TEI issues policy statements on alternative apportionment and state tax haven legislation.

PositionPart 1

On June 15, 2016, TEI issued two new state and local tax policy statement on alternative apportionment and state tax haven legislation.

The Alternative Apportionment policy statement takes the position alternative apportionment should only be utilized in unusual circumstances, the party seeking its use alternative apportionment should satisfy certain burdens of proof, states should be required to promulgate regulations for industry-specific issues rather than using alternative apportionment on an ad hoc basis, and states should be prohibited from imposing penalties on taxpayers if they followed the statutory apportionment methodology. The State Tax Haven Legislation policy statement opposes the state tax haven legislation recently proposed by many states on the grounds it discriminates against foreign commerce; encroaches on the federal government's power to deal with foreign governments with a single voice; is unworkable; and may violate taxpayers' right to a fair apportionment of their income.

TEI's policy statements reflect TEI's position on important administrative and procedural issues, and facilitate advocacy by providing formal position papers TEI's members can use when communicating with taxing agencies. Other policy statements generated by the State and Local Tax Committee over the past year address; (1) Reporting Federal Income Tax Changes, (2) Audit Procedures, (3) Corporate Tax Return Due Dates, (4) State and Local-Imposed Audit Fees, and (5) Interest Rates, and (6) Statutes of Limitation.

TEI's policy statements were prepared under the aegis of TEI's State and Local Tax Committee, whose chair is Jamie Fenwick. Pilar Mata, TEI Tax Counsel, coordinated the preparation of the policy statements.

State and Local Tax Policy Statement Regarding the Application of Alternative Apportionment Methodologies

The U.S. Supreme Court has held a state tax on interstate commerce must be applied to an activity with a substantial nexus with the taxing State, be fairly apportioned, not discriminate against interstate commerce, and be fairly related to the services provided by the state. (1) The Court has indicated an apportionment formula is fair, under both the Due Process Clause and Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, if the formula satisfies standards of both internal and external consistency. Internal consistency requires if the formula was applied by every jurisdiction, it would result in no more than 100 percent of the taxpayer's unitary income being taxed. (2) External consistency, "the second and more difficult requirement," requires "the factor or factors used in the apportionment formula must actually reflect a reasonable sense of how income is generated." (3) The Court has approved many different apportionment methods and declined to mandate a uniform method for all states. (4)

Most...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT