United States: New York State Tax Appeals Tribunal Sustains Corporation Franchise Tax Combined Filing Based On Unitary Business And "Soft" Distortion

On April 16, in a precedential decision, the New York State Tax Appeals Tribunal affirmed an Administrative Law Judge's determination that a group of corporations properly filed New York State franchise tax returns on a combined basis.1 The Tribunal found that the group of corporations met the capital stock, unitary business, and distortion requirements of New York's permissive combination statute and regulations in effect during the periods at issue. The Tribunal denied the attempt by the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance to force the group of corporations to file franchise tax returns on a separate basis and cancelled the notices of deficiency issued by the Department. The Department is not permitted to appeal the Tribunal's decision.

Background

IT Holding SpA is a luxury Italian fashion company that operates subsidiaries around the world. Among its subsidiaries are the taxpayers, consisting of IT Holding USA, Inc. ("IT Holding") and IT Holding's subsidiaries: (1) IT USA, Inc. ("IT USA"); and (2) Manifatture Associate Cashmere USA, Inc. ("MAC"). IT Holding performed various administrative services for IT USA and MAC including monitoring inventory, customs brokering, insurance, employee benefits, budgeting, human resources, public relations, credit, receivables, factoring, real estate, and strategic planning. IT USA and MAC only employed sales personnel and did not have independent management or administrative employees to perform logistical functions. Therefore, IT Holding performed managerial functions for IT USA and MAC such as the ordering, shipping, and tracking of inventory, performing credit checks, collection activity, human resources, advertising, and public relations. There was no written management services agreement between the taxpayers. IT Holding also provided a cash management system to IT USA and MAC and did not create formal notes regarding the indebtedness incurred by providing loans. The same person was president of all three entities and was the sole representative of the Italian parent company in the United States.

The taxpayers filed combined New York Corporation Franchise Tax reports for the 2002, 2003, and 2004 tax years. The Department audited those reports and determined that the members of the combined group were not permitted to file reports on a combined basis and issued notices of deficiency for the periods at issue to IT USA in the amount of $442,826, plus penalty and interest, and to MAC in the amount of $40,497, plus penalty and interest. The New York State Bureau of Conciliation and Mediation Services sustained both notices of deficiency on May 7, 2010.

The taxpayers appealed to the New York State Division of Tax Appeals where an administrative law judge (ALJ) determined that under the statutory and regulatory standards for the filing of a combined franchise tax report from 2002 to 2004, the taxpayers met the capital stock ownership, unitary business, and distortion requirements necessary to file on a combined basis.2 The ALJ granted the taxpayers' petitions and cancelled the notices of deficiency. The Department filed an exception to the ALJ's determination to the Tribunal.

Corporations Permitted to File Combined Franchise Tax Reports

During the tax years at issue, New York generally required corporations to file separate franchise tax reports, but also provided that reporting on a combined basis with one or more other corporations was permitted or required under certain circumstances.3 The Department promulgated regulations4 providing that combined reporting was permitted or required where corporations in the group met the capital stock requirement,5 the unitary business requirement,6 and the "other" or "distortion" requirement.7

The Department did not challenge that the taxpayers met the capital stock requirement. The focus of the Department's challenge was whether the taxpayers met the unitary business and distortion requirements. The Department argued that the ALJ's determination was based upon insufficient evidence, namely oral testimony during the hearing, and that the matter was distinguishable from the previous Tribunal decision in Matter of Heidelberg Eastern, Inc.,8 in which it was determined that a central cash management system benefited the members of a combined group.

To determine whether the taxpayers were engaged in a unitary business, the Tribunal reviewed both the considerations set forth under the Department's regulations and the unitary business indicia explained by the United States Supreme Court.9 The Department's regulations provide the following considerations for a determination of unitary business: (1) whether the activities in which the proposed member engages are related to the activities of the other proposed members; and (2) whether the proposed member is engaged in the same or related lines of business as the other proposed members.10 The Tribunal summarized the United States Supreme Court's unitary business criteria of functional integration, centralization of management, and economies of scale.11

The Tribunal concluded that that the taxpayers were engaged in a unitary business. Specifically, the taxpayers were in the business of selling Italian clothing and apparel as demonstrated by their common president, centralized management, administrative inventory support, credit checks, collection activity, advertising, public relations, human resources, and cash management system.

The Tribunal also concluded that the taxpayers met the distortion requirement to file combined reports. The Tribunal noted that the taxpayers made no claim of substantial intercompany transactions. However, the distortion requirement is also satisfied if the filing of a report on a separate basis would result in a distortion of the taxpayer's activities, business, income, or capital.12 The Tribunal explained that the concepts of unitary business and distortion are related, so that the factors that indicate a unitary business may also result in a finding of distortion of income. The Tribunal determined that distortion existed due to IT Holding's provision of management, corporate, administrative and logistical services to its related parties at cost, since the related parties only had sales personnel and could not have operated without the support services provided by Holding. In addition, the management fees charged by IT Holding to its related parties were based upon attaining a result of IT Holding having no gain or loss, rather than being based upon the actual cost of those functions. The lack of a markup on the management fee was indicative of distortion. The Tribunal relied upon Matter of Heidelberg Eastern, Inc. and other Tribunal precedents in its discussion of the unitary business and distortion factors.13

