United States: Minnesota Tax Court Denies Use Of Multistate Tax Compact's Equally-Weighted Three-Factor Apportionment Formula Election

On June 19, the Minnesota Tax Court granted the Minnesota Commissioner of Revenue's motion for summary judgment and denied a taxpayer's election to use the equallyweighted three-factor apportionment formula provided in the Multistate Tax Compact.1 Minnesota adopted the Compact in 1983, but in 1987, Minnesota specifically repealed Articles III and IV, which provide for the equally-weighted three-factor apportionment formula election and the standard apportionment provisions contained in the Compact.

Background

Kimberly-Clark and its subsidiaries are part of a unitary group that manufactures consumer products that are used around the world. Kimberly-Clark timely filed its Minnesota corporate franchise tax returns for the 2007-2009 tax years. Between 1989 and 2009, Kimberly-Clark apportioned its income to Minnesota using the required three-factor apportionment formula with sales weighed more heavily, pursuant to Minnesota statute.2 In 2013, Kimberly-Clark amended its returns for the 2007-2009 tax years and elected to utilize the equally-weighted three-factor property, payroll, and sales apportionment formula as provided under Articles III and IV of the Compact as it existed in Minnesota law prior to 1987, and requested a refund in the total amount of $1,205,749 in tax, plus interest.

Minnesota adopted the Compact in 1983, codifying the terms of the Compact in Minn. Stat. Sec. 290.171. Under Articles III and IV of the Compact, taxpayers are provided with the option to elect the use of an equally-weighted three-factor payroll, property, and sales factor apportionment formula, as well as the standard apportionment provisions contained in the Compact. In 1987, Minnesota amended its version of the Compact, repealing Articles III and IV.3 At that time, the apportionment formula applicable for purposes of the Minnesota corporation income tax required weighting the sales factor at 70 percent, with the property and payroll factors each weighted at 15 percent. Between the 2007 and 2014 tax years, Minnesota phased in the use of single sales factor apportionment.4 In 2013, Minnesota repealed the Compact in its entirety.

The Commissioner denied Kimberly-Clark's refund claims, and Kimberly-Clark timely appealed to the Minnesota Tax Court. No issues of material fact were in dispute, only issues in application of the law. As such, the Commissioner and Kimberly-Clark both filed for summary judgment.

Kimberly-Clark took the position that Minnesota may not unilaterally repeal Articles III and IV of the Compact as this action violated the Federal Compact Clause, the Contract Clause contained in the U.S. and Minnesota Constitutions, and was an invalid unilateral modification of the Compact. It was Kimberly-Clark's position that under the Compact as adopted by Minnesota, if Minnesota did not want to comply with the provisions of the Compact, it was required to enact a statute to repeal the Compact in full.5 Although Articles III and IV of the Compact were repealed in 1987, it was Kimberly-Clark's position that because Minnesota did not repeal the Compact in full until 2013, Minnesota remained bound to allow taxpayers the election to use the provisions of Articles III and IV for tax periods prior to the 2013 repeal date.

The Department argued that since Articles III and IV of the Compact were repealed in 1987, taxpayers were no longer allowed to make the election to utilize an equally-weighted three factor apportionment formula. Additionally, under a provision contained in the Minnesota Constitution, "[t]he power of taxation shall never be surrendered, suspended or contracted away" and therefore, Minnesota could not surrender its power to tax under the Constitution.6 The Department also relied on the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in U.S. Steel Corporation in which the Supreme Court held that Compact member states retain the freedom to adopt or reject rules and regulations of the Commission.7 The Department rejected Kimberly-Clark's claim for refund and took the position that Minnesota has the freedom to repeal provisions contained in the Compact. The case was heard before all three judges of the Minnesota Tax Court.

Application of Compact Clause

Based on its application of the law, the Tax Court granted the Commissioner's motion for summary judgment. Summary judgment is proper when there are no genuine issues of material fact shown through the pleadings and the record in the case.8 Because the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, the Court determined there were no issues of material fact.

