequently, state tax issues may not get addressed before the original due date of the returns and may only get addressed in late summer or early fall prior to the extended due date. This often creates a time crunch for uncertain state tax positions to get adequately addressed. That's one of the problems.

The other problem is that most state tax issues are more complex than they appear. A high-level overview or two hours of research won't cut it, especially when you are trying to determine the state tax impact of a large transaction or adequately source the gain on a sale of a partnership interest to the right state or states.

What are these 'uncertain state tax positions'?

Where can they appear?

The following is a summary of some of the areas or items that create uncertain state tax positions on state income tax returns:

1. Structure - intangible holding companies; REIT / RIC; buy / sell companies, management / services companies; state-specific structures; captive insurance companies; finance companies; factoring companies; check-the-box entities; pass-through entities;

2. Transactions - mergers, acquisitions, divestitures; repatriation dividends; reorganizations; bankruptcy issues;

3. Nexus - P.L. 86-272; economic nexus; attribution of activities; forced combination; foreign company nexus despite no permanent establishment in U.S.;

4. Filing Options - separate, nexus combined, hybrid nexus combined, unitary combined (waters-edge, worldwide); consolidated;

5. Apportionment - ability to apportion income; choice of formula; throwback / throwout; joyce vs. finnegan; sales factor sourcing (destination, market-based sourcing, cost of performance, commercial domicile, location of payor);

6. Tax Base - business v.s nonbusiness income vs. separate accounting; Internal Revenue Code (IRC) conformity; related party addbacks; depreciation adjustments; dividends received deduction conformity; transfer pricing; foreign source income; state specific additions/subtractions;

7. Treatment of Partnerships - entity vs. aggregate theory; unitary (tax base / factor flow-up) vs non-unitary (allocation); sale of partnership interest;

8. Tax Attributes - NOLs (pre-apportioned vs. post-apportioned); IRC Sec. 382 limitations; survivor / non-survivor limitations; credits (claw-backs; compliance with agreements);

How do you ensure these items are addressed adequately?

• Get a state tax expert involved early.

How do you know when your client has any of these issues?

• Create a checklist that helps you identify clients or when your company may have these issues. That checklist may be based on the amount of sales a company has, the amount of taxable income, the number of states they file returns in (or the number of states they should file in), or if they have a specific structure or entered into a transaction that obviously needs reviewed.

There are multiple checklists you could create, the key is to make one that works for your company or firm that doesn't slow down the compliance process, but does allow you to reduce risk and adequately document a supportable, defendable or winnable position.

I hope you have a great tax season (now and in the fall). I hope all of your uncertain state tax positions achieve as much certainty as they can and are adequately addressed and documented.

who or what is 'rocking the boat'?

Usually 'rocking the boat' is perceived to be a bad thing, but 'rocking the boat' can be a good thing. Let me explain.

If you are riding in a boat heading into a storm and the boat starts rocking, that is usually a bad thing or scary. The boat is rocking to due to some external force or environmental change.

If someone on your boat gets up and starts jumping around without any explanation and you can't stop them or talk with them, that is usually a bad thing.

But if the the captain of the boat purposely turns the boat, changes direction and heads into the storm, then the rockiness of the boat is a good thing. It means the boat is going in the right direction. A strategic, purposeful direction. The rockiness is part of the process of reaching the chosen destination.

If someone on the boat gets up and voices a concern with the current direction of the boat, and makes a valid point why the boat should change course, the rockiness of the boat is a good thing. A necessary thing.

I'm sure we could keep going with this analogy or you could make up better analogies, but you get the point. Change, upheaval, incurring resistance or turbulance is sometimes a necessary or required part of the process of achievement or improvement.

HOW DOES THIS APPLY TO STATE TAXES?

2024 just began. January already gone. State governments have started or will be starting their legislative sessions. Proposals are flying all around. This is in addition to the state tax law changes that were enacted last year that became effective in 2023 or as of January 1, 2024. On top of the state legislative proposals, we also have federal legislation that is moving through the House and Senate that will have ripple effects on the states regarding research and development expenses and other items (appears to have a high probability of passing). The SALT CAP (i.e., state tax deduction limit of $10,000) is proposed to double to $20,000 (based on commentary, this legislation has a low probability of passing). As with all federal tax legislation, some states automatically conform, and some states don't conform until they specifically say they do.

All of these changes can 'rock the boat' of your business.

These are external changes that you don't have control over. You may be able to influence them (or some people may be able to), but for most companies, their 'boats' get rocked and they have to learn how to change course to find calmer waters.

Some state tax issues or items that are currently being challenged or expected to become bigger issues in 2024 that could 'rock your boat':

1. More states to adopt state income tax exconomic nexus thresholds

2. The protections of P.L. 86-272 continue to be challenged and worked around.

3. Gross receipts taxes (Ohio, Washington, Tennessee, Oregon, Nevada) continue to change their rules.

4. Sourcing sales of services or intangibles for income tax apportionment purposes continues to be more confusing with market-based sourcing - do you source to your customer or your customer's customer?