Interestingly, the Tribunal noted a number of areas of disagreement with the ALJ's original determination. The Tribunal determined that in contrast to the ALJ's view, the taxpayers failed to prove that they never paid any management fees to IT Holding, as the posting of payments to intercompany accounts was enough to show that payments were in fact made. Further, the Tribunal concluded that taxpayers did not prove that the existence of the cash management system resulted in distortion. Also, the Tribunal found that intercompany loans between IT USA and MAC did not result in distortion, and likewise, no distortion resulted from IT Holding and IT USA's purported failure to pay MAC for their use of MAC's co-op. Despite all of these distinctions, the Tribunal still concluded that the taxpayers had shown enough distortion through the overall relationship between the taxpayers, and accordingly were required to file on a combined basis.

Commentary

Since the tax years at issue in this matter, New York has amended the reporting requirements for franchise taxpayers twice.14 The decision may have significant ramifications for determining both combination and decombination challenges under all three different variations of the reporting requirements. As several audits and matters are ongoing that deal with previous iterations of the corporation franchise tax reporting requirements, it is important to review the decision's importance on those tax years, as well as its effect going forward. Further, while in this matter the Department sought to decombine the taxpayers, the same principles of the tests will be in effect when determining whether taxpayers who desire to report corporation franchise tax separately will be required to file on a combined basis.

With respect to previous years, the decision provides precedential insight to the Tribunal's view on the unitary business and distortion tests with respect to permitting or requiring combined reports. Regarding the unitary business requirement, the decision confirms the Tribunal's viewpoint that Matter of Heidelberg Eastern, Inc. is still good precedent. In addition, the Tribunal's decision provides a detailed fact pattern satisfying the requirements of a unitary business, and shows what is needed to prove distortion, because in many instances, taxpayers actually want to show distortion in order to file a combined report which would reduce overall New York corporation franchise tax liability.

Looking into the future, this fact pattern may only prove to be more important on a prospective basis as New York moves to unitary combined reporting for franchise tax for tax years beginning on and after January 1, 2015. With the previous removal of the distortion requirement and the subsequent removal of the substantial transaction requirement, we expect that more issues will arise with the Department concerning the unitary business principle for purposes of both combination and decombination.

With respect to the distortion requirement, found in the New York statutes and regulations permitting or requiring combined reporting prior to 2007, the decision explains that a parent company who receives consideration for its support services premised solely on its own cost of operations, rather than the actual cost of the services, exhibits distortion. Further, as the Tribunal relied upon a finding of "soft distortion," rather than that of distortion based on substantial intercorporate transactions, the decision serves as an example of the type of activity that may require or permit the filing of a combined report due to the distortive result that the filing of separate reports would have on a taxpayer's activities, business, income or capital.

While the distortion requirement was removed for tax years beginning in 2007 and thereafter, the Tribunal noted that the concepts of unitary business and distortion are related and that the same factors that indicate a unitary business may also result in distortion. Based on this language, as litigation and challenges over combination and decombination for franchise tax reports increases with respect to the unitary business principle after New York's move to unitary combined reporting, taxpayers may be able to look back to cases explaining distortion to find added support to their claim that certain businesses were either unitary or not unitary.

Footnotes

1 Matter of IT USA, Inc., DTA Nos. 823780 & 823781 (N.Y.S. Tax App. Trib., Apr. 16, 2014).

2 Matter of IT USA, Inc., DTA Nos. 823780 & 823781 (N.Y.S. Tax App., Dec. 20, 2012).

3 N.Y. TAX LAW § 211.4(a) (2004).

4 N.Y. COMP. CODES R. & REGS. tit. 20, § 6-2.1 (2004).

5 N.Y. COMP. CODES R. & REGS. tit. 20, § 6-2.2(a) (2004).

6 N.Y. COMP. CODES R. & REGS. tit. 20, § 6-2.2(b) (2004).

7 N.Y. COMP. CODES R. & REGS. tit. 20, § 6-2.3 (2004).

8 Matter of Heidelberg Eastern, Inc., DTA Nos. 806890, 807829 (N.Y.S. Tax App. Trib., May 5, 1994).

9 Allied-Signal v. Director, Div. of Taxation, 504 U.S. 768 (1992).

10 N.Y. COMP. CODES R. & REGS. tit. 20, § 6-2.2(b) (2004).

11 Container Corp. of Am. v. Franchise Tax Bd., 463 U.S. 159, 178 (1983).

12 N.Y. COMP. CODES R. & REGS. tit. 20, § 6-2.3(d) (2004).

13 See Matter of Mohasco Corp., New York Division of Tax Appeals, Tax Appeals Tribunal, DTA No. 808901, November 10, 1994; and Matter of Silver King Broadcasting of N.J., New York Division of Tax Appeals, Tax Appeals Tribunal, DTA No. 812589, May 9, 1996.

14 See N.Y. TAX LAW § 211.4(a) (2007) (providing that combined reporting is permitted or required where the capital stock, unitary business, and substantial transactions tests were met); N.Y. TAX LAW § 210-C (providing that effective January 1, 2015, combined reporting will be required where the capital stock and unitary business tests are met).

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
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
 
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 (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.

Disclaimer

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.

General

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