United States: Colorado Court Finds Holding Company Not Subject To Combination With Operating Affiliates

A Colorado district court has held that the Colorado Department of Revenue erred in requiring the inclusion of a holding company in a corporation's combined corporate income tax returns because the holding company did not meet the definition of an "includible C corporation" under state law. To be considered an "includible C corporation," more than 20 percent of the C corporation's property and payroll must be assigned to locations inside the United States. Because the holding company had no property or payroll of its own, it did not meet the more than 20 percent property and payroll test required to be an "includible C corporation."1

Background

Colorado requires that a combined income tax return be filed by the includible members of an affiliated group of C corporations. Colo. Rev. Stat. Sec. 39-22-303 provides extensive rules governing which C corporations must be included in a combined group.

Under Colorado's combined accounting method, an affiliated corporation or group is defined as "one or more chains of includable C corporations connected through stock ownership with a common parent C corporation."2 An includable C corporation is defined as "any C corporation which has more than twenty percent of the C corporation's property and payroll...assigned to locations inside the United States."3 Further, an includable C corporation must meet at least three of six enumerated factors in the current and two preceding tax years in order to be included in a Colorado combined return.4

Agilent Technologies, Inc. (Agilent), the head of a corporate structure doing business in Colorado, filed Colorado combined corporate income tax returns with several of its unitary affiliates. One of Agilent's affiliates, Agilent Technologies World Trade, Inc. (World Trade), a holding company with its own foreign subsidiaries, was part of Agilent's unitary business. At issue in the case was whether World Trade had to be included in Agilent's Colorado combined corporate income tax returns.

Agilent's arguments

Agilent raised four arguments in support of its position that World Trade was not required to be included in the Agilent Colorado combined return:

  • World Trade and four of its foreign subsidiaries were taxed together as a single entity in their federal return and should have been treated in the same manner for Colorado corporation income tax purposes. Under this treatment, at least 80 percent of the property and payroll of World Trade was located outside the United States and, as a result, World Trade could not be included in Agilent's combined return.
  • World Trade did not meet the definition of an "includible C corporation" under Colo. Rev. Stat. Sec. 39-22-303(12)(c).
  • World Trade did not meet the requirement under Colo. Rev. Stat. Sec. 39-22-303(11)(a) under which a C corporation must meet at least three of six enumerated factors in order to be included in a Colorado combined return
  • Including World Trade in Agilent's Colorado combined returns was unconstitutional because it resulted "in impermissible discrimination against corporations that own foreign subsidiaries, and in favor of corporations that own domestic subsidiaries."

Department's arguments

The Department raised two arguments in response:

  • The Department was not bound by Agilent's federal "check-the-box" designations and all statutory requirements were met to include World Trade in Agilent's Colorado combined return, and such action did not violate the U.S. Constitution's Commerce Clause.
  • In order to accurately reflect Agilent's income apportionable to Colorado, World Trade's income had to "be considered as a part of Agilent's domestic unitary business," and this inclusion was required under its discretionary authority to clearly reflect the taxpayer group's income under Colo. Rev. Stat. Sec. 39-22-303(6) and under the economic substance doctrine.

After addressing each of the above arguments, the court ultimately concluded that World Trade was not required to be included in Agilent's combined return because it did not meet the definition of an "includible C corporation" under Colo. Rev. Stat. Sec. 39-22-303(12)(c).

Department's Regulation Defining "Includible C Corporation"

The court explained that a Department regulation addressed how the includible C corporation designation applies to companies with no property or payroll. The regulation states:

C.R.S. 39-22-303(12)(c) provides that only those corporations whose property and payroll factors are assigned twenty percent or more to locations inside the United States may be included in a combined report. Since corporations that have no property or payroll factors of their own cannot have twenty percent or more of their factors assigned to locations in the United States, such corporations, by definition, cannot be included in a combined report.5

Based on the regulation, the court concluded that World Trade was not an includable C corporation. As a holding company with no property or payroll of its own, World Trade could not have satisfied the 20 percent United States property or payroll factor tests.

In the opinion, the court rejected the Department's argument that World Trade had value factors that would result in meeting the thresholds required to be an includible corporation, because it used Agilent's property and personnel.6 The court based its decision on the rejection of an earlier version of the Department's regulation at issue, which provided that a "corporation without property and payroll, which functions through the use of personnel services and/or property of an includible corporation, shall also be considered an includible corporation."7 The court noted that the legislative history showed that this regulation was allowed to expire because it directly conflicted with the definition of "includible corporation" in Colo. Rev. Stat. Sec. 39-22-303(12)(c).8

Court's Consideration of Alternative Agilent Arguments

While the court concluded that World Trade did not meet the definition of "includible C corporation," settling the matter in favor of Agilent, it is instructive to consider the analysis used by the court in rejecting Agilent's alternative arguments.

