In Capital One Auto Finance, Inc. v. Department of Revenue, Dkt. No. TC 5197 (Oregon Tax Ct. Dec. 23, 2016), the Oregon Tax Court held that physical presence was unnecessary to establish nexus for corporate excise and corporate income tax purposes. As we reported last month, the Ohio Supreme Court similarly upheld the constitutionality of Ohioâs factor presence (or, economic nexus) standard for purposes of the Ohio Commercial Activity Tax. Crutchfield Corp. v. Testa, Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-7760 (Ohio 2016). (See our previous post, Ohio Supreme Court Physical Presence Not Required for Commercial Activity Tax.)Â
The dispute in California over taxpayersâ ability to elect to use the evenly weighted, three-factor (i.e., property factor, payroll factor, and sales factor) business income apportionment formula provided by the Multistate Tax Compact (the âCompactâ) has come to an end. On October 11, 2016, the US Supreme Court denied the taxpayers’ petition for certiorari in The Gillette Company, et al. v. California Franchise Tax Board, et al., No. 15-1442 — one of the most highly publicized MTC apportionment election cases.
The U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 2315, the Mobile Workforce State Income Tax Simplification Act of 2015 (âMobile Workforce Actâ or âActâ), on September 21, 2016. The Senate received the House-approved bill on September 22, 2016, and its ultimate fate remains unclear.Â
On November 8, 2016, Oregon voters will vote to approve or reject Measure 97 (formerly, Initiative Proposal 28) that would implement a new 2.5 percent gross receipts tax on certain C corporations doing business in Oregon. If approved by voters, this new tax would be effective for tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2017.