5. How do you source the gain on the sale of your partnership interest?

6. Should my company really make pass-through entity tax (PTET) elections in all states where we can?

7. Do I really owe the California LLC fee or minimum tax based on my ownership in a California LLC?

8. Am I required to file a state income tax combined return?

9. Should I make state income tax elective consolidated return elections?

10. Will the Washington capital gains tax survive challenges and should I pay it?

11. Does everyone have economic nexus for income tax purposes if the state has no 'factor presence' threshold?

12. Can a telecommuting employee that does 'back office' functions create nexus but a telecommuting employee that solicits sales be protected by P.L 86-272?

13. Is SaaS considered tangible personal property or a service for state income tax apportionment purposes?

14. Does P.L. 86-272 apply to sales of SaaS?

15. How can a company realistically source sales of SaaS when the users are in multiple states and the buyer doesn't provide the data?

16. Are state 'throwback' rules constitutional?

17. Should market-based sourcing really create economic nexus?

I could keep going, but I will stop.

CONCLUSION

External forces will always 'rock a company's boat.' However, even if the boat isn't currently rocking, a taxpayer or a tax consultant may need to stand up in the boat to advise or ask the captain of the boat to change directions. The goal is to adapt to the wind or to change the direction of the boat so the company can move towards calmer waters or avoid the storm altogether.

Unfortunately, the constant change in federal and state tax legislation and court cases and rulings, makes it difficult for the waters to stay calm very long.

The best strategy for a company to thrive in this type of environment is to monitor changes, make informed decisions and most of all - be proactive. Don't wait until your in the middle of the storm.

You can always navigate out of the storm, but the damage to the boat will differ based on how quickly you change course.

Here's to smooth sailing.

7 Questions Companies & State Governments Should Consider

1. If alternative apportionment is wide open and anything goes, why have statutes?

2. Are we moving from apportionment to allocation when we use single-sales factor apportionment and market-based sourcing?

3. Is single-sales factor apportionment 'fair apportionment'? It moves income to customer states, not to states where the activities occurred that generated the income. Income is not based solely on sales.

4. Are throwback and throwout rules unconstitutional because they look beyond the borders of the state?

5. Should states be able to enact retroactive legislation to protect the state budget from financial loss?

6. Should retroactive legislation be limited to a state's statute of limitations?

7. Should judicial decisions only apply to the taxpayer involved in the litigation if it involves a refund?

28 State Tax Developments You May Want to Know - Sept 12, 2017

The following are state tax and business developments I have curated since September 5th, and posted in the LEVERAGE SALT LinkedIn group:

1. State income tax return extended due dates 2016 calendar year

2. While Virginia Supreme Court Holds “Subject-To-Tax” Means “Actually Taxed,” Determination of “Actually Taxed” is Relatively Broad for Purposes of Addback Exception

3. Corporate Income Tax Rates around the World, 2017

4. Wrapping Up August – and Looking Forward to September

5. How Much Does Your State Collect in Corporate Income Taxes Per Capita?

6. The Virginia Tax Amnesty Program will run for a 62-day period, beginning on September 13, 2017, and ending on November 14, 2017.

7. Guidance for 2017 Tennessee Hall Income Tax Released

8. As Political Division Grows, State Budgets Come in Later (If at All)

9. How Did America's Richest State Become Such a Fiscal Mess?

10. Indiana Ruling Holds that Taxpayer Successfully Showed Nexus with Foreign Jurisdictions for Sales Factor Throwback Purposes

11. New York ALJ Rules in Favor of Taxpayer - Receipts from Online Services Sourced Out-of-State

12. New York State Department of Taxation and Finance Removes Draft Proposed Regulation Section 4-2.12 Regarding Receipts from Certain Services to Investment Companies

13. South Carolina Appellate Court Affirms that Satellite TV Provider Must Source Subscription Receipts Based on Market because Signal Delivery is Income-Producing Activity

14. New York Advisory Opinion Explains Taxation and Sourcing of Interactive Software with Customized Skinning

15. New New York Law Extends Certain Real Property Transfer Tax Rate Reductions to 1 September 2020

16. California FTB proposes new withholding regulation for pass-through entities

17. This week's local policy digest includes the NC Brunch Bill, a housing discrimination ordinance, and a balloon ban.

18. California partnership returns: penalty relief available for 2016 returns and revised extension period in 2017

19. NFL Superstars Sacked by Jock Taxes on Away Games

20. State Revenue Volatility: An Inevitable Challenge With a Workable Solution

21. States vs. Marketplace vs. Third-Party Sellers––The Amazon Sales Tax Challenge

22. First U.S. Prosecution Over ‘Zapper’ Software Nets Guilty Plea

23. New York Tax Office Loses Another Case Against Remote Company

24. South Carolina income producing activity at customer location

25. NORTH CAROLINA IMPORTANT NOTICE: SALES TAX BASE EXPANSION PROTECTION ACT

26. TENNESSEE: Is there more than one formula for apportioning franchise and excise tax?

27. TENNESSEE: 2017 SALES AND USE TAX GUIDE

28. Virginia Supreme Court Rules in Addback Case

The above represents 'general curating' of state tax developments into one spot. If you still feel overwhelmed by the volume of state tax developments, please consider my 'custom curating' service. Meaning, clients hire LS to daily curate state tax developments relating to a specific industry, state(s), tax type and issue. You can make it as granular as you prefer. This allows you to reduce information overload, and only get the information you need to help your clients or company. This service is provided on a fixed-fee or subscription basis. Contact me at strahle@leveragesalt.com.

