State Taxation of Corporate Partners in Multistate...
Transcript of State Taxation of Corporate Partners in Multistate...
WHO TO CONTACT
For Additional Registrations:
-Call Strafford Customer Service 1-800-926-7926 x10 (or 404-881-1141 x10)
For Assistance During the Program:
-On the web, use the chat box at the bottom left of the screen
If you get disconnected during the program, you can simply log in using your original instructions and PIN.
IMPORTANT INFORMATION
This program is approved for 2 CPE credit hours. To earn credit you must:
• Participate in the program on your own computer connection (no sharing) – if you need to register
additional people, please call customer service at 1-800-926-7926 x10 (or 404-881-1141 x10). Strafford
accepts American Express, Visa, MasterCard, Discover.
• Listen on-line via your computer speakers.
• Respond to five prompts during the program plus a single verification code. You will have to write down
only the final verification code on the attestation form, which will be emailed to registered attendees.
• To earn full credit, you must remain connected for the entire program.
State Taxation of Corporate Partners in Multistate Partnerships Mastering Complexities of Business vs. Nonbusiness Income Characterization, Aggregate vs. Entity Determination, and More
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 2015, 1:00-2:50 pm Eastern
Tips for Optimal Quality
Sound Quality
When listening via your computer speakers, please note that the quality
of your sound will vary depending on the speed and quality of your internet
connection.
If the sound quality is not satisfactory, please e-mail [email protected]
immediately so we can address the problem.
Viewing Quality
To maximize your screen, press the F11 key on your keyboard. To exit full screen,
press the F11 key again.
FOR LIVE EVENT ONLY
November 19, 2015
State Taxation of Corporate Partners in Multistate Partnerships
Ned Leiby
Ryan
Breen M. Schiller
Horwood Marcus & Berk
Jennifer A. Zimmerman
Horwood Marcus & Berk
Notice
ANY TAX ADVICE IN THIS COMMUNICATION IS NOT INTENDED OR WRITTEN BY
THE SPEAKERS’ FIRMS TO BE USED, AND CANNOT BE USED, BY A CLIENT OR ANY
OTHER PERSON OR ENTITY FOR THE PURPOSE OF (i) AVOIDING PENALTIES THAT
MAY BE IMPOSED ON ANY TAXPAYER OR (ii) PROMOTING, MARKETING OR
RECOMMENDING TO ANOTHER PARTY ANY MATTERS ADDRESSED HEREIN.
You (and your employees, representatives, or agents) may disclose to any and all persons,
without limitation, the tax treatment or tax structure, or both, of any transaction
described in the associated materials we provide to you, including, but not limited to,
any tax opinions, memoranda, or other tax analyses contained in those materials.
The information contained herein is of a general nature and based on authorities that are
subject to change. Applicability of the information to specific situations should be
determined through consultation with your tax adviser.
5
Jennifer A. Zimmerman Breen M. Schiller
Horwood Marcus & Berk Chartered
STATE TAXATION OF PASS-THROUGH ENTITIES
Key Issues and Current Developments
6 6
• Partnerships
– General Partnerships
– Limited Partnerships
– Joint Ventures
– Alliances
– Private Equity Funds
– Hedge Funds
• Multi-member LLCs taxed as partnerships
• SMLLCs (“disregarded entities”)
• S corporations
• Specialized Entities: RICs, REITs, REMICs, Cooperatives and
Some Trusts
(Note: we will reference “PTEs” and “partners”)
How We Define “Pass-Through Entities”
7 7
• The last 20 years reflect a substantial increase in the
use of PTEs
• The increase was driven by federal tax law and state
entity laws
• Corporate income tax was declining at the same time
government revenue needs were increasing
• Pass-through planning was led by federal tax benefits:
avoidance of double taxation, maximization of losses
and incentives and allowance for flexibility
Brief History of PTEs
8
State-Federal Conformity Issues
9 9
The issue of federal-state conformity actually raises two
separate questions:
#1 - Characterization: Does the state’s tax law follow the
federal characterization of the PTE under the “check-
the-box” rules?
#2 - Pass-through Treatment: Does the state’s tax law
follow the federal tax treatment of income of
“partnerships” and “disregarded entities”?
