United States: Report Released On Proposed Amendments To Multistate Tax Compact’s Division Of Income Provisions

Professor Richard Pomp has released a detailed document, termed the Report of the Hearing Officer, which analyzes proposals and makes recommendations for amending key provisions of Article IV of the Multistate Tax Compact.1 Article IV concerns the division of income and incorporates the provisions of the Uniform Division of Income for Tax Purposes Act (UDITPA). Professor Pomp issued the report after conducting a public hearing and considering numerous comments. The report explains that it "provides a background to the amendments, a summary of the proposals' substantive features, a review of the public testimony, and the Hearing Officer's comments and recommendations, including in some cases, his proposals for a redrafted statute."

Background

In 1957, the Uniform Law Commission (ULC) promulgated UDITPA to provide uniform laws that states could adopt to assign the taxable income of multistate corporations among the states in which they do business. The Multistate Tax Commission (MTC) created the Compact in 1967 and included the UDITPA provisions as Article IV. Due to the significant changes in the U.S. economy since the creation of UDITPA, some of the important uniform provisions were thought by some to be outdated and many states have enacted legislation that departs from these provisions. As a result, the MTC recommended in 2006 that the ULC start a project to revise UDITPA.2 After public hearings and comments, the ULC decided to discontinue its work on revising UDITPA in 2009. The MTC soon started to consider its own revisions to Article IV and its Uniformity Committee completed its work in March 2012. The MTC's Executive Committee approved the proposed model for public hearing in December 2012.

Apportionment Factor Weighting

The Compact currently provides for a three-factor apportionment formula consisting of equally-weighted property, payroll and sales factors.3 However, many states have moved away from this standard formula and require that multistate taxpayers apportion income using a single sales factor or a three-factor formula with a double-weighted sales factor. The Uniformity Committee recommended that the Compact be amended to recommend a double-weighted sales factor to Compact states, but ultimately allow these states to define their own factor weighting fraction.

In endorsing the Executive Committee's approach, the Hearing Officer explained that the "proposal to allow states to define the factor weighting fraction is a concession to reality" and that "[t]he recommendation of double weighting is unlikely to have much effect." The Hearing Officer addressed the potential criticism that this approach hinders uniformity by considering the increase in specific industries that have specialized apportionment formulas. Also, the Hearing Office explained that "perhaps uniformity should be viewed on an industry basis, rather than on a more general level." The Hearing Officer concluded that "the march to a single sales factor can still be expected to continue" and the "most useful role for the MTC is to continue its cooperative efforts with the private sector to formulate industry-specific rules of apportionment."

Equitable Apportionment

Under the Compact, if the general allocation and apportionment provisions do not fairly represent the extent of the taxpayer's business activity in the state, the taxpayer may petition for or the tax administrator may require an alternative apportionment methodology.4 The Uniformity Committee recommended adding a new paragraph providing that if the allocation and apportionment provisions do not fairly represent the extent of business activity of taxpayers engaged in a particular industry, transaction or activity, the tax administrator may establish rules or regulations, to be applied uniformly, for determining alternative allocation and apportionment methods.

The Hearing Officer proposed a new version of the equitable apportionment provision. The existing language would be amended to replace the specifically enumerated alternatives with "any reasonable method to effectuate an equitable allocation and apportionment of the taxpayer's income." The Hearing Officer also proposed two new paragraphs to clarify equitable apportionment issues. Under these proposals, the tax administrator would be authorized to publish rules and regulations when the general allocation and apportionment provisions do not fairly represent the business activity of taxpayers that are engaged in a particular industry, transaction or activity. Further, the party petitioning for, or the tax administrator requiring, an alternative apportionment method, has the burden of proof. If the tax administrator requires the use of an alternative apportionment method, civil or criminal penalties cannot be imposed if the taxpayer reasonably relied on the general apportionment provisions. Finally, a taxpayer permitted to use an alternative apportionment method may not have such permission revoked for transactions that have already occurred unless there has been a material change in, or a material misrepresentation of, the facts provided by the taxpayer.

Business Income

The Compact currently defines "business income" as "income arising from transactions and activity in the regular course of the taxpayer's trade or business and includes income from tangible and intangible property if the acquisition, management and disposition of the property constitute integral parts of the taxpayer's regular trade or business operations."5 The Uniformity Committee recommended changing the term "business income" to "apportionable income" and revising the definition to "all income that is apportionable under the Constitution of the United States and is not allocated under the laws of this state, including: (A) income arising from transactions and activity in the regular course of the taxpayer's trade or business, and (B) income arising from tangible and intangible property if the acquisition, management, employment, development, or disposition of the property is or was related to the operation of the taxpayer's trade of business."6

The Hearing Officer proposed a revised draft that would define "apportionable income" as "all income that is apportionable under the Constitution of the United States and is not allocated under the laws of this state, including but not limited to: (A) income related to the operation of the taxpayer's trade or business; or (B) income from tangible [and] intangible property if the acquisition, management, employment, development, or disposition of the property is, or was, related to, or part of, the operation of the taxpayer's trade or business." The revised draft clarifies that the transactional test in (A) and the functional test in (B) are independent of each other. Unusual situations not included within either category would be tested under the constitutional standard.7

