United States: Hold The Phone! AT&T’s Constitutional Challenge To Mississippi’s Dividend Exclusion Statute Is Still Alive

A Mississippi trial court has again found unconstitutional the state's dividend exclusion statute, which disadvantages certain multistate taxpayers as compared to solely Mississippi taxpayers. This result comes from AT&T's 16-year effort to attack two statutes that denied it benefits available to taxpayers doing all of their business in Mississippi. A number of cases in the administrative appellate pipeline present the same issue(s) as AT&T, stemming from audit positions firmly maintained by the Mississippi Department of Revenue ("MDOR"), and have been held in abeyance pending a decision from the state's highest court. The recent trial court decision discussed here appears to present the vehicle for resolution of these constitutional questions.

Background. MDOR audited AT&T's Mississippi income tax returns for the tax years 1993 through 1996, and as a result, on January 5, 1999, assessed $5,105,038 in additional tax. The primary adjustment made by MDOR was to change the AT&T affiliated group's method of computing tax for 1994-96 from a consolidated method to a combined method because the Mississippi multistate taxation laws only allowed consolidation for affiliated groups doing all of their business in Mississippi. If any member of the affiliated group was doing business outside Mississippi, as was the case with AT&T, the group was required by statute and regulations to use the combined method of reporting. The combined method does not allow intercompany transactions to be eliminated, resulting in the inclusion of, among other things, any intercompany gains or dividends in the recipient companies' gross incomes. AT&T's inability to exclude such intercompany dividends and/or to eliminate intercompany transactions resulted in the issuance of the audit assessment.

First Litigation. After going through the full administrative appeals process that was then in place, the assessment was reduced and upheld in the amount of $5,088,516 ("Assessment I"). On January 7, 2000, AT&T filed a petition in chancery court requesting relief ("AT&T I"). AT&T's petition cited constitutional infirmities of two statutes. First, AT&T challenged the constitutionality of then-existing Code § 27-7-37(2)(a)(i) (the "Consolidated Return Statute"), which for the audit period prohibited AT&T from filing consolidated Mississippi income tax returns with its subsidiaries. AT&T contended that this law established a discriminatory method of taxation which violated the Commerce Clause, United States Constitution Art. 1, § 8; the Due Process Clauses contained in the United States Constitution, Amendments V and XIV; and the Equal Protection Clauses contained in United States Constitution, Amendments V and XIV.

Specifically, AT&T argued that the discrimination inherent within the Consolidated Return Statute arose because Mississippi permitted an affiliated group of corporations operating wholly within the state to file a consolidated income tax return and to enjoy the numerous tax benefits associated with such a return (e.g., enabling a parent company to eliminate all intercompany dividends paid and received by and between entities included in such a consolidated return), but did not permit the use of the same method for affiliated groups that include corporations doing business outside of Mississippi.1 This prohibition thereby arguably denied multistate affiliated groups the option of availing themselves of the same tax benefits as "Mississippi only" affiliated groups. AT&T said that the Consolidated Return Statute and related regulations (on their face and as applied) under which MDOR issued Assessment I thus unconstitutionally burdened commerce, as well as violated AT&T's rights to due process and equal protection.

The second constitutional challenge to Assessment I raised by AT&T concerned Miss. Code § 27-7-15(4)(i) (the "Dividend Exclusion Statute"). AT&T alleged that this statute establishes a discriminatory method of taxation, resulting in the same constitutional violations cited in the Consolidated Return Statute context. AT&T argued that the discrimination inherent within the Dividend Exclusion Statute arises because the Mississippi taxing scheme illegally favors taxpayers owning subsidiaries doing business in Mississippi by excluding from the taxpayer's gross income dividends received from such subsidiaries, while denying such an exclusion for dividends received from subsidiaries that do not conduct business in Mississippi or file returns in Mississippi. MDOR's position on the record (based on testimony in AT&T I) is that the unfavorable treatment in the latter case is based solely on the fact that such distributing subsidiaries fail to do business in the State. Accordingly, AT&T said that the Dividend Exclusion Statute and related regulations under which MDOR issued Assessment I unconstitutionally discriminated against interstate commerce and violated AT&T's rights to due process and equal protection, on their face and as applied. AT&T claimed that it was entitled to a refund (totally separate from the Assessment I relief) on these grounds of $3,365,934.

When AT&T filed its chancery court petition, in lieu of posting the bond specified by the statute as then in effect, AT&T elected to pay the full Assessment I amount under protest and seek a refund of such amount, plus interest and other consistent relief. The parties and the court agreed to bifurcate the AT&T I trial into a liability or substantive phase, and a remedy phase. The liability phase trial was held on March 30, 2004, before Judge William H. Singletary. Judge Singletary took the case under advisement and issued his ruling on June 12, 2006, holding that both the Consolidated Return Statute and the Dividend Exemption Statute were unconstitutional, essentially agreeing with legal arguments summarized above.

