United States: Maryland High Court Holds Intangible Holding Companies Have Corporate Income Tax Nexus

On March 24, the Maryland Court of Appeals, the state's highest court, held that two out-of-state intangible holding companies had corporate income tax nexus with Maryland because they were considered to have no real economic substance as business entities separate from their parent company.1 According to the Court, the imposition of tax on the intangible holding companies satisfied both the Due Process and Commerce Clauses of the U.S. Constitution. Also, the Court upheld the Maryland Comptroller's use of the parent company's apportionment factor to determine the Maryland income of the holding companies. The apportionment formula was authorized by the unitary business principle and satisfied the internal consistency and external consistency tests. In reaching this decision, the Court of Appeals affirmed prior decisions by the Court of Special Appeals and the Tax Court.


The parent company, Gore, was a manufacturer with a physical presence in Maryland that created two intangible holding companies (Gore Enterprise Holdings, Inc. (GEH), a royalty company created in 1983, and Future Value, Inc. (FVI), an investment company created in 1996). GEH and FVI were incorporated in Delaware and lacked a physical presence in Maryland. GEH licensed its patent portfolio to Gore in exchange for a 7.5 percent royalty of the sales price of all products that Gore sold in the U.S. FVI earned interest income by investing in and managing Gore's excess cash and capital. Gore deducted both its royalty payments to GEH and its interest payments to FVI from its taxable income.

GEH and FVI did not file Maryland corporate income tax returns and as Delaware entities, their intangible and interest income derived from their transaction with Gore fell under Delaware's exemption of passive income. Moreover, the intangible and interest income were not taxable in separate reporting states (in which Gore was doing business) that lacked related-party expense addback rules.

In 2006, the Comptroller audited Gore, GEH and FVI for tax periods 1983 to 2003, determining that the subsidiaries were subject to the Maryland corporation income tax.

The Comptroller used Gore's Maryland apportionment ratio to apportion its Maryland income and expenses and applied it to GEH and FVI's federal taxable income derived from Gore, excluding any income that did not originate from Gore. Based on its position that the two subsidiaries had substantial connections and nexus with Maryland under unitary business principles, the Comptroller assessed over $26 million against GEH and over $2.6 million against FVI. The Comptroller also made an alternative assessment of tax against Gore based on the denial of the deduction for royalty and interest payments, on the basis that Gore had not sufficiently established these amounts as ordinary and necessary business expenses.

A hearing officer in the Comptroller's office upheld the assessments and upon appeal, the Maryland Tax Court affirmed the tax assessments based on its conclusion that the two subsidiaries had nexus with Maryland because they lacked real economic substance as business entities separate from Gore.2 The subsidiaries subsequently appealed to a circuit court, which found that Gore and GEH were not in a unitary business and that Gore and FVI conducted transactions at arm's length, reversing the Tax Court's decision and cancelling the assessments against both subsidiaries. Following an appeal by the Comptroller, the Court of Special Appeals reversed the circuit court and held that the subsidiaries had nexus with Maryland because they were unitary with Gore.3 The Court of Special Appeals endorsed the Tax Court's original decision that upheld the Comptroller's assessment. The subsidiaries appealed this decision to the Court of Appeals.

Out-of-State Intangible Holding Companies Subject to Maryland Tax

In affirming the Tax Court and the Court of Special Appeals, the Court of Appeals held that the subsidiaries had nexus with Maryland because they lacked real economic substance as business entities separate from the parent company. The Court of Appeals began its analysis by examining what it characterized as the "bedrock constitutional principles" that must be satisfied before an out-of-state entity is subject to Maryland tax.4 The Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution requires minimal contacts with the state in order to subject the entity to taxation within the state,5 while the Commerce Clause requires that an entity have substantial nexus before it may be taxed by a state.6

Unitary Business Principle Clarified

The unitary business principle authorizes the state to tax the portion of value that the business derived from its operation within the state.7 The Court of Appeals clarified what the unitary business principle allows. Although this principle may be used to tax an apportioned sum of the multistate income, the "principle does not confer nexus to allow a state to directly tax a subsidiary based on the fact that the parent company is taxable and that the parent and subsidiary are unitary."8 If the taxpayer disputes its nexus with Maryland, the unitary business principle cannot be used to satisfy the Due Process and Commerce Clauses. After the state satisfies the constitutional requirements to impose a tax on a corporation in question, the unitary business principle allows the apportionment of income.9