Market-Based Sourcing

Under the Compact, sales, other than sales of tangible personal property, are sourced to a state (on an all-or-nothing basis) if: (i) the income-producing activity is performed in the state; or (ii) the income-producing activity is performed both in and outside the state and a greater proportion of the income-producing activity is performed in the state than in any other state, based on costs of performance (COP).8 The Uniformity Committee proposed a total revision of this provision that would replace the COP standard with a market-based sourcing approach intended to mirror the destination principle used to source sales of tangible personal property. Specifically, sales of other than tangible personal property are sourced to a state if, and to the extent, the taxpayer's market for the sales is in the state. To determine whether a taxpayer's market for sales is in a state, the proposed draft includes a series of sub-rules that describes the sourcing for different types of transactions including transactions involving intangible property.9 If the taxpayer is not taxable in a state to which a sale is assigned or if the state of assignment cannot be determined or reasonably approximated, the sale is excluded from the denominator of the sales factor (this is commonly termed a "throwout rule"). According to the Hearing Officer, "[t]hese proposed changes, the most sweeping of all the amendments, generated most of the discussion at the [h]earing."

The Hearing Officer recommended revising the COP method by replacing the "all-or-nothing" method under the current COP standard with a proportionate approach, rather than adopting the market-based sourcing approach proposed by the MTC. Also, the MTC regulations should be revised to better define the direct costs that are included in COP.10 The Hearing Officer also explained that there would be value in extending COP to independent contractors. The controversy concerning how to define an "income-producing activity" could be addressed by viewing the entire apportionable business income of a unitary business as the income-producing activity. Because the nexus requirement would be satisfied by this origin-based COP approach, the Hearing Officer noted that there would be no need for a throwout or throwback rule. However, the Hearing Officer acknowledged that "COP is incompatible with the economic development considerations that led to single-factor apportionment." Therefore, states that have adopted single sales factor apportionment would be unlikely to adopt COP.

Receipts Factor

The Compact currently defines "sales" as all of a taxpayer's gross receipts that are not allocated.11 The Uniformity Committee recommended that the term "sales" be replaced with "receipts." The recommended language would define "receipts" as the gross receipts of the taxpayer that are not allocated and that are received from transactions and activities in the regular course of the taxpayer's trade or business.12

The Hearing Officer proposed two alternative drafts for the definition of "receipts."13 The drafts eliminate the "gross receipts of the taxpayer that are not allocated . . ." language because receipts are not allocated.14 Under the first alternative, "receipts" is defined as "gross receipts of the taxpayer that are received from, or associated with, transactions or activities generating apportionable business income defined in Art. IV.1." The Hearing Officer explained that the first alternative is broader than the Uniformity Committee's proposal and the second alternative. The first alternative implements the principle that for apportionable income, the related receipts should be included in the sales factor so that the apportionment formula is more likely to be fair and reflect a reasonable sense of how income is generated. The second alternative contains the same language as the first alternative, but adds language to exclude "substantial amounts of such gross receipts from an incidental or occasional sale of a fixed asset or other property that was, or is, related to, or part of, the operation of the taxpayer's trade or business." Also, the second alternative excludes some situations that might otherwise raise issues of alternative apportionment.

Commentary

The proposals to revise Article IV of the Compact have received considerable attention. There have been discussions to revise key provisions of UDITPA or Article IV for many years. Although all five of the main topics discussed in the report are important, the changes proposed to the alternative apportionment and market-based sourcing provisions may be the most wide-ranging and controversial. With respect to the scope of alternative apportionment, the question of which party has the burden of proof when an alternative apportionment method is sought has been addressed in at least one high-profile case in the past year,15 with more litigation on this point likely to follow. The Hearing Officer's proposed amendment would clarify that the party invoking the alternative apportionment method has the burden of proof. State tax authorities are likely to argue that the burden of proof should always be on the taxpayer regardless of which party raises the issue, given the general presumption of correctness concerning assessments issued by the state. On the other hand, there are strong equitable arguments that can be raised by taxpayers that assert that the burden of proof should be same for either the taxpayer or the tax administrator, and that a taxpayer following statutory rules should not be subject to penalty if a state tax authority decides to assess based upon alternative apportionment.

During the past several years, market-based sourcing of sales other than sales of tangible personal property has become a popular departure from the UDITPA COP method. Under market-based sourcing, states generally require that receipts from the sale of services are sourced based on the location of the service provider's customers, or on the location where the customers received the benefit from the service provided, rather than the location where the service provider performed the services. The nuances of marketbased sourcing vary among states.16 Considering that states are moving toward marketbased sourcing, it is curious that the Hearing Officer recommended using a modified COP method rather than market-based sourcing. However, the Hearing Officer presumes that the Executive Committee will endorse the market-based sourcing approach and draft model regulations. The Hearing Officer explained that "[s]peed is of the essence if the MTC is to exert influence in this area" and that "[i]t can only be hoped that the states that have already marched down the path of market-based sourcing will reverse their current practices if those turn out to be inconsistent with MTC model regulations."

