United States: MoFo New York Tax Insights, Volume 7, Issue 6, June 2016

New York City Tribunal Rejects City's Attempt to Forcibly Combine Bank and Its Mortgage Subsidiary

By Irwin M. Slomka

The New York City Tax Appeals Tribunal, affirming a determination of the Chief Administrative Law Judge, has held that Astoria Bank, which engaged in a banking business in New York City, was not required to include in its combined New York City bank tax returns its Connecticut investment subsidiary that principally held non-New York mortgage loans. Matter of Astoria Financial Corporation & Affiliates, TAT (E) 10-35 (BT) et al. (N.Y.C. Tax App. Trib., May 19, 2016).

Under the former New York City bank tax law, a nontaxpayer subsidiary of a taxpayer bank or bank holding company cannot be included in a combined bank tax return unless it is necessary "to properly reflect the [bank tax] liability . . . because of intercompany transactions or some agreement, understanding, arrangement or transaction . . . ." Admin. Code § 11-646(f)(2)(i). In Astoria Financial, the mortgage investment subsidiary that the Department of Finance sought to combine was not itself subject to bank tax. The subsidiary conducted its activities from its office in Connecticut and qualified as a Connecticut "passive investment company" under the Connecticut tax law.

The City Tribunal concluded that the subsidiary had a sufficient business purpose apart from the acknowledged tax benefits and had economic substance. The Tribunal also concluded that the subsidiary's transactions with the bank and/or a bank affiliate—which included regular purchases of newly originated mortgage loans and the payment of fees in exchange for loan servicing consistent with industry standards—were conducted at arm's length.

The City Tribunal also rejected the Department's claim that the bank's income was "improperly or inaccurately reflected" (i.e., that actual distortion existed) so as to permit combination on that basis. The Department took the position that the City Tribunal was bound to follow as precedent the State Tax Appeals Tribunal decision in Matter of Interaudi Bank, DTA No. 821659 (N.Y.S. Tax App. Trib., Apr. 14, 2011), where the State Tribunal found distortion resulting from a "mismatch of income and related expense" between a bank and its Delaware investment subsidiary justifying combination with the subsidiary under the former State bank tax.

The City Tribunal concluded, however, that Matter of Interaudi Bank was inapplicable because the facts were materially distinguishable. Notably, in that case, the subsidiary acquired investment assets from its parent bank as a capital contribution shortly before the tax years at issue, and at a time when the bank was significantly undercapitalized, demonstrating a "clear shift" of income to the subsidiary and that the contributed assets were purchased with the proceeds of deposits on which the parent claimed interest deductions. In contrast, in Astoria Financial, the subsidiary's mortgage loans were initially contributed by a nontaxpayer and the contribution of mortgage loans to a predecessor entity, made nearly a decade earlier, did not support a conclusion that there was a "mismatch of income and expenses." The Tribunal found the testimony of the City's expert witness, who had previously testified for New York State in the Interaudi Bank case, "unpersuasive on the issue of distortion."

The Department of Finance cannot appeal decisions of the New York City Tax Appeals Tribunal.

Astoria Bank was represented by Irwin M. Slomka and Kara M. Kraman.

Court Dismisses Action Challenging Anticipated Application of Bausch & Lomb Decision to a Gain

By Hollis L. Hyans

Two actions brought by a taxpayer against the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance and the New York City Department of Finance to challenge anticipated results on audit have been dismissed by the Supreme Court, New York County. SunGard Capital Corp. v. New York State Dep't of Finance, Index No. 155041/2015 and SunGard Capital Corp. v. New York City Dep't of Finance, Index No. 155042/2015 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty., May 20, 2016).

SunGard Capital Corp. brought its actions against both the State Department of Taxation and Finance ("DOTF") and the New York City Department of Finance ("DOF"), asking for declarations that gain it incurred on the sale of two subsidiaries in 2012 should be excluded from its entire net income for both State and City purposes, consistent with how it filed its combined State franchise tax return and combined City general corporation tax return for that year. In its two complaints, SunGard alleged that it expected both the DOTF and the DOF to argue, pursuant to the decision in Matter of Bausch& Lomb, Inc., DTA No. 819883 (N.Y.S. Tax App. Trib., Dec. 20, 2007), and the DOTF's subsequent guidance in a Technical Service Bulletin, TSB-M-08(3)C (N.Y.S. Dep't of Tax. and Fin., Mar. 10, 2008), that the gain should have been included in SunGard's 2012 entire net income. SunGard made two legal arguments: first, that under former Tax Law § 211(4)(b)(2) and Admin. Code § 11-605(4)(b)(2), gain from the sale of a subsidiary should be excluded from the calculation of entire net income even if the subsidiary had been a member of a combined tax return; and second, alternatively, that if the gain from the sale of a subsidiary is not excluded, then the gain should be characterized as investment income rather than as business income, under Tax Law §§ 208(6)(a), 208(8), 208(1-B)(5)(a), 208(1-B)(6)(a), and 210(2), and Admin. Code § 11-602(c)(5).

