United States: New York Issues First New Combined Reporting Law Determination—And It’s Not Pretty

Even though New York amended its combination statute for years beginning in 2007, we are just now beginning to see litigation related to those amendments.  At the end of June 2013, an administrative law judge in New York's Division of Tax Appeals issued the first determination analyzing the new law.  The analysis in Matter of Knowledge Learning Corporation was notably quite restrictive, resulting in a taxpayer loss.

Even though New York amended its combination statute for years beginning in 2007, we are just now beginning to see litigation related to those amendments.  At the end of June 2013, an administrative law judge (ALJ) in New York's Division of Tax Appeals issued the first determination analyzing the new law.  The analysis in Matter of Knowledge Learning Corporation was notably quite restrictive, resulting in a taxpayer loss. 

New York Tax Law Changes

New York State—long a hotbed of combination litigation—amended its combination statute effective for years beginning after January 1, 2007.  The New York Department of Taxation and Finance, however, did not promulgate new regulations until December 2012, although it did release interim guidance in the form of a Technical Memorandum (TSB-M-08(2)C).  That guidance, as well as the amended law, has been formally analyzed in Matter of Knowledge Learning Corporation, DTA Nos. 823962, 823963 (June 27, 2013).

While New York's combination rule continues to incorporate three requirements, as it did prior to its amendment, two of them—the ownership and the distortion requirements—were modified by the law change; the third requirement, unitary relationship, remains unchanged.  Because ownership was not at issue (there was apparently no question that the corporations were 100 percent commonly owned), the Knowledge Learning decision focused on whether the taxpayer and an entity it acquired in 2005 were engaged in "substantial intercorporate transactions," which under the new law leads to an irrebuttable presumption that there is distortion and, thus, a requirement to file on a combined basis.  According to the new statute, the substantial intercorporate transactions test is met where 50 percent or more of a corporation's receipts or expenditures are from one or more related corporations.  According to the regulations, intercorporate transactions include, but are not limited to, manufacturing, acquiring goods or property, or performing services for related corporations; selling goods acquired from related corporations; financing sales of related corporations; performing related customer services using common facilities and employees for related corporations; incurring expenses that benefit, directly or indirectly, one or more related corporations; and transferring assets, including assets such as accounts receivable, patents or trademarks, from one or more related corporations. 

Knowledge Learning Corporation's Facts

Knowledge Learning Corporation (KLC) purchased Kindercare Learning Centers, Inc., in January 2005.  Both entities operated learning centers/child day care centers.  For the tax period ending December 29, 2007, KLC and Kindercare (along with certain other affiliates) filed a combined franchise tax return.  As filed, KLC recognized a $57.6 million loss during this period, which offset part of Kindercare's $109.3 million income.

During the course of an audit, the New York Tax Department requested copies of any intercompany agreements and a detailed explanation of all intercompany transactions.  KLC had not formally memorialized any of its intercompany agreements with its subsidiaries.  In describing the intercompany transactions that took place, petitioners' witnesses explained that cash would be swept from KLC's subsidiaries' accounts into KLC's account, and thereafter KLC would pay the expenses of all of its subsidiaries.  Petitioners also provided data consisting of more than 1.8 million lines of postings to intercompany accounts.  Every time a cash transaction was posted for one of KLC's subsidiaries, an intercompany journal entry was recorded.  The Tax Department considered the intercompany transactions as explained by petitioners and concluded that KLC simply paid Kindercare's expenses with Kindercare's own cash.

At the formal hearing, petitioners presented testimony that KLC hired, fired and supervised the employees of KLC's affiliated group, who were brought onto KLC's payroll in 2006.  The former employees of the affiliates were notified by memorandum that they would be transferred to KLC.  The duties and daily activities of these employees did not change as a result of their transfer to KLC, and no written contracts existed to memorialize the employees' transfer.  KLC did not report any income from leasing employees to Kindercare, and there were no formal agreements recording any intercompany services between the affiliates, except for a master intercompany lease.

The ALJ's Determination That There Were No "Substantial Intercorporate Transactions"

KLC offered at least two types of transactions for purposes of demonstrating that it had met the substantial intercorporate transactions test: the leasing of employees to Kindercare and KLC's payment of all of Kindercare's expenses. 