In evaluating Minnesota's repeal of Articles III and IV of the Compact, the Tax Court first looked at the Compact Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The Compact Clause states: "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress ... enter into any agreement or compact with another State ...."9 The clause's literal interpretation was rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court, which held that the, "application of the Compact Clause is limited to agreements that are directed to the formation of any combination tending to the increase of political power in the States, which may encroach upon or interfere with the just supremacy of the United States."10 Since Congress was not required to approve the Multistate Tax Compact, the Tax Court said that the Compact is to be construed as state law.

The Tax Court looked at the interpretation of the Compact as a statute versus a contract. Statutes are interpreted to, "ascertain and effectuate the intention of the legislature."11 Alternatively, contracts are interpreted to "ascertain and enforce the intent of the parties."12 The Tax Court stated that it assumed that the Compact created binding obligations for Minnesota because it was a contract, rejecting the Commissioner's claim that the Compact is a model law with only advisory effect.

Application of Unmistakability Doctrine

Considering the Compact as a contract, the Tax Court then considered the application of the unmistakability doctrine in order to determine whether the state's sovereign powers were constricted by the contract. Under the unmistakability doctrine, sovereign powers remain intact unless surrendered in unmistakable terms.13 The Court stated that there was a clear-statement requirement to satisfy the unmistakable doctrine test because "[s]tates rarely relinquish their sovereign powers, so when they do we would expect a clear indication of such devolution ...."14 The Tax Court rejected Kimberly-Clark's argument that the unmistakability doctrine does not apply to the Compact. In fact, the Tax Court agreed with the notion that interstate compacts actually exemplify implementation of the unmistakability doctrine. The Tax Court also rejected Kimberly-Clark's position that the Compact contained language prohibiting Minnesota from separately repealing Articles III and IV without repealing the entire Compact. The Tax Court pointed to Article IX of the Compact, dealing with arbitration, as a section of the Compact that in contrast to Articles III and IV, had specific language binding states to that section. As a result, the Tax Court held that because there was no language in the Compact as adopted by Minnesota stating that the specific provisions of Articles III and IV of the Compact could not be altered or repealed, Minnesota retained the power to repeal the provisions of Articles III and IV without repealing the Compact in its entirety.

The Tax Court also considered whether the withdrawal provisions contained in Article X(2) of the Compact satisfied the unmistakability doctrine and would require the state to repeal the Compact in whole. The Tax Court determined that while the withdrawal provision provided guidance on how a state could withdraw from the entire Compact, this provision did not explicitly provide that a state was surrendering its sovereignty with regards to making changes to the Compact.

Historical Treatment of States Repealing Provisions of Compact

Additionally, the Tax Court examined the history of the Compact and determined that the Compact drafters would not have intended to relinquish state sovereign authority and contract away the states' taxing powers, as the drafters were state tax officials and attorney generals. This was the case even though the general purpose of the Compact was an increase in state uniformity and a reduction in the risk of Congressional intervention in this area. In the Tax Court's view, the history surrounding the states' course of performance under the Compact, which allowed for significant departures from Articles III and IV of the Compact by states without requiring full withdrawal from the Compact, also supported the notion that state sovereign authority was not surrendered.15

The Tax Court also noted that, when Minnesota adopted the Compact in 1983, the state did not consider itself bound to enact the Model Act version of the Compact. When Minnesota enacted the Compact in 1983, the nonbusiness income portions of the Compact were clearly omitted. The Tax Court concluded that this action manifested the Minnesota legislature's "understanding that member States were free to adopt or alter the Compact's allocation and apportionment provisions as they saw fit."

The Tax Court concluded that Kimberly-Clark did not carry its burden to prove that the repeal of Articles III and IV of the Compact in 1987 was unconstitutional and therefore granted the Commissioner's motion for summary judgment.16 Assuming that Kimberly- Clark will appeal this decision by the Tax Court, their appeal will be made directly to the Minnesota Supreme Court.