Interplay of Federal Check-the-Box Rules and 20 Percent Calculation

Agilent argued that the federal income tax treatment of World Trade and four of its foreign subsidiaries as a single entity (pursuant to the subsidiaries' check-the-box elections) should have resulted in similar treatment for purposes of determining whether the 20 percent payroll and property test was met. The court determined that the federal check-the-box designations did not automatically inform the treatment of Colorado taxpayers under the combined reporting / unitary business rules. Accordingly, the four foreign subsidiaries did not need to be grouped with World Trade for purposes of determining whether the definition of "includible C corporation" was satisfied pursuant to the 20 percent test.

Applicability of Combination Factors

Agilent also argued that World Trade was not subject to combination with Agilent's group because the three of six factor test for combination was not met. Specifically, Agilent claimed that it did not meet the requirement that World Trade substantially use "the trademarks or other proprietary materials of Agilent" as required under Colo. Rev. Stat. Sec. 39-22-303(11)(a)(IV). In disagreeing with Agilent, the court noted that Agilent trademarked the terms "Agilent" and "Agilent Technologies" and World Trade's use of Agilent's trademark constituted "substantial use" within the meaning of Colo. Rev. Stat. Sec. 39-22-303(11)(a).9

Constitutionality of Corporate Income Tax Regime

Finally, the court rejected Agilent's argument that Colorado's corporate income tax regime discriminated against corporations with non-combinable foreign subsidiaries and favored corporations with domestic subsidiaries, on the basis that the treatment of dividends received from United States subsidiaries differed from dividends received from foreign subsidiaries. Instead, the court concluded that Colorado's version of combined reporting, which may have contributed to the disparity in treatment, was constitutional, both facially and as applied to Agilent.10

Department's Discretionary Authority Statute and Economic Substance Doctrine Inapplicable

The Department argued that its power of discretionary authority to clearly reflect the taxpayer group's income, as well as the economic substance doctrine, required that World Trade be included in Agilent's Colorado combined return. The court rejected both these arguments.

Discretionary Authority to Clearly Reflect Income

The Department argued that Colo. Rev. Stat. Sec. 39-22-303(6) allows it to "allocate income without the combination of affiliated corporations." The court disagreed, pointing to language in 1 Colo. Code Regs. 201-2, Sec. 39-22-303.6 which indicates that Colo. Rev. Stat. Sec. 39-22-303(6) "is not a vehicle for combining income of affiliated corporations, and cannot be used to circumvent the combined reporting regime found in C.R.S. §§ 39-22-303(8) through (12)." To hold otherwise would "render Colorado's combined reporting statutory regime moot," the court said.

Economic Substance

The Department also argued that the economic substance doctrine allowed it to "disregard a structure that has no practical effect beyond the creation of tax benefits." The court rejected this argument, finding that the economic substance doctrine did not apply because there was nothing to indicate that the Agilent/World Trade structure was created to avoid Colorado tax. The court noted that World Trade provided "bona fide" non-tax related benefits such as protection against foreign creditors' claims.

Commentary

The decision by the Colorado district court provides valuable guidance on the treatment of holding companies under Colorado's combined reporting regime. While the court's decision turned on whether World Trade met the statutory and regulatory definition of an "includible C corporation," its detailed analysis of the arguments made by both the Department and Agilent provide guidance on the potential inclusion of holding companies in a combined return.

The decision provides the taxpayers with some clarity on an issue that has been the subject of debate with regard to proposed updates to Colorado's combined reporting regulations. Specifically, the Department has indicated its desire to issue a regulation expanding its discretionary powers to combat perceived taxpayer abuse of the combined reporting rules to include or exclude affiliates from the Colorado combined filing group. As the court noted, allowing the Department such "broad authority" would "render Colorado's combined reporting statutory regime moot." It would be reasonable to assume that the Department will view this aspect of the opinion as a setback.

On the other hand, the Department will likely find value in the court's language defining the most vague of the tests of unity, relating to the "...substantial use of patents, trademark, service marks, logo-types, trade secrets, copyrights, or other proprietary materials owner by [another affiliate]." Observing that World Trade incorporates "Agilent" into its formal legal name, the court applied a common sense approach in concluding that such use "is important to both World Trade and Agilent in that it reflects a unified group. World Trade's use of the trademark conveys an affiliation with Agilent to all third-parties in the ordinary course of trade."

The court's interpretation of the nature of the federal entity classification rules may cause issues for taxpayers that have long assumed that a check-the-box election for federal income tax purposes is fully recognized for all aspects of Colorado corporation income taxation. The court stated that "[t]he federal "check-the-box" rules...allow affiliated companies to elect consolidation for federal tax calculation by choosing to be disregarded as a separate entity." However, instead of concluding that the election governed determinations under the Colorado corporation income tax statute, the court surprisingly found that "an entity's choice of federal designation is not binding for purposes of state application." Taxpayers that may have relied on the "flow through" of attributes (payroll and property) from disregarded entities, foreign or domestic, in determining whether entities meet the more than 20 percent property and payroll test must now re-evaluate positions taken on current and prior returns. The conclusion that the federal "check-the-box" rules are not binding on the state could have further unintended consequences for all Colorado taxpayers with such entity classification elections in place.