No Economic Substance as Separate Business Entities

The Court of Appeals considered a case, Comptroller of the Treasury v. SYL, Inc., which it had previously decided that was similar to the instant case.10 SYL concerned Maryland's ability to tax two different companies that had little obvious connection to the state, but were subsidiaries of parent companies that had significant business ties with Maryland. After examining the structure and operation of the two subsidiaries, the Court held in SYL that the constitutional requirements were satisfied because the subsidiaries "had no real economic substance as separate business entities."11

According to the Court of Appeals, the Tax Court properly held that Maryland could tax GEH and FVI consistent with the reasoning in SYL. The Tax Court used the correct legal standard by determining that GEH and FVI were subsidiaries with no real economic substance as separate business entities.12 As part of its analysis, the Tax Court noted that the subsidiaries were each engaged in a unitary business with Gore. The Court of Appeals explained that even though the unitary business principle and economic substance inquiry are distinct tests, there was no reason that the factors that indicate a unitary business cannot also be relevant in determining whether subsidiaries have real economic substance.

The Court of Appeals rejected the subsidiaries' attempts to distinguish SYL from the instant case. First, the subsidiaries argued that they were created for legitimate business reasons. In rejecting this argument, the Court explained that the motivation behind creating entities, although invoked in SYL, is not dispositive. Second, GEH and FVI argued that unlike the subsidiaries in SYL, they engaged in activities that highlighted their substance as entities separate from their parent. The Court acknowledged that GEH and FVI participated in more substantive activities than the subsidiaries in SYL, as GEH acquired patents from third parties, licensed patents to third parties and paid substantial fees for outside legal counsel and other services. However, the Court concluded that the "window dressing" did not provide GEH and FVI with economic substance as separate entities. Finally, the subsidiaries contended that all of their transactions with Gore were at arm's length or market rates. However, the Court explained that this fact "does not dispel the inescapable conclusion that GEH and FVI did not have economic substance as separate business entities."

Separate Reporting Requirement Not Violated

The Court of Appeals rejected the subsidiaries' argument that the Comptroller usurped the legislative function by transforming Maryland from a separate reporting state to a unitary (combined) reporting state. According to the subsidiaries, the Tax Court improperly treated them as a unitary business because they did not have the necessary connection with Maryland to be taxed as independent entities. The Court of Appeals rejected this argument and reiterated that the subsidiaries' lack of economic substance, rather than the unitary business principle, supported the nexus determination. Because the unitary business principle cannot be used to support the constitutional taxation of GEH and FVI as individual entities, there was no inconsistency in the Tax Court's finding of nexus under SYL and Maryland's separate reporting requirement.

Corporate Form Not Disregarded

The subsidiaries unsuccessfully argued that the Tax Court's ruling was an improper disregard for the corporate form under Maryland law. The Court of Appeals concluded that the subsidiaries' argument would prevent courts from considering the realities of the relationship between a parent and subsidiary in determining the amount of income that may be fairly traced to Maryland. This principle would require a complete rejection of SYL. Furthermore, SYL does not require a disregard of the unique corporate existence of either the parent or subsidiary. The Court explained that the Comptroller was taxing GEH and FVI independently, subject to Maryland's separate reporting requirements.

Federal Patent Rights Not Transformed

The Court disagreed with the subsidiaries' argument that the Tax Court's use of SYL improperly transformed the scope of federal patent rights. This argument concerned a statement by the Court of Special Appeals that a patent is "used" when a licensee manufactures or sells a product covered by that patent. The logic behind a patent being "used" was also reflected in SYL, where the Court cited a case, Geoffrey, Inc. v. South Carolina Tax Commission, finding nexus based on the use of trademarks in the state.13 The subsidiaries' argument was based on the legal difference between patents and trademarks. Under this argument, a patent is completely severable from the sale of the covered product, but trademarks are inseparable from their covered product. The Court concluded that there was nothing in the inherent nature of patents that precluded their "use" by Gore. For purposes of taxation, the Court concluded that there is no distinction between patents and trademarks.

