United States: Tennessee Trial Court Approves Variance Requiring Telecommunications Company To Use Market-Based Sourcing

A Tennessee chancery court has held that the state's Revenue Commissioner properly issued a variance requiring a telecommunications company to apportion sales using market-based sourcing based on a customer's billing address rather than the statutory cost of performance (COP) method.1 According to the court, the Commissioner properly exercised his discretion in requiring the variance because the COP apportionment method did not fairly represent the taxpayer's business activity in the state.


The taxpayer was a telecommunications company based in California that held a 45 percent interest in a partnership (Cellco) that operated a telecommunications business known as Verizon Wireless. During the relevant years, Verizon Wireless engaged in the wireless voice and data business in Tennessee and contracted with customers with billing addresses in the state. In its original Tennessee franchise and excise tax returns, the taxpayer calculated its apportionment formula sales factor by using a pay-per-use or primary-place-of-use (PPU) methodology that sourced to Tennessee any sales of Cellco's telecommunications services that were made to customers with a Tennessee billing address.

After filing its return, the taxpayer filed a refund claim and argued that it was not subject to Tennessee franchise and excise taxes because it only had a 45 percent interest in Cellco and did not control its day-to-day operations. Following a denial by the Department on that issue, the taxpayer commenced litigation, and subsequently filed an amended complaint in which the taxpayer argued for the first time that as an alternative to a complete refund on the grounds that the taxpayer had no nexus in Tennessee, a COP analysis should be used to apportion the income instead of the PPU method. The use of the COP method resulted in over $1 billion in previously taxable earnings no longer being taxable in Tennessee or any other state, which resulted in an 89 percent reduction in the formula used to compute tax liability. In response, the Revenue Commissioner issued an apportionment variance letter and argued that the sales should be sourced using the PPU method.2 The trial court rejected the taxpayer's nexus argument and granted the Commissioner's motion for summary judgment on this issue. A trial was held to determine whether the Commissioner properly issued the apportionment variance.

Tennessee's Apportionment Methodology

Tennessee follows the traditional apportionment methodology provided by the Uniform Division for Income Tax Purposes Act (UDITPA) and the Multistate Tax Commission's (MTC) corresponding regulations. Under Tennessee law, sales, other than sales of tangible personal property, are in the state if the earnings-producing activity is performed (1) in the state or (2) both within and outside the state and a greater proportion of the activity is performed in Tennessee, based on costs of performance.3 However, if the statutory apportionment provisions "do not fairly represent the extent of the taxpayer's business activity in this State," the taxpayer may request, or the Department may require, the use of an alternative apportionment method.4 A regulation explains that the variance statute will "permit a departure from the allocation and apportionment provisions only in limited and specific cases."5 Further, the regulation provides that a variance "may be invoked only in specific cases where unusual fact situations (which ordinarily will be unique and nonrecurring) produce incongruous results under the apportionment and allocation provisions contained in the Franchise and Excise Tax Laws."6

Commissioner Properly Required Variance

In determining that the Commissioner did not abuse his discretion in requiring the alternative apportionment methodology, the trial court explained that the Commissioner's statutory and regulatory authority to issue variances is both narrow and discretionary.7 Once the Commissioner uses his narrow discretion to determine that the standard formula does not accurately reflect the taxpayer's income in the state, the Commissioner has broader authority in choosing an alternative apportionment method.

The trial court noted that the Commissioner issued a variance after examining the taxpayer's decision to change from the PPU method it had previously used in Tennessee to the COP method. According to the court, this was an unusual factual situation specific to the taxpayer, in which the change in method would have resulted in a substantial amount of reduction in the Tennessee sales factor. Therefore, the court held that it was reasonable for the Commissioner to conclude that the COP method did not fairly reflect the extent of the taxpayer's business activity in the state. The Commissioner's issuance of the variance was reasonable and not an abuse of discretion.

In reaching its decision, the court determined that "the Commissioner has not yet issued additional variances that would begin to show a trend toward a general application of his rationale to other companies that generate receipts in Tennessee, but incur most of their costs elsewhere." The court explained that the fact the Commissioner's rationale could be applied broadly to other companies and industries did not invalidate the variance for two basic reasons. First, the variance at issue only applied to the taxpayer. If the Commissioner begins to issue variances for other companies using the same rationale, these decisions would need to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis and the court would need to consider if there were a pattern. Second, as explained by the Tennessee Court of Appeals in BellSouth Advertising & Publishing Corp. v. Chumley, another case allowing the Commissioner to impose an apportionment variance, the statutory COP formula "did not function very well for certain types of businesses."8 Thus, the Commissioner may properly consider certain types of businesses for an apportionment variance.