Commentary

Taxpayers have brought similar cases in California, Oregon, Texas and Michigan asserting their right to make an election under the provisions of Article III of the Compact to use the equally-weighted three-factor apportionment formula. Interestingly, the Tax Court briefly addressed the Michigan litigation, focusing on the Michigan Supreme Court's dissenting opinion which stated that the Compact created no contractual obligation to adhere to Articles III and IV of the Compact.17 The Tax Court noted that since the Michigan Supreme Court determined that Michigan had not repealed the Compact when its decision was issued, and because the Compact's election provision was in effect during the year at issue in the litigation, the majority had no reason to analyze whether the Compact contractually obligated the state not to alter Articles III and IV of the Compact.

However, the history of the Compact in Minnesota presents different factual issues from the cases that are being litigated in these other states because, back in 1987, Minnesota repealed Articles III and IV of the Compact which contained the provision allowing taxpayers to elect to use the equally-weighted three-factor apportionment formula. As a result, Kimberly-Clark had a difficult and heavy burden to convince the Tax Court that it needed to restore the provisions of Articles III and IV which had been repealed in 1987.

This decision by the Tax Court represents a significant victory for the state because the attorney for the state had advised the Tax Court that a decision against the state would require the state to potentially pay $700 million in refunds to similarly situated taxpayers who would file amended returns electing the use of the equally-weighted three-factor apportionment formula. The Tax Court did not reference this statement in its opinion.

Footnotes

1 Kimberly-Clark Corp. v. Comm'r of Revenue, Minnesota Tax Court, File No. 8670-R, June 19, 2015.

2 MINN. STAT. § 290.191, subd. 2.

3 See Act of May 28, 1987, ch. 268, art. 1, § 74, 1987 MINN. LAWS 1039, 1098-112, 1156.

4 Id. at § 75, 127, 1987 MINN. LAWS 1039, 1112-19, 1156.

5 MINN. STAT. § 290.171, Article X(2) (1983 Supp.).

6 See MINN. CONST. art X, § 1.

7 See U.S. Steel Corp. v. Multistate Tax Commission, 434 U.S. 452, 473 (1978).

8 Minn. R. Civ. P. 56.03.

9 U.S. CONST. art. I, § 10, cl. 3.

10 U.S. Steel, 434 U.S. at 471.

11 MINN. STAT. § 645.16 (2014).

12 Valspar Refinish, Inc. v. Gaylord's Inc., 764 N.W.2d 359, 364 (Minn. 2009).

13 See generally United States v. Winstar Corp., 518 U.S. 839 (1996).

14 Tarrant Regional Water Dist. v. Herrmann, 133 S. Ct. 2120, 2133 (2013).

15 As an example, the Tax Court cited to Florida's repeal of Articles III and IV of the Compact only five years after joining as a founding member of the Compact, yet Florida continued to be treated as a member of the Compact. The Tax Court also pointed to Minnesota's continuing treatment as a member to the Compact after the 1987 repeal of Articles III and IV.

16 While all three justices of the Tax Court found in favor of the Department, the Chief Justice concurred specially to state her disagreement with section III of the Tax Court's decision. The Chief Justice pointed to mischaracterizations of the taxpayer's position as stated in the taxpayer's actual submissions to the Tax Court.

17 International Business Machines Corp. v. Department of Treasury, 852 N.W.2d 865 (Mich. 2014), reh'g denied, 855 N.W.2d 512 (2014). Note that following Michigan's subsequent enactment of legislation that retroactively repealed the Michigan statutes adopting the Compact effective January 1, 2008, the Michigan Court of Claims denied the taxpayer's election to use the equally-weighted threefactor apportionment formula provided in the Compact. International Business Machines Corp. v. Department of Treasury, Michigan Court of Claims, No. 11-000033-MT, April 28, 2015.

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