State Taxation: 'Food For Thought'

My recent posts have contained some of my notes and questions I recorded from attending the Paul J. Hartman State and Local Tax Forum last week. This is my last post which lists 20 takeaways or 'food for thought.'

1. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) does not identify tax havens, so why are the states?
2. Discretionary Authority is no warning. It doesn't allow taxpayers to know what a state will do (i.e., using alternative apportionment or combined reporting to force a taxpayer to deviate from the standard apportionment formula; or modifying a costs-of-performance statute to get a market-based sourcing result).
3. International taxation is starting to use state tax concepts such as combined reporting and apportionment.
4. "Are 'bright-line' tests knee-jerk reactions?" - quote from one of the speakers
5. "Tax Haven legislation should be trashed. Tax haven legislation picks winners and losers." - quote from one of the speakers
6. The only way to fight retroactive legislation is to monitor it and lobby against it before it is enacted.
7. Should states be able to enact retroactive legislation to protect the state budget from financial loss?
8. Should judicial decisions only apply to the taxpayer involved in the litigation if it involves a refund?
9. Retroactive legislation should not be able to increase revenue.
10. Ask yourself, if a 'technical correction' is creating new law or changing the interpretation of the law from the original interpretation that has been followed by taxpayers for years. If the answer is yes, do something.
11. Should retroactive legislation be limited to a state's statute of limitations?
12. Prior legislatures can't bind future legislatures.
13. New legislatures can't determine, or know, the intent of prior legislatures. Shouldn't be able to unbind or unwind prior legislation.
14. "Retroactive legislation is telling you what the law was." - quote from one of the speakers
15. Are we moving from apportionment to allocation when we use single-sales factor apportionment and market-based sourcing?
16. Is single-sales factor apportionment 'fair apportionment'? Moves income to customer states, not to states where the activities occurred that generated the income. Income is not based solely on sales.
17. "Throwback and throwout rules are unconstitutional because they look beyond the borders of the state." - quote from one of the speakers
18. If alternative apportionment is wide open and anything goes, why have statutes?
19. "To gain true insight, read the entire case - don't just read the blurb. See what it says and what it doesn't say." - quote from one of the speakers. Get creative. See the case, the issue from a different perspective. Ask "why not."
20. Does common sense apply? If so, is your definition of 'common sense' the same as mine?

Obviously, I obtained all of the thoughts above from the Forum. Some are quotes from speakers, some are ideas paraphrased from a speaker's discussion, and others are personal reflections. 

state throwback rules make bad dinner guests

Let's imagine I invited 12 people over for dinner. For this particular dinner, each plate is filled and sat on the table before the guests arrive. As time goes by, all of the guests show up except for dinner guests #1 through #3. After about 20 minutes, dinner guest #4 asks if he can eat the food sitting on dinner guest #1's plate.

Another 20 minutes goes by and dinner guest #4 asks if he can eat the food sitting on dinner guest #2's plate.

Another 20 minutes goes by and dinner guest #4 asks if he can eat the food sitting on dinner guest #3's plate.

The above scenario is similar to what happens when a state has a throwback rule and another state doesn't tax the company. Dinner guest #4 represents the state with the throwback rule. Dinner guests #1 through #3 represent states that don't tax the company. As a result, the state with the throwback rule wants what is left or what isn't taxed by the other states, regardless of the fact that the food (or sales) was not meant for dinner guest #4.

The Council on State Taxation (COST) recently commented on a bill in Indiana that would repeal the state's throwback rule. COST has a formal policy statement on throwback rule provisions that asserts throwback laws seek to require companies to pay tax in one state on income that another state has chosen not to tax or is legally unable to tax. According to COST, a company's tax liability in one state should not be measured by its tax in another state. Throwback rules discourage investment in a state. Consequently, such rules must not be adopted and be repealed.

I agree with COST's position. A company's liability in one state should be measured by the company's activity in that state. A state should not be able to tax a company on activity that does not occur in that state simply because the other state chooses to not tax the company or doesn't have the legal authority to tax the company. 

As COST's policy statement mentions, repealing throwback laws will remove the constant discrepancies and arguments related to determining when a taxpayer is 'taxable in another state.' Throwback laws generally allow a taxpayer to not throwback sales as long as the taxpayer can prove that it is 'taxable in the other state.' Unfortunately, states have different thresholds and definitions for what it means to be 'taxable in another state' causing unnecessary confusion and controversy.

What do you think? Should dinner guest #4 get to eat other guests' food?