Apportionment Factor Properly Applied

The Court of Appeals held that the Comptroller properly applied Gore's Maryland three-factor apportionment factor to GEH and FVI's income to calculate the subsidiaries' tax obligations. The subsidiaries unsuccessfully argued that the Comptroller ignored a regulation requiring taxpayers earning income from intangibles to apportion such income through a two-factor apportionment formula based on a ratio of in-state to everywhere property and payroll.14 Based on the language of the apportionment statute and regulation, the Court rejected this argument. Both the apportionment statute and the regulation allow the Comptroller to alter the apportionment formula as necessary.15 The use of Gore's apportionment factor was necessary to fairly represent the subsidiaries' activities in Maryland, since apportionment under the two-factor formula would have resulted in zero tax liability which did not represent that subsidiaries' Maryland activity.

The subsidiaries also argued that the apportionment formula was unfair because they did not have property or payroll in Maryland. In rejecting this argument, the Court explained that the Comptroller's use of an apportionment formula was authorized by the unitary business principle. The Due Process and Commerce Clauses limit the unitary business principle and require (1) showing the existence of a unitary business that is at least partially conducted in the taxing state and (2) demonstrating a rational relationship between the taxing state and the intrastate values of the taxpayer's business.16 The Court of Appeals concluded that the Tax Court correctly held that Gore and the subsidiaries were engaged in a unitary business. The subsidiaries therefore had the burden of showing that the income they wanted to exclude was from unrelated business activity that was a discreet business enterprise.17 The Court of Appeals followed the U.S. Supreme Court's analysis that employs both internal consistency and external consistency tests.18 The subsidiaries did not dispute the internal consistency test, but argued that under the external consistency test, the apportionment formula was unfair and out of proportion to the business they conducted in Maryland. The Court of Appeals disagreed and summarily held that the apportionment formula reflected a reasonable sense of how the subsidiaries' income was generated.


This ground-breaking decision attempts to clarify the analysis to be used when determining whether Maryland can tax the income of out-of-state holding companies. Given the fact that this decision was issued by Maryland's highest court and clearly expresses the analysis to use when making a nexus determination for out-of-state holding companies, this case will likely be considered by courts in other states. Although the decision affirms the holdings of both the Tax Court and the Court of Special Appeals, it relies on the Tax Court's analysis. In making the nexus determination, the Tax Court based its conclusion on a finding that the subsidiaries lacked real economic substance as separate business entities. In contrast, the Court of Special Appeals based its nexus determination on a unitary business relationship. The Court of Appeals followed the approach used by the Tax Court and clarified that the unitary business principle cannot solely be used to satisfy the nexus requirements under the Due Process and Commerce Clauses. The unitary business principle does not concern jurisdiction, but allows the apportionment of the income of entities that are already deemed to be taxable. Thus, according to the Maryland Court of Appeals, the economic substance analysis is key in determining whether out-of-state subsidiaries have nexus with the taxing state.

While the Court clearly states that the existence of a unitary relationship between a parent and a subsidiary cannot drive a nexus determination for the subsidiary, the Court's reliance on a distinctive economic substance test required to be met for a subsidiary to be treated as a separate business entity calls into question what level of economic substance a subsidiary must have to be considered an independent entity. Apparently, transactions that are made at arm's length or market rates may not be enough if such transactions are with direct affiliates. The Court's analysis implies that significant levels of transactions with third parties, and a separate set of officers and directors may be necessary for a controlled subsidiary to have economic substance under the Maryland conception of the term.

Note that Maryland adopted related-party addback rules for the 2004 tax year and thereafter so that the Comptroller could effectively eliminate the tax benefit that Gore, GEH and FVI and other similar corporate structures had historically received due to the operation of the separate return rules.19 But even so, the decision may be used to target entities engaged in other activities beyond the holding of intangibles as not having enough economic substance to stand on their own, as well as entities that claim an exception from the related-party addback rules. In any event, one can expect more subsidiaries that are closely related to their corporate parents to be scrutinized by the Comptroller, and potentially tainted by the characterization of "not enough economic substance."