The Department has already indicated that new or revised regulations are likely to be promulgated to address issues arising from this case. In addition, taxpayers should be aware that the Department issued a notice cautioning taxpayers against relying on the Department's regulation in certain circumstances.11 The Department explained that the regulation was intended to apply to foreign sales corporations (FSCs) and not to domestic holding companies. In the notice, the Department states that "some taxpayers have interpreted Regulation 303.12(c) to apply to domestic holding companies with no foreign operations and have argued that they can exclude any domestic C corporation from their combined returns if it has no property or payroll, even if it does not do business in a foreign country." The Department specifically states that it disagrees with this interpretation. Noting that this issue is currently being litigated, the Department said that it would revisit the matter after a decision is released: "Pending that determination, taxpayers should not rely on this regulation except as it applies to an FSC."

Footnotes

1 Agilent Technologies, Inc. v. Colorado Department of Revenue, District Court, 2nd Judicial District (Colorado), No. 2014CV393, January 20, 2016.

2 COLO. REV. STAT. § 39-22-303(12)(a).

3 COLO. REV. STAT. § 39-22-303(12)(c).

4 COLO. REV. STAT. § 39-22-303(11).

5 1 COLO. CODE REGS. 201-2, Reg. 39-22-303.12(c). It should be noted that COLO. REV. STAT. § 39-22-303(12)(c) statutorily defines the term "includable C corporations" as "any C corporation which has more than twenty percent of the C corporation's property and payroll . . . assigned to locations inside the United States." In contrast, Colorado's regulation states that the test for classification as an includible C corporation may be met when a corporation has "twenty percent or more" of its property and payroll factors assigned to the United States.

6 Based on a reading of COLO. REV. STAT. § 24-60-1301(IV)(10) and 1 COLO. CODE REGS. 201-3, Reg. IV.18.(b). COLO. REV. STAT. § 24-60-1301 (IV)(10) provides: "The property factor is a fraction, the numerator of which is the average value of the taxpayer's real and tangible personal property owned or rented and used in this State during the tax period and the denominator of which is the average value of all the taxpayer's real and tangible personal property owned or rented and used during the tax period." 1 COLO. CODE REGS. 201-3, Reg. IV.18.(b) provides: "If property owned by others is used by the taxpayer at no charge or rented by the taxpayer for a nominal rate, the net annual rental rate for such property shall be determined on the basis of a reasonable market rental rate for such property."

7 Former 1 COLO. CODE REGS. 201-2, Sec. 39-22-303.12(c).

8 Citing to a memorandum from the Office of Legislative Services to the General Assembly's Committee on Legal Services: "Both regulations conflict with the definition of "includible corporations" as set forth in section 39-22-303(12)(c), C.R.S. The regulations allow corporation with no property or personnel to be considered includible corporations even though such corporations do not satisfy the statutory requirements of having more than twenty percent of its property and payroll located in the United States. By allowing such corporations to qualify as includible corporations, Regulations 39-22-303.8(2) and 39-22-303.12(c) modify the definition of "includible corporations" as set forth in section 39-22-303(12)(c), C.R.S."

9 "World Trade is a wholly owned subsidiary of Agilent that employs the trademarked terms "Agilent" and "Agilent Technologies" in its own name and in its tax returns, regulatory filings, its agreements with third parties, and in its accounting statements. This use is not incidental or occasional but systemic and intentional to signify its place in a unified group. The trademarked name carries prestige and credibility, and its use is important to both World Trade and Agilent in that it reflects a unified group. World Trade's use of the trademark conveys an affiliation with Agilent to all third-parties in the ordinary course of trade."

10 Citing to In re Appeal of Morton Thiokol, Inc., 864 P.2d 1175 (Kan. 1993); Emerson Elec. Co. v. Tracy, 735 N.E.2d 445 (Ohio 2000); E. I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. State Tax Assessor, 675 A.2s 82 (Me. 1995); Caterpillar, Inc. v. Comm'r of Rev., 568 N.W.2s 695 (Minn. 1997); Bernard Egan & Co. v. State De't of Rev., 769 S.2d 1060 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000); Caterpillar Fin. Servs. Corp v. Whitley, 680 N.E.2d 1082 (Ill. App. Ct. 1997); GE v. Comm'r, 914 A.2s 246 (N.H. 2006), cert. denied, 552 U.S. 989 (2007). The court distinguished itself from the unconstitutional tax system found in General Foods, Inc. Iowa Dep't of Rev., 505 U.S. 71 (1992).

11 Colorado Department of Revenue, "Notice Regarding Revenue Regulation 39-22-303(12)(c)," Jan. 19, 2016.

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
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
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