Skip to Main Content
 

Bloomberg BNA Quotes Peter Barnes: US States' Approach to Nexus and Apportionment – Oddity or New Trend?

June 27, 2014, Bloomberg BNA

Bloomberg BNA quoted Peter A. Barnes regarding the recent Forum on State Considerations for International Tax Reform. Panelists discussed issues such as, nexus standards and apportionment of income within US states and the international community. For the complete article, please click on the link above to view a PDF.
 
Excerpt taken from the article.

 
As  Peter Barnes of  Caplin &  Drysdale and Diann Smith of McDermott, Will & Emery, LLP noted, two landmark cases in the  early 1990s, ITEL  v. Huddleston, 507  U.S.  60 (1993) and Barclays Bank v. The  Franchise Tax Board, 512 U.S.  298 (1994), are responsible for  this dichotomy. In ITELand Barclays the  court ruled that income tax  treaties are expressly applicable only  to  federal income taxes and do  not  apply to state taxes. As a result, a foreign corporation may store goods in the  U.S. without triggering federal tax. However, the  foreign corporation may still  be  responsible for  state taxes.
 

 
As more multinational corporations accept that in an  increasingly global marketplace, the  issue is no  longer whether nexus with a particular jurisdiction exists. Rather, as  Barnes stated, the question becomes what portion of  income is  attributable to  a  particular jurisdiction. The  various methods employed by  the  states to  determine the  amount of in- come tax  owed by an  out-of-state corporation gives rise to several issues.
 

 
The   panelists noted that due to various political factors, it  is  difficult for  the  states to come to  a consensus on  a uniform formula, since each state has different considerations. As Barnes mentioned one possible solution may be  the  Business Activity Tax Simplification Act  of 2013  or  ‘‘BATSA.'' BATSA  would establish a bright-line standard for when a state can impose a net  income tax  or  other business activity tax  on interstate activities. It would define physical presence in a state to exclude a presence of less  than 15 days within a jurisdiction's borders or  transient business activities. This standard would at  the  very  least help both domes- tic  and foreign corporations determine when they may be  subject to tax  on  a state level. 


 
U.S.  states may also be  able to  learn a  valuable lesson on  uniformity   from  the   international  community.  The   Value Added System adopted by many countries may serve to provide a  uniform tax  base and rate at  a  subnational level, thereby creating uniformity amongst the  states, Barnes said. But  unlike many countries with a  VAT, each local and state  jurisdiction often establishes its own tax  base. ‘‘The U.S.  is a bottom up country. To simply overlay our  current system with a VAT would create issues,'' said Huddleston. Barnes countered with the  ex- ample of  Canada as  another bottom-up country that was  able to solve many of its  complex tax  issues by implementing a  VAT.  He  did   however warn that the VAT  comes with its  own set  of  issues and was  by  no means a panacea to the compliance issues that are created by the various applications of formulary apportionment that exist today.

________________________________________________

About Caplin & Drysdale
Having celebrated our 50th Anniversary in 2014, Caplin & Drysdale continues to be a leading provider of tax, tax controversy, and litigation legal services to corporations, individuals, and nonprofits throughout the United States and around the world. We are also privileged to serve as legal advisors to accounting firms, financial institutions, law firms, and other professional services organizations.

The firm's reputation over the years has earned us the trust and respect of clients, industry peers, and government agencies. Moreover, clients rely on our broad knowledge of the law and our keen insights into their business concerns and personal interests. Our lawyers' strong tactical and problem-solving skills - combined with substantial experience handling a variety of complex, high stakes, matters in a boutique environment - make us one the nation's most distinctive law firms.

With offices in New York City and Washington, D.C., Caplin & Drysdale's core practice areas include:

-Bankruptcy
-Business, Investment & Transactional Tax
-Complex Litigation
-Corporate Law
-Employee Benefits
-Exempt Organizations
-International Tax
-Political Law
-Private Client
-Tax Controversies
-Tax Litigation
-White Collar Defense

For more information, please visit us at www.caplindrysdale.com.

Washington, DC Office:
One Thomas Circle, NW
Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20005
202.862.5000
        New York, NY Office:
600 Lexington Avenue
21st Floor 
New York, NY 10022
212.379.6000

___________________________

Disclaimer
This communication does not provide legal advice, nor does it create an attorney-client relationship with you or any other reader. If you require legal guidance in any specific situation, you should engage a qualified lawyer for that purpose. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Attorney Advertising
It is possible that under the laws, rules, or regulations of certain jurisdictions, this may be construed as an advertisement or solicitation.

© 2017 Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered
All Rights Reserved.

Related Professionals

Related Practices