Breaking state and local developments

According to a Delaware bankruptcy court charged with adjudicating an FTB claim against the taxpayer, the California Franchise Tax Board (FTB) properly applied an alternative apportionment formula for purposes of apportioning the share of a taxpayer's unitary business income taxable to Californ...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of State Taxation 2011-11, Vol.30 (1), p.57
Main Authors: Acosta, Angie, Conley, Terry, Delgado, Eddie, Grierson, Scott, Griffiths, David, Jones, Chuck, McNeany, Angela, Sutton, Giles, Tran, Maria, Yesnowitz, Jamie C
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Apportionment
Bankruptcy
Bankruptcy laws
Business income
Corporate income tax
Federal courts
Managers
Nexus rules
Restaurants
State court decisions
State laws
State taxation
State taxes
Surveys
Taxes
Treasuries
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:According to a Delaware bankruptcy court charged with adjudicating an FTB claim against the taxpayer, the California Franchise Tax Board (FTB) properly applied an alternative apportionment formula for purposes of apportioning the share of a taxpayer's unitary business income taxable to California. The Michigan Supreme Court reversed a Michigan Court of Appeals' decision and held that a taxpayer with independent registered representatives in Michigan did not have substantial nexus with the state for purposes of the former Single Business Tax. In reversing the Court of Claims, the Court of Appeals agreed with the Michigan Department of Treasury that the taxpayer had substantial nexus with Michigan because of the IRRs located in the state.
ISSN:0744-6713