State Conformity Overview
10 10
#1 – Characterization
• Most states respect entity characterization under
federal “check-the-box” regulations
– An LLC that is a disregarded entity for federal tax is a
disregarded entity for state tax purposes
• Some Notable (Income Tax) Exceptions:
– MA (large S corporations and SMLLCs are taxable as
S Corp if owned by S Corp)
– NH (all PTEs taxed at entity level, even sole
proprietorships)
– RI (corporate-owned SMLLC is taxed as a C Corp)
11 11
#2 – Pass-Through Treatment
• Most States Also Follow Federal Pass-through
Treatment
– No tax on the PTE, but tax on the partners
• Some Notable Exceptions and Variations:
– Entity-level taxes (IL, NH, ME, MI, OH, OK, TN, TX)
– Don’t forget local jurisdictions (Phili, DC, NYC)
– Entity-level capital stock and fees (NY, PA, others)
– Withholding/estimated tax/partner consent rules (many)
– Composite filing rules (many)
• Some States Also Provide Exemption for Investment
Partnerships and Their Partners
12 12
Reminder of “Other” Filings
Remember that PTEs are generally not disregarded for
non-income taxes, including:
State registrations and filing fees
Non-Income Taxes:
Most Sales and Use Taxes
Some Franchise / Privilege Taxes
Excise Taxes (“sin taxes” – tobacco, alcohol, etc.)
Property Taxes
Real Estate Transfer Taxes
Employment Taxes
13 13
Conformity Conflicts “Jurisdictional Mismatches” may occur. Example:
– PTE operates solely in NH; 70%
corporate partner domiciled in
UDITPA state, conducts business
in many states; PTE distributive
share is “non-business” income
– NH: Applies entity-level tax on
PTE (BPT & BET) using water’s
edge combination apportionment
factors (no business/non-business
distinction)
– Domicile state: taxes entire 70%
share of “nonbusiness” income to
the Partner in state of commercial
domicile
NPH
LLC
70%
Corporate
Partner
Multistate Business
Domiciled in UDITPA
State
$ Distributive Share =
Non-business Income
100% in NH
PTE
Partner
14
Nexus Issues Affecting Partners
15 15
Central Nexus Issue
• Key Nexus Question:
– May a state in which the PTE is doing business
subject a nonresident corporate partner to the state’s
corporate income (or franchise tax) on its distributive
share of partnership income, even if the corporate
partner has no independent activity in the state?
• Key Policy Question:
– Is it correct to tax a nonresident limited partner on its
2% distributive share but not a nonresident
shareholder on its 2% stock ownership in a
corporation?
16 16
Constitutional Framework • Due Process Clause
– Two requirements: (1) Taxpayer must have sufficient “minimum
contacts” with the taxing state and (2) income must have a
“rational relationship” to intrastate values of the enterprise
– Concern is the “fundamental fairness of government activity”
(Quill Corp. (1992))
– A state may not subject to tax a nonresident on its ownership of
stock in a domestic corporation under the DPC (Shaffer v.
Heitner (1977))
• Commerce Clause
– Four Part Test: (1) Substantial Nexus, (2) Fairly Apportioned, (3)
Nondiscrimination, (4) Fairly Related (Complete Auto (1977))
• “Unitary” Principles
– The “lynchpin of apportionability … is the unitary-business
principle” (Mobil Oil (1980))
17 17
General Rule
• General Rule: The vast majority of states consider a
corporation’s ownership of an interest in a partnership
doing business in the state to be sufficient to create
nexus for the corporation, even if the corporate partner
has no other contact with the state.
• Issues:
– What theories support this conclusion?
– What constitutional principles prohibit taxation?
– Does the same rule apply to members of LLCs?
– Does the same rule apply to limited partners?
18 18
How Have the Cases Come Out?
Borden
(IL 2000):
NRLP
taxable
because LP
interest is
sufficient
“minimum
connection”
Non-Resident Limited Partners (NRLP”) TAX
NO
TAX
Village SM
(NJ 2013):
NRLP
taxable
because LP
had in-state
presence /
connection
UTELCOM
(LA 2011):
NRLP not
taxable –
under state
statute
BIS (NJ 2011) / Dutton (VA 2007):
NRLP with no connections not
taxable – under Constitution
Lanzi
(AL 2006):
NRLP not
taxable -
under
Constitution
(akin to
stock)
19 19
Ancillary Nexus Issue #1 – “Nexus Only”
• Key Issue: Some states require (or allow) combined/consolidated
returns only for corporate affiliates that have nexus with the state
(“nexus-only” filings). See Iowa Code Sec. 422.37(2). Does an out-
of-state partner qualify as a “nexus” member solely on the basis of
the activities of in-state PTE?
• Example: A and C are eligible, but is B by virtue of PTE?
Corp B
(no nexus)
PTE
(nexus)
Corp D
(no nexus)
Corp C
(nexus)
Corp A
(nexus)
20 20
Ancillary Nexus Issue #1 – “Nexus Only”
• Considerations:
– Yes, but only if the Partner B is taxable in the state by virtue of
the PTE’s activities? So, does this mean that a 2% GP may be
an eligible member but a 2% LP may not? What impact could
this have on the return?
– No, if Partner B is only a passive limited partner because a
corporate shareholder would not be taxable by virtue of its
subsidiary’s nexus?