KLC asserted that it leased employees to Kindercare and that such transactions satisfied the substantial intercorporate transactions test.  It provided testimonial evidence that all employees were transferred to KLC and that employee paychecks and W2s were issued by KLC (it does not appear that paychecks or W2s were admitted into evidence).  KLC also provided a 2005 memo detailing the transfer of the employees.  However, the ALJ did not give much weight to such evidence, stating "Petitioners simply cannot meet their burden of proof on this issue by relying on the testimony of their witnesses."  Such conclusion is interesting, particularly in light of testimony given by several employees regarding the transfer of employees and the lack of an explicit indication that the ALJ found their testimony to lack credibility.  In fact, Finding of Fact No. 26 finds that one of the witnesses was "transferred to KLC ... in January 2005."  (The determination does, however, indicate that Kindercare reported payroll on its separate 2006 return and that KLC did not report income from leasing employees, two facts that appear inconsistent with petitioners' assertions.)

KLC also asserted that its cash management practices satisfied the substantial intercorporate transactions test.  Specifically, KLC would sweep all of Kindercare's cash into a concentration account and then would pay Kindercare's expenses directly.  The ALJ rejected consideration of these transactions apparently on three grounds.  First, as was mentioned in Conclusion of Law "C" but not explicitly applied to petitioners, Tax Department guidance indicates that service functions that are merely incidental to the provider's business (such as accounting, legal and personnel services) are not considered intercorporate transactions for purposes of the test.  Presumably, the inference here is that KLC's main line of business is providing learning services, and administrative services are thus merely incidental.  Second, the ALJ's determination concludes that the transactions "appear to be nothing more than accounting entries and, as such, are not considered transactions for purposes of the substantial intercorporate transactions [test]."  Last, Tax Department guidance indicates that transactions undertaken merely to qualify for combination are disregarded (combination for 2007 resulted in a tax benefit to petitioners).  The determination does not expressly state that the petitioners arranged their affairs merely to qualify for combination, but seems to imply that was the case (however, as written, none of the findings of fact appear to directly support that conclusion).

Ultimately, the determination concludes that petitioners failed to demonstrate substantial intercorporate transactions and therefore could not file on a combined basis.

Actual Distortion

The ALJ declined to address petitioners' alternative argument that there was actual distortion even if there were not substantial intercorporate transactions, stating that "distortion is not the proper analysis in light of the 2007 statutory amendment."  It is difficult to reconcile this conclusion with either the interim guidance in TSB-M-08(2)C or the newly promulgated regulations, both of which make clear that a combined report can still be required or permitted if a combined report more accurately reflects the taxpayer's income and activities in New York.  In fact, the refusal to address this argument seems to provide a solid basis for appealing the determination.  After all, some of the findings of fact suggest that there may have been actual distortion.  For example, it appears that the "wrong" entity may have paid for certain expenses (for example, Kindercare's tax returns reflected having payroll even though KLC issued paychecks and W2s), that cash was fungible between entities (via the cash sweep) and that certain transactions were performed at non-arm's length pricing (such as the administrative services that were not considered for purposes of the substantial intercorporate transactions test but that occurred nonetheless).  These types of arrangements have been considered distortive in the past, and there is nothing in the new law to change this.

Ramifications for Other Taxpayers

Of course, ALJ determinations are non-precedential and cannot even be cited by other taxpayers in formal state proceedings.  Still, the Tax Department has already referred to this victory in some of its discussions with the authors of this article.  Taxpayers are well advised to carefully consider their ability to produce documentary and testimonial evidence to establish the existence of substantial intercorporate transactions.  (On this point, taxpayers should refer to the recent determination issued in Matter of IT USA, DTA Nos. 823780. 823781 (Dec. 20, 2012) (currently under appeal), which also addressed sufficiency of evidence with respect to combination matters.)  As has now been seen in two recent ALJ determinations, merely anecdotal narratives may not be enough, while plenty of other ALJ determinations demonstrate that testimony from witnesses with firsthand knowledge, coupled with contemporaneous documents, will often be successful.

Nicole Ford also contributed to this article.

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 Topics
Related Articles
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
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

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 or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq 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 of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions