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

On December 31, 2015, the California Supreme Court unanimously reversed a 2012 decision reached by the California Court of Appeal, and held that taxpayers are precluded from making the election under the Multistate Tax Compact to use the equally-weighted three-factor apportionment formula for purposes of the California franchise (income) tax.1 After determining that the Compact is not a binding contract among its members, the Court concluded that the California legislature had the unilateral authority to eliminate the Compact's election provision. Also, the Court determined that the 1993 legislation enacting a double-weighted sales factor did not violate the state's reenactment rule. Finally, the legislature's intent to supersede the Compact's election provision was supported by the statutory language adopting the double-weighted sales factor and the accompanying legislative history.

Background

The Uniform Division of Income for Tax Purposes Act (UDITPA) was promulgated in 1957 in an effort to provide uniformity in the apportionment of corporate income among states. Under UDITPA, income is apportioned to a state using an equally-weighted formula that consists of property, payroll and sales factors.2 The Compact, which was created in 1967, created the Multistate Tax Commission (MTC) and adopted the apportionment methodology from UDITPA. Specifically, Article IV of the Compact provides for an equally-weighted three-factor formula. Article III of the Compact expressly allows taxpayers the option of apportioning income under the standard UDITPA formula or a state's alternative apportionment provisions. In 1966, the California legislature codified the UDITPA provisions.3 California ratified the Compact in 19744 and required corporations to apportion their business income to the state using the standard equally-weighted three-factor formula.5 For tax years beginning on or after January 1, 1993, California adopted a three-factor apportionment formula consisting of property, payroll and double-weighted sales, notwithstanding the Compact.6

In January 2010, the taxpayers filed claims with the California Franchise Tax Board (FTB) for the refund of taxes and argued that the California apportionment statute did not override or repeal the standard UDITPA apportionment formula. The taxpayers appealed the FTB's denial of their refund claims to the trial court.7 The FTB argued that the amended California apportionment statute required the exclusive use of the doubleweighted sales factor. The trial court ruled in favor of the FTB and agreed that the California apportionment statute clearly expressed an intention to eliminate the alternative apportionment formula allowed under the Compact. The taxpayers appealed this decision to the California Court of Appeal.

On June 27, 2012, in contemplation of a decision adverse to the state, California enacted legislation, S.B. 1015, repealing the Compact.8 The legislation, which was an attempt to limit potential tax refunds, clarified that since 1993, the use of an equally-weighted threefactor formula by a multistate taxpayer has been disallowed.

Court of Appeal Allowed Three-Factor Election

The California Court of Appeal reversed the trial court and agreed with the taxpayers that California was bound by the provisions of the Compact and could not override and eliminate the taxpayers' ability to elect the equally-weighted three-factor apportionment formula.9 In reaching its decision, the Court rejected the FTB's argument that the plain language of the California apportionment statute required the exclusive use of the doubleweighted sales apportionment formula. According to the Court, California could only eliminate a taxpayer's election to use the equally-weighted three-factor formula by completely withdrawing from the Compact. California could not enact a statute that repealed the provisions of the Compact to the extent necessary to impose a mandatory apportionment formula on taxpayers. The California Supreme Court granted the FTB's petition to review the decision.

Supreme Court Holds Legislature Eliminated Election Provision

In reversing the California Court of Appeal, the California Supreme Court held that the California legislature had not retained the Compact's election provision. The Court began its analysis by explaining that the Compact does not have the force of federal law because it was never ratified by Congress as required by the Compact Clause of the U.S. Constitution.10 However, in U.S. Steel Corp. v. Multistate Tax Commission, the U.S. Supreme Court held that states could enter into an agreement with each other without congressional approval provided the agreement does not increase the political power of the states to the extent it would interfere with the federal government's power.11 The Court held in U.S. Steel that the Compact does not violate the Compact Clause because it does not authorize the member states to exercise any additional powers and does not delegate sovereign powers to the MTC. Furthermore, each state retains the ability to adopt or reject the MTC's rules or regulations and may withdraw at any time.12 In the instant case, the taxpayers argued that interstate compacts take precedence over other state laws even if the compact lacks congressional approval. The Court explained, however, that it was not required to decide whether a compact not approved by Congress takes precedence over other state laws. According to the Court, the relevant question was whether the Compact is a binding contract among its members.

Compact Not Binding Contract for Member States

In determining that the Compact is not a binding reciprocal agreement, the Court relied on an amicus curiae brief filed by the MTC that contended the Compact is an "advisory compact" that contains apportionment provisions that are "in the nature of model uniform laws." To support this interpretation, the MTC asked the Court to consider the factors indicating a binding interstate compact that were enunciated by the U.S. Supreme Court in Northeast Bancorp v. Board of Governors.13 The U.S. Supreme Court explained a binding interstate compact is indicated by: (i) reciprocal obligations; (ii) conditional or unilateral action; and (iii) a regulatory organization. The California Supreme Court agreed with the MTC in the instant case that the Compact does not satisfy any of these factors.

According to the California Supreme Court, the Compact does not create reciprocal obligations among the member states. The taxpayers argued that while the member states do not have obligations to each other, the member states' commitment to the UDITPA apportionment formula prevented congressional action and that maintenance of this formula "is mutual, reciprocal, and 'critical to the effectiveness of the Compact.'" The Court agreed that the possibility of congressional action encouraged states to adopt the Compact, but the taxpayers failed to explain how a state's elimination of the formula makes the Compact less effective. The Compact's election provision does not create an obligation of member states to each other. Furthermore, the MTC did not argue in its amicus curiae brief that California's decision to discontinue use of the standard apportionment formula undermined the Compact's effectiveness. The Court noted that UDITPA was promulgated as a model law and was adopted by California years before joining the Compact. The legislature is free to amend its own legislation even if it is based a model law. The Compact does not contain any language that changes the legislature's authority to amend the apportionment formula.

The Court held that the Compact also failed to satisfy the conditional or unilateral action factors indicating that it is a binding compact. Specifically, these factors include whether a compact's effectiveness depends on the conduct of other members and whether any provision prohibits unilateral member action. The Court noted that the Compact has not required any member action since the requisite number of states enacted the Compact in 1967. The Compact already had been effective for seven years when California joined it and no existing members were required to take action. The fact that any state may leave or join the Compact without notice supports a conclusion that it is not a binding interstate agreement. Also, the presence of a withdrawal provision does not address a member's ability to unilaterally modify the Compact. There is a history of states taking unilateral action regarding the Compact and only seven of the Compact's 16 members still use the standard apportionment formula. The Court concluded that the ability of states to engage in unilateral action under the Compact is inconsistent with a binding agreement.

The Compact did not satisfy the final factor under Northeast Bancorp because the MTC does not have the authority ordinarily associated with a regulatory organization. In its amicus curiae brief, the MTC acknowledged that its powers "are strictly limited to an advisory and informational role." The MTC may promulgate administrative regulations, but these regulations only are advisory and have no force until they are adopted by a state. Similarly, the MTC has the power to conduct taxpayer audits but only if a member state enacts separate authorizing legislation and expressly requests the audit. The Court concluded that the MTC is not a joint regulatory organization under Northeast Bancorp because it lacks any binding authority over member states.

Reenactment Rule Did Not Bar Double-Weighted Sales Factor Legislation

After determining that the legislature had the authority to eliminate the Compact's election provision, the Court held that the state's reenactment rule did not bar the legislature's 1993 amendment to the apportionment statute that enacted a double-weighted sales factor. This rule is derived from a provision of the California Constitution that "[a] section of a statute may not be amended unless the section is re-enacted as amended."14 The Court explained that the reenactment rule generally does not apply to statutes that "amend" others only by implication. The 1993 legislation expressly referenced the Compact by providing that the double-weighted sales factor applied "notwithstanding" the statute enacting the Compact. The Court held that even without a reenactment of California's Compact statute to eliminate the election language, the amendment of the apportionment statute did not violate the reenactment rule.

Compact's Election Provision Intentionally Superseded

The Court held that the California legislature intentionally eliminated the Compact's election provision. The taxpayers unsuccessfully argued that the legislature intended the double-weighted sales factor formula enacted in 1993 to apply only if a taxpayer decides not to make the election under the Compact. The Court determined that the statutory language and legislative history defeated the taxpayers' claim. The statutory language provides that "all business income shall be apportioned to this state by" using the doubleweighted formula notwithstanding the statute adopting the Compact.15 The Court concluded that there is no ambiguity in this language. Also, the legislative history from 1993 explains that the legislature intended to adopt an apportionment formula that placed extra weight on the sales factor in place of the standard formula. The Court concluded that "[i]n light of the statute's language and this legislative history, there is no credible argument that the Legislature intended to retain the Compact's election provision."

Commentary

The question of whether taxpayers are allowed to elect to use the Compact's equallyweighted three-factor apportionment formula has received considerable attention during the past few years. Following the California Court of Appeal's taxpayer-favorable decision in Gillette in 2012, there appeared to be some momentum to this argument. In 2014, the Michigan Supreme Court allowed a taxpayer to make the Compact's three-factor apportionment election for the 2008 tax year.16 However, the historic high-water mark of the position in the Compact states was short-lived, beginning with Michigan's subsequently enacted legislation that retroactively repealed the Michigan statutes adopting the Compact effective January 1, 2008.17

The momentum behind the argument further dissipated during 2015. Courts in several different states rejected taxpayers' arguments that they could make the apportionment election under the Compact. The Minnesota Tax Court granted the Minnesota Commissioner of Revenue's motion for summary judgment and denied a taxpayer's apportionment election under the Compact.18 The Texas Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court's decision that a taxpayer cannot make the apportionment election provided by the Compact, and therefore must use a single receipts factor to compute its Revised Texas Franchise Tax (RTFT).19 Finally, the Oregon Tax Court granted the Oregon Department of Revenue's motion for summary judgment and denied a taxpayer's apportionment election under the Compact.20 In light of these recent holdings, the potential financial impact of a taxpayer-favorable decision to the state of California, and the lengthy wait for the decision, the California Supreme Court's decision in Gillette is not surprising.

The California Supreme Court's decision is interesting because it largely relies on the amicus curiae brief that was filed by the MTC, giving relatively short shrift to other briefs that were filed in support of the taxpayers. In its brief, the MTC acknowledged that the Compact is not a binding contract among its members, and by doing so, may have hampered itself in the organization's long-term pursuit of promoting state tax uniformity. Existing state members in the Compact may decide that the need to maintain Compact and by extension, MTC membership may not be worthwhile or necessary if the terms of membership are nonbinding. On the other hand, as a potential counterpoint, if the Compact is unanimously found not to be considered a binding contract by state tax courts, this determination conceivably could inspire states that have recently opted out of the Compact to rejoin.

In any event, the argument that the Compact does not bind state legislatures from further action, and the conclusions reached by the California Supreme Court in this area, are likely to continue to be presented by state tax authorities in the remaining states in which the Compact litigation will be waged. The states' inconsistent changes to major provisions of the Compact (including apportionment formulas and sourcing regimes) without fear that those changes would result in expulsion from the Compact, also are likely to be presented as evidence that the Compact does not have "contract" status.

The taxpayers intend to appeal this decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. Although it would be interesting to see how the U.S. Supreme Court would decide this case, it is always a challenge to obtain a hearing in front of the high court, and given the current state of play in the multistate litigation, it seems unlikely that the Court would grant review. The task of obtaining certiorari could be made somewhat easier if a taxpayer-favorable decision by another state supreme court is reached in the future, on the grounds that the Compact is a binding contract. In that instance, a clear conflict would then exist between states regarding the characterization of the Compact, something that might heighten the interest of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Footnotes

1 The Gillette Co. v. Franchise Tax Board, California Supreme Court, No. S206587, Dec. 31, 2015.

2 UDITPA § 9.

3 CAL. REV. & TAX. CODE § 25120 et seq.

4 CAL. REV. & TAX. CODE §§ 38001 to 38021.

5 CAL. REV. & TAX. CODE § 25128(a) as in effect for tax years beginning prior to January 1, 1993.

6 Note that the three-factor formula with the double-weighted sales factor applies to taxable years beginning before January 1, 2013. CAL. REV. & TAX. CODE § 25128(a). For taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2013, most taxpayers use a single sales factor apportionment formula. CAL. REV. & TAX. CODE § 25128.7. However, there are certain industry-specific exceptions to the standard apportionment formula, including agriculture businesses, extractive businesses, savings and loan activities, and banking and financial businesses. These entities continue to use an equallyweighted three-factor formula. CAL. REV. & TAX. CODE § 25128(b), (c).

7 The case was considered by the San Francisco Superior Court.

8 Ch. 37 (S.B. 1015), Laws 2012.

9 Note that the California Court of Appeal originally released its decision on July 24, 2012, but this opinion did not address S.B. 1015. The Gillette Co. v. Franchise Tax Board, 144 Cal. Rptr. 3d 555 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012). For a discussion of this decision, see GT SALT Alert: California Court of Appeal Allows Taxpayers to Elect Equally-Weighted Three-Factor Apportionment Formula under Multistate Tax Compact. The Court subsequently vacated this decision and ordered a rehearing of the case. On October 2, 2012, the Court released a revised opinion that was very similar to its original opinion, but the new opinion addressed S.B. 1015. The Gillette Co. v. Franchise Tax Board, 147 Cal. Rptr. 3d 603 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012). For a discussion of the revised opinion, see GT SALT Alert: California Court of Appeal Issues Revised Gillette Opinion Concerning Multistate Tax Compact Apportionment Election.

10 U.S. CONST. art. I, § 10, cl. 3.

11 434 U.S. 452 (1978).

12 Id.

13 472 U.S. 159 (1985).

14 CAL. CONST. art. IV, § 9.

15 CAL. REV. & TAX. CODE § 25128(a).

16 International Business Machines Corp. v. Department of Treasury, 852 N.W.2d 865 (Mich. 2014), reh'g denied, 855 N.W.2d 512 (2014). For a discussion of this case, see GT SALT Alert: Michigan Supreme Court Allows Multistate Tax Compact Three-Factor Apportionment Election for 2008 MBT Return.

17 Act 282 (S.B. 156), Laws 2014. For a discussion of this legislation, see GT SALT Alert: Michigan Enacts Legislation Designed to Eliminate Multistate Tax Compact Apportionment Election Refunds Allowed by IBM Case.

18 Kimberly-Clark Corp. v. Comm'r of Revenue, Minnesota Tax Court, File No. 8670-R, June 19, 2015. See GT SALT Alert: Minnesota Tax Court Denies Use of Multistate Tax Compact's Equally- Weighted Three-Factor Apportionment Formula Election. This case is on appeal before the Minnesota Supreme Court and oral arguments will be held on January 11, 2016.

19 Graphic Packaging Corp. v. Hegar, 471 S.W.3d 138 (Tex. Ct. App. 2015). See GT SALT Alert: Texas Appeals Court Denies Use of Compact's Three-Factor Formula As Revised Texas Franchise Tax Is Not Considered an Income Tax.

20 Health Net, Inc. v. Department of Revenue, Oregon Tax Court, No. TC 5127, Sep. 9, 2015. See GT SALT Alert: Oregon Tax Court Denies Use of Multistate Tax Compact's Three-Factor Apportionment Formula Election.

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
McDermott Will & Emery
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
McDermott Will & Emery
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