It will be interesting to see how the MTC responds to the Hearing Officer's report at its next executive meeting in December. The MTC could take steps to follow the Hearing Officer's guidance, retain its own drafted language, or strike a compromise between the two approaches. Also, it would stand to reason that even after final language to amend the Compact is adopted by the MTC, model regulations further explaining the new provisions in the Compact would need to be drafted. This would put the MTC in the interesting position of developing regulations to essentially self-interpret the issues that it raised in the revised Compact. Of course, the biggest issue that will be unresolved for some time is whether the states will be motivated to change their statutes (and regulations) to conform to the provisions in a revised Compact. If not, the MTC's project will be remembered for spurring a significant amount of intellectual discourse, but not a lot of practical success.

Footnotes

1 Report of the Hearing Officer, Multistate Tax Compact Article IV (UDITPA) Proposed Amendments, Oct. 25, 2013. The report is available at http://www.mtc.gov.

2 The MTC recommended that the following provisions be reviewed: (i) sales factor numerator sourcing for services and intangibles (market-based sourcing) (Compact Art. IV.17); (ii) sales definition (Compact Art. IV.1(g)); (iii) factor weighting (Compact Art. IV.9); (iv) business income definition (Compact Art. IV.1(a); and (v) equitable apportionment (Compact Art. IV.18).

3 Multistate Tax Compact Art. IV.9.

4 Specifically, the MTC provides for: (i) separate accounting; (ii) the exclusion of one or more of the factors; (iii) the inclusion of one or more additional factors which will fairly represent the taxpayer's business activity in the state; or (iv) the employment of any other method to effectuate an equitable allocation and apportionment of the taxpayer's income. Multistate Tax Compact Art. IV.18.

5 Multistate Tax Compact Art. IV.1(a). Note that the first part of the definition, "income arising from transactions and activity in the regular course of the taxpayer's trade or business," is commonly called the "transactional test." The second part of the definition, "income for tangible and intangible property if the acquisition, management and disposition of the property constitute integral parts of the taxpayer's regular trade or business operations," is commonly called the "functional test." Furthermore, "nonbusiness income" is "all income other than business income." Multistate Tax Compact Art. IV.1(e).

6 Also, the definition includes "any income that would be allocable to this state under the Constitution of the United States, but that is apportioned rather than allocated pursuant to the laws of this state."

7 As explained by the Hearing Officer, the proposed language in (A) and (B) is broad enough to accommodate new business practices, but the constitutional standard will be available for the gray areas.

8 Multistate Tax Compact Art. IV.17.

9 These sub-rules include provisions for sourcing such items as real property, tangible personal property, services and intangible property. However, because the Uniformity Committee anticipates development of model regulations, the draft language leaves many questions unanswered.

10 Certain categories of costs, such as depreciation, research and development, sales and marketing, technical support and billing, cause most of the problems in computing COP.

11 Multistate Tax Compact Art. IV.1(g).

12 The definition would exclude the receipts of a taxpayer other than a securities dealer from hedging transactions and from the maturity, redemption, sale, exchange, loan or other disposition of cash or securities.

13 Both drafts assume that Draft Art. IV.17(a)(4)(ii)(C) has been adopted and receipts from the treasury function and hedging do not need to be addressed in the "receipts" definition. This section of the marketbased sourcing draft provides that all other receipts from a sale of intangible property are excluded from the numerator and denominator of the sales factor.

14 Gain or loss, rather than receipts, is allocated.

15 In Equifax, Inc. v. Department of Revenue, Mississippi Supreme Court, No. 2010-CT-01857-SCT, June 20, 2013, the taxpayer used the standard method of apportionment for service companies, but the Department of Revenue used an alternative apportionment method consisting of market-based sourcing. The Mississippi Supreme Court held that the taxpayer had the burden of proof because the party petitioning the court for relief bears the burden of proving its claim by a preponderance of the evidence or a higher standard. In this case, the Department presented minimal evidence to support its claim that the standard apportionment factor initially used by the taxpayer failed to reflect the extent of its business in the state. For further discussion of this case, see GT SALT Alert: Mississippi Supreme Court Upholds Use of Alternative Apportionment Method.

16 Some of the more recent state legislation adopting market-based sourcing requires sales to be sourced to the location where the service is delivered. For example, legislation recently enacted by Massachusetts (Ch. 46 (H.B. 3535), Laws 2013) and Pennsylvania (Act 52 (H.B. 465), Laws 2013) follows this approach.

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.

Authors
 
In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
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
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration
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 you may opt out by clicking here

    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.

    Disclaimer

    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.

    Registration

    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.

    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.

    Cookies

    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.

    Links

    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.

    Mail-A-Friend

    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.

    Emails

    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 .

    Security

    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.

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