Following several failed attempts by Oregon voters and the Oregon legislature to pass a gross receipts tax (see Not Dead Yet: Oregon Voters Propose Another Gross Receipts Tax in the Wake of Market-Based Sourcing and Oregon Proposes “Gross” New Tax), Governor Kate Brown signed Enrolled House Bill 3427, Oregon’s corporate activity tax (CAT), into law on May 16, 2019.
The Florida Department of Revenue (the “Department”) recently published Technical Assistance Advisement No. 17C1-004 (decided Apr. 17, 2017, published Aug. 25, 2017) (the “TAA”), which addresses how receipts from “other sales” are sourced under Florida’s apportionment regulation (i.e., Florida Administrative Code Regulation (“Regulation”) 12C-1.0155(2)(l)). Despite the cost-of-performance (“COP”) language explicitly stated in Florida’s Regulation 12C-1.0155(2)(l), the Department applied a market-based sourcing approach, concluding that the receipts from certain services should be sourced to Florida when the taxpayer’s customers are physically located in the state. While Technical Assistance Advisements have no precedential value, the TAA showcases Florida’s propensity to use market-based sourcing for receipts from “other sales,” which appears to be in contrast to the COP directive under Florida Regulation 12C-1.0155(2)(l).
Pop quiz: when it comes to business earnings, the State of Texas imposes: (a) an income tax; (b) a business activity tax that is not an income tax; or (c) no tax at all. Good news (or bad news)—no matter which answer you chose, you may be right (or wrong). Right now, the answer appears to be (b), but in a few months we may find out that the answer is actually (a), and barring a change of course by the State Legislature, the answer may be (c) in the near future. One thing is clear; the Texas Franchise Tax (or “margin tax,” as it is colloquially known), is in a state of flux.
On February 6, 2017, the Tax Court of New Jersey granted partial summary judgment to the taxpayer in Elan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Director, Division of Taxation. The court held that the New Jersey Division of Taxation (“Division”) improperly applied the state’s Throw-Out Rule by excluding receipts that were “subject to tax” in the originating state. The decision clarifies the scope of the Throw-Out Rule’s “subject to tax” language by finding that receipts may be “subject to tax” even when the destination state is precluded from taxing the sale under Public Law 86-272.