Perhaps just as concerning as the economic substance determination was the Court's affirmation of the Comptroller's use of Gore's apportionment factors, which included a substantial amount of Maryland property and payroll, as a means to calculate GEH and FVI's Maryland corporation income tax liability. The Comptroller has broad discretionary authority to make adjustments in the area of apportionment when the existing apportionment factor regime does not clearly reflect a taxpayer's income. But the Comptroller's adjustment in this case produced a result similar to the combined reporting on a unitary basis required in numerous states. Notably, Maryland has not adopted combined reporting to date, despite numerous attempts in the state legislature. The Comptroller's efforts to effectively reach that result through this type of adjustment make it clear that separate reporting is not a consistent policy on which parent corporations subject to tax in Maryland with closely related subsidiaries located outside Maryland can rely.


1 Gore Enterprise Holdings, Inc. v. Comptroller of the Treasury; Future Value, Inc. v. Comptroller of the Treasury, Maryland Court of Appeals, No. 36, March 24, 2014.

2 W.L. Gore & Assoc., Inc. v. Comptroller of the Treasury, Maryland Tax Court, Nos. 07-IN-OO-0084, 07-IN-OO-0085, 07-IN-OO-0086, Nov. 9, 2010.

3 Comptroller of the Treasury v. Gore Enterprise Holdings, Inc.; Comptroller of the Treasury v. Future Value, Inc., 60 A.3d 107 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2013). For a discussion of this case, see GT SALT Alert: Maryland Court of Special Appeals Holds Intangible Holding Companies Have Corporate Income Tax Nexus.

4 See Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, 504 U.S. 298 (1992).

5 Under the Due Process Clause, the out-of-state business must have a '"minimal connection' between the interstate activities and the taxing State, and a rational relationship between the income attributed to the State and the intrastate values of the enterprise." Mobil Oil Corp. v. Comm'r of Taxes of Vermont, 445 U.S. 425 (1980) (citations omitted).

6 In Complete Auto Transit Inc. v. Brady, 430 U.S. 274 (1977), the U.S. Supreme Court developed a four-part test to determine whether a state's imposition of a tax satisfies the Commerce Clause. To meet the test, the tax must (1) be applied to an activity with a substantial nexus with the taxing state, (2) be fairly apportioned, (3) not discriminate against interstate commerce and (4) be fairly related to the services provided by the state.

7 MeadWestvaco Corp. ex rel. Mead Corp. v. Illinois Dep't of Revenue, 553 U.S. 16 (2008).

8 Emphasis in original.

9 The Court noted that Professor Walter Hellerstein, a noted professor in the area of state and local taxation, advances this same position in published thought leadership. See Walter Hellerstein, A Unitary Business is the "Linchpin of Apportionability," Not Nexus, State Tax Notes, March 18, 2013.

10 825 A.2d 399 (Md. 2003).

11 Emphasis added by Court.

12 As summarized by the Court of Appeals, the Tax Court's opinion contained a list of findings that "highlighted the subsidiaries' dependence on Gore for their income, the circular flow of money between the subsidiaries and Gore, the subsidiaries' reliance on Gore for core functions and services, and the general absence of substantive activity from either subsidiary that was in any meaningful way separate from Gore."

13 437 S.E.2d 13 (S.C. 1993).

14 MD. REGS. CODE tit. 03, § 04.03.08.

15 MD. CODE ANN., TAX-GEN § 10-402(d); MD. REGS. CODE tit. 03, § 04.03.08(F)(1).

16 NCR Corp. v. Comptroller of the Treasury, 544 A.2d 764 (Md. 1988).

17 Id.

18 Container Corp. v. Franchise Tax Board, 463 U.S. 159 (1983). Under the internal consistency test, if the apportionment formula were applied by every jurisdiction, it would result in no more than all of the taxpayer's income being taxed. Under the external consistency text, the factor or factors in the apportionment formula must actually reflect a reasonable sense of how the income is generated.

19 See MD. CODE ANN., TAX-GEN § 10-306.1.

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.