The second phase remedy trial was completed on August 12, 2009. After numerous court filings and months of protracted procedural wrangling, the final order in AT&T I was issued by Judge Singletary on November 16, 2010. The court first held that it had full and complete jurisdiction of the case (in response to an objection on these grounds that MDOR had continued to raise at every turn). Then the court awarded a Final Judgment in favor of AT&T in the amount of $12,727,174, comprised of a refund of the Assessment I amount of $5,088,516 paid under protest, the overpayment of $3,365,934 attributable to the Dividend Exemption Statute's unconstitutionality, and interest of $4,272,724. Of course, MDOR appealed this decision (the final order in the case) to the Mississippi Supreme Court.

AT&T I was heard by the Mississippi Supreme Court on June 5, 2012. The Court rendered its decision on September 6, 2012, holding in favor of MDOR on procedural grounds—i.e., ruling that the chancery court did not have jurisdiction to hear the case because AT&T had failed to comply with then-existing Miss. Code § 27-7-73 by not posting a bond equal to twice the amount in controversy.2 The court never reached the merits of the constitutional issues raised in the case. AT&T's motion for a rehearing was denied by the Mississippi Supreme Court on December 6, 2012.

Second Litigation.MDOR audited the three subsequent years of AT&T's returns, 1997-99, and on June 11, 2003, issued an income tax assessment of $11,755,044, on primarily the same grounds as Assessment I. After again going through the full administrative appeals process that was then in place, the assessment was reduced and upheld in the amount of $10,703,608, plus up to date interest of $1,160,690 ("Assessment II"). On August 6, 2004, AT&T appealed Assessment II to chancery court ("AT&T II") with the case being again assigned to Judge Singletary for reasons of judicial economy. However, in this instance, AT&T filed an appeal bond as specified by Miss. Code § 27-7-73 in the amount of $23,728,596.

AT&T II finally came before the court in the form of competing motions for summary judgment filed by the parties in conjunction with related hearing and oral arguments. The court issued its Final Order Granting Summary Judgment on March 19, 2015. With certain settlement discussions between AT&T and MDOR apparently having occurred, the court noted in its order that "an amicable resolution was reached by the parties concerning the issue of consolidated/combined return filing methods" and therefore the constitutionality of the Consolidated Return Statute was not before the court.3 The parties had stipulated as to all genuine issues of material fact and therefore, the only issue for consideration in the case related to the taxation of intercompany dividends, including interest and penalties attributable thereto—i.e., the constitutionality of the Dividend Exemption Statute.

The court followed almost verbatim the legal analysis that it applied in AT&T I, with the same result. The court concluded that (1) the Dividend Exemption is an unconstitutional violation of the Commerce Clause, and (2) since the Assessment II order from MDOR was based on this unlawful statute, it is, by its very nature, arbitrary and capricious and subject to reversal by the court (a point that addresses the standard of review of final orders of state administrative agencies, such as MDOR). With respect to relief, the court found that "the only appropriate remedy which would place AT&T on even footing with those taxpayers who enjoyed the subject tax benefits is to strike the offensive limitations and grant those applicable tax benefits to AT&T for the years at issue." The court further noted that "[b]ased upon the previous agreement between the parties, the application of the dividend exclusion will result in no additional income tax liability for AT&T for the relevant tax years."

Going Forward. Given MDOR's long held position that it has the obligation to assume and defend the constitutionality of the tax laws until the Mississippi Supreme Court says otherwise or the legislature changes the law, it will surely appeal this decision. And since AT&T II does not appear to have any procedural or jurisdictional issues that will foreclose a review and decision of this case on the merits, at long last we can probably expect the matter of the constitutionality of the Dividend Exemption Statute to finally be settled within the next year or so.

Tax Tip. Given the state of the case law in this area, which was well summarized by Judge Singletary in both AT&T I and AT&T II, most tax practitioners expect the trial court's ruling in AT&T to be upheld by the Mississippi Supreme Court. With this in mind, multistate taxpayers that have open tax years and who have not been able to take advantage of the Dividend Exclusion Statute (because all of the dividends received by a reporting company did not come from subsidiaries doing business within Mississippi or because they did not file returns in Mississippi) should consider filing protective refund claims pending the final outcome of AT&T II.


1. Instead, such multistate affiliated groups were permitted to file a single combined income tax return under Code § 27-7-37(2)(a)(ii) as it existed for the audit period.

2. In 2005, Miss. Code § 27-77-7(3) became law, allowing taxpayers to either pay the amount of assessment under protest and seek a refund of such taxes, plus interest or post a bond for double the amount in controversy. In 2010, the Legislature further revised this section to allow taxpayers to either pay the amount under protest or post a bond for only half the amount in controversy. Finally, the 2014 Mississippi Taxpayer Fairness Act, generally effective Jan. 1, 2015, again amended § 27-77-7(3), this time to eliminate the mandatory posting of a surety bond in the amount of one-half of the amount in controversy in order to perfect a judicial appeal (the so-called "pay to play" provision). Thus, after this change taxpayers are able to go to court without having to first post any kind of bond or security, except in limited circumstances.

3. This agreement may have to do with the fact that by the time the AT&T II petition was filed in court, the Mississippi legislature had amended Miss. Code § 27-7-37 to eliminate the consolidated method altogether, thereby placing both in-state and multistate taxpayers on the same footing and treating them equally on a prospective basis (the amendment affects tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2004. See H.B. 1333, 2004 Leg., Reg Sess (2004).

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.

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
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