The trial court also held that the Commissioner's decision to use the PPU approach was reasonable. After the Commissioner properly exercised his narrow discretion to issue a variance, he had broad authority to change the apportionment formula. The Court concluded that the Commissioner reacted to the taxpayer's "limited and specific" situation. According to the court, this case presented an unusual situation due to the taxpayer's ownership structure, tax history in the state and the fact that a substantial portion of the previously taxable income would no longer be taxed under the COP method. Therefore, the court determined that the Commissioner's decision to issue the variance was supported by the Tennessee statutes and regulations because this was an unusual case.


While many states have sought to enact market-based sourcing statutes,9 and the MTC is considering adopting a market-based sourcing approach by making substantial revisions to UDITPA and the MTC's corresponding regulations, Tennessee continues to use a COP methodology pursuant to statute and has not formally enacted market-based sourcing to date. However, this decision appears to be representative of an increasing resistance to the use of COP when such method results in the sourcing of receipts outside of a particular state. This is not the first reported instance of the Tennessee Commissioner utilizing alternative apportionment to reach such a result. As noted in the opinion, the Commissioner was allowed to require market-based sourcing in the BellSouth case that was issued in 2009. The court implicitly warned that "[i]f the Commissioner begin[s] to issue variances that apply to other companies using the same rationale, those decisions will have to be viewed on a case-by-case basis in light of a pattern that can be brought to a court's attention."

Although it is true that the instant case was unusual because the taxpayer used marketbased sourcing and then changed to COP, the Commissioner seems to be favoring the use of market-based sourcing in cases where most of the costs are incurred outside Tennessee. If the facts were different and the taxpayer actually performed a preponderance of its costs in Tennessee, query whether the court would have supported a request from the taxpayer for alternative apportionment to use market-based sourcing instead of COP as a means to lower the taxpayer's Tennessee sales factor.

Also, it was unclear in the court's decision as to whether the parties considered COP sourcing on a transaction-by-transaction basis, rather than broadly looking at costs of the entire operation. Perhaps the transactional approach could have resulted in a sourcing result that both the Commissioner and the taxpayer could have accepted without resorting to litigation.

Finally, if the result in this litigation is ultimately upheld, it will be interesting to see how this decision impacts the taxpayer's apportionment positions in other states that have similar UDITPA provisions statutorily requiring COP sourcing, given that the taxpayer's sales factor methodology may have changed in these jurisdictions (and may now be subject to challenge).


1 Vodafone Americas Holdings, Inc. v. Roberts, Tennessee Chancery Court, 20th Judicial District, Davidson County, No. 07-1860-IV, March 19, 2013.

2 In the variance letter, the Commissioner claimed that the PPU method was readily substantiated, but the COP was potentially subject to arbitrary assignment of costs to particular states. The Commissioner argued that the taxpayer's COP calculations included its costs everywhere and did not capture costs specific to Tennessee. As a result, over $1 billion in taxable receipts from Tennessee customers were not taxed in Tennessee or any other state.

3 TENN. CODE ANN. §§ 67-4-2012(i); 67-4-2111(i).

4 TENN. CODE ANN. §§ 67-4-2014; 67-4-2112.

5 TENN. COMP. R. & REGS. 1320-6-1-.35(1)(a)(4).

6 Id.

7 The court cited BellSouth Advertising & Publishing Corp. v. Chumley, 308 S.W.3d 350 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2009), leave to appeal denied, Tenn. Supreme Court, March 1, 2010. In this case, the Tennessee Court of Appeals held that the Commissioner correctly used an alternative apportionment method instead of the statutory COP method where a telephone directory publisher incurred all of its costs outside Tennessee but earned its advertising revenue from the distribution of directories within the state.

8 308 S.W.3d 350 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2009), leave to appeal denied, Tenn. Supreme Court, March 1, 2010.

9 For example, Alabama, Arizona, California, Illinois, Maine, Michigan, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Utah and Wisconsin have adopted market-based sourcing fairly recently, and New Jersey has promulgated regulations that would adopt market-based sourcing despite its current statute in which COP sourcing is implied.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of www.mondaq.com

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


From time to time Mondaq may send you emails promoting Mondaq services including new services. You may opt out of receiving such emails by clicking below.

*** If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of services offered by Mondaq you may opt out by clicking here .


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.