Background. In Bausch & Lomb, the New York State Tax Appeals Tribunal agreed with the taxpayer and held that a loss from the sale of a subsidiary that had been included in the taxpayer's New York combined return was not attributable to subsidiary capital and therefore was includable in the computation of entire net income. Bausch & Lomb had argued that the language "in computing combined subsidiary capital intercorporate stockholdings shall be eliminated," contained in former Tax Law § 211(4)(b)(2), meant that a subsidiary included in a combined return was not considered a "subsidiary" and, therefore, the loss was not attributable to subsidiary capital. The DOTF had argued that Bausch & Lomb's stock in the subsidiary did not lose its character as subsidiary capital when the subsidiary joined the combined group because Section 211(4)(b)(2) does not redefine terms defined elsewhere in the Tax Law and thus does not affect what items are included or excluded in computing entire net income. In rejecting the DOTF's position, the Tribunal held that the add back of losses attributable to subsidiary capital did not apply to the loss from the sale of a combined subsidiary because the elimination of intercorporate stockholdings prescribed by Section 211(4)(b)(2) applies in determining what constitutes "income, gains and losses from subsidiary capital" in computing entire net income on a combined return.

The DOTF then issued TSB-M-08(3)C, setting out its position that the holding in Bausch & Lomb also applies to gains from the sale of stock of a corporation included in a combined return.

Motions to Dismiss. Both the DOTF and the DOF moved to dismiss SunGard's complaints on the ground that the court lacked jurisdiction, since no audit had yet been completed and no tax had yet been determined, and therefore there was no "justiciable controversy" for the court to resolve. They also argued that, even if additional tax were to be assessed under the theories outlined in SunGard's complaints, SunGard would be required to exhaust its administrative remedies—by filing appeals with the State Division of Tax Appeals and the City Tax Appeals Tribunal—before it could bring an action in court. Both taxing authorities also argued that it was not yet even clear that SunGard had properly filed a combined return, or that SunGard's calculation of tax was correctly based on entire net income rather than on one of the alternate bases that would apply if that basis resulted in a higher tax. Finally, the City DOF noted that it was not bound by the State's TSB-M applying Bausch & Lomb to gains, and that the DOF has issued no letter ruling to SunGard or any other taxpayer setting forth its position on how it would treat gain on the sale of a subsidiary. SunGard countered that the position of both taxing agencies was already determined, that there were no facts in issue, and that it was facing a "direct and immediate" "threat of harm" entitling it to declaratory relief.

Decision. The Supreme Court, New York County, issued two nearly identical short decisions dismissing both of the actions, but expressly did so "on the condition that [the DOTF and the DOF] review the relevant tax return[s] and issue . . . final determination[s] within 120 days."

Additional Insights

Unless an appeal is filed (which had not occurred as we went to print), there may be no further public activity for some time, if in fact either or both of the taxing agencies do eventually issue assessments to SunGard and appeals are filed with the two administrative agencies. The next public decision may be a determination by a State or City Administrative Law Judge, which could take at least a year, and any such ALJ decision could be appealed to the respective Tax Appeals Tribunal, and only then—if SunGard is ultimately unsuccessful—would there be an appeal to the Appellate Division of the State court system. And no matter what the result in any appeal, the issue is eliminated for years beginning after January 1, 2015.

The decision demonstrates how difficult it can be to proactively bring tax disputes into court and avoid the administrative remedies set forth for protesting assessments in both the State and the City statutes. Here, SunGard argued that the Tribunal's holding in Bausch & Lomb and the DOTF's interpretation of that holding were clear, and that the City is bound to follow State Tribunal decisions, so that a "present and actual controversy exists" involving "pure statutory interpretation." Nonetheless, the court was apparently reluctant to take action in advance of any tax assessment actually having been issued. Whilethere are recognized exceptions to the requirement of exhaustion of administrative remedies—when a taxpayer argues a statute is unconstitutional, or that the statute simply does not apply to it—both the DOTF and the DOF argued that neither of these exceptions applied, and the court apparently agreed.

To continue reading this newsletter, please click here.

Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Morrison & Foerster LLP. All rights reserved

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 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
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of www.mondaq.com

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). 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 & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.

Disclaimer

Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd 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 or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.

Registration

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.

Cookies

A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.

Links

This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.

Mail-A-Friend

If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.

Security

This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.