Knowledge Center

Monday, October 20, 2014

Alternative Apportionment and the Erosion of Due Process - Part 2

State Tax Notes, October 2014

by Christopher T. Lutz and Breen M. Schiller

Although the burden for obtaining alternative apportionment is technically on the party seeking it, courts appear to apply different standards depending on whether a taxpayer or a department of revenue claims the election. As a result of that disparate treatment, recent state court decisions have skewed heavily in favor of the tax administrators. Three cases over the past few years, General Mills, Equifax, and Vodafone, demonstrate the leeway courts have provided to states requesting alternative apportionment. Those decisions have rightfully gained a good deal of attention for their results-driven conclusions and lack of fairness to taxpayers...

Christopher T. Lutz is an associate and Breen M. Schiller is a senior associate in the Chicago office of Horwood Marcus & Berk. Lutz concentrates his practice on multistate tax issues, while Schiller is in the State and Local Tax (SALT) Group, where she concentrates on state and local tax planning and the resolution of state and local tax controversies for multistate and multinational corporations.

In this article, the second of two parts, the authors discuss the burden of obtaining alternative apportionment and how much stricter courts are when taxpayers request alternative apportionment than they are when states do. The authors cite three cases that they say show the courts' lack of fairness to taxpayers.

To read the full article, please click HERE.

Copyright 2014 Tax Analysts. Reprinted with permission.

NOTICE: Emailing an attorney shall not and does not create an attorney-client relationship between the attorney and users of this web site or any other party whatsoever. An attorney-client relationship is ONLY established through a written engagement, and only where doing so would comply with all applicable laws and ethical rules.

CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION: Transmission of information on-line, over email, or through any electronic means can be unstable, unreliable and insecure. You should not send information or facts via e-mail relating to your legal problem or question. If you do not have an existing attorney-client relationship, your e-mail may not be privileged or confidential.

By clicking 'OK' below, you are agreeing to the terms of this web site.

Please fill out the form below and we'll send an email out about this page to a recipient of your choice.

Copy: Check here if you would like a copy of the email.