– No, if the state consolidated return statute can be strictly
construed to only include the corporate member (Partner B)
based on its own individual activities?
21 21
Ancillary Nexus Issue #2 – Throw-Back,
Throw-Out, Joyce/Finnegan
• Situation 1: Should a corporate
partner’s sales to a destination
state where it has no independent
nexus be thrown back if the PTE
has nexus in the state but it does
not?
• Situation 2: Should a PTE’s
sales to a destination state where
is has no independent nexus be
thrown back if the corporate
partner has nexus in the
destination state but it does not?
Partner
(State A)
PTE
(State B)
State A
Partner
(State A)
PTE
(State B)
State B
22 22
Ancillary Nexus Issue #2 – Throw-Back,
Throw-Out, Joyce/Finnegan
• Considerations:
– No throwback in either case in states that attribute the activities of the
PTE to the partner (e.g., the partner has nexus in the state)?
– No throwback only in Situation 1 because a partner can have nexus in
the state by virtue of the PTE but a PTE cannot have nexus in a state by
virtue of a partner?
– Does it matter if the state adopts Joyce or Finnegan? • In Joyce states, a PTE’s sales (Situation 2) may be subject to throwback despite the
fact that the partner has nexus because each entity’s factors are calculated
independent of the others.
• Does it matter if the PTE can be an eligible “member” of a unitary group as opposed to
just corporations being eligible members?
– What is the right answer from a policy perspective?
– Should you evaluate a “nexus” position to prevent throwback?
23 23
Ancillary Nexus Issue #3– PL 86-272
• Key Issue:
– PL 86-272 generally precludes a state from imposing an income tax on
an entity whose activities within the state are limited to solicitation of
sales of TPP and ancillary activities. Should the activities of an in-state
PTE that exceed PL 86-272 subject the out-of-state partner to tax?
• Considerations:
– Similar considerations as throw-back – who is the taxpayer?
– MA: if a foreign corporate partner is unitary with its in-state partnership,
the activities of the partners are deemed to be the activities of the
partner for determining whether the income if the partner is precluded
under 86-272 (830 CMR 63.39.1(8)(a))
– Does PL 86-272 apply to the income derived from the PTE? Or does PL
86-272 apply to the corporate partner as the taxpayer under the
corporate income tax?
24 24
Ancillary Nexus Issue #3– PL 86-272
• Example: Arizona Dept. of Rev. v. Central Newspapers (11/3/09):
• Holding: AZ may include Ponderay’s sales in the Partners’ sales factor
numerator because the taxpayer is the Parent and its activities exceeded
86-272. 86-272 does not make certain income tax-exempt – it prevents a
state from exercising taxing jurisdiction over a corporate partner.
Partners
Ponderay
• Partners = no AZ nexus; Parent has AZ nexus
• Ponderay = AZ nexus but protected by 86-272
• Parent elected to file as part of consolidated
AZ return, including Partners
• Agreement that Ponderay distributive share
was business income included in AZ return
• Issue: whether Ponderay’s sales are
excluded from the consolidated return sales
factor numerator on the basis of 86-272?
13.5%
Parent
25
Division of the Tax Base -
Apportionment
26 26
• Key Question:
– Once the partner is taxable and the amount and character of the
PTE’s tax base has been determined, what method is used to
“divide” the partner’s tax base among the states to accomplish
fair apportionment?
• Different Approaches:
1. Partner Level (Unitary) Method
2. Partnership Level (Non-Unitary) Method
3. Business/Nonbusiness Income Classifications
4. Methods for Special Issues
Central Tax Base Issue
27 27
• The share of partnership income and factors is
combined with the partner’s income and factors in
determining the corporate partner’s state taxable income
• Some states require a “unitary” or “business income”
determination prior to “flow-up”
– IL: 86 Ill. Admin. Code 100.3380(d) – flow-up if unitary
– CA: Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 18, s. 25137-1 – flow-up if unitary
– MA: 830 CMR 63.38.1 - flow-up if engaged in “related business
activities”
• Consider the impact on tax base and apportionment!
#1 – Partner (Unitary) Level Method (“Flow-Up” / “Aggregate” / Combined” / “Unitary”)
28 28
Partner Level (Unitary) Example
Corporation A’s State Tax Return:
1. Business income / unitary (GP + 80% capital)
2. Tax Base ($600,000) is included in Corp A’s
pre-apportioned state tax base
3. Corp A’s 80% “share” of PTE’s factors is
combined with its own factors in apportioning
Corp A’s entire income to state
Corporation A
• General partner – active management
• 60% Profits Interest / 80% Capital Interest
• Distributive Share: $600,000
• Same line of business as PTE (retail)
• Retail
PTE
A
29 29
• The partner’s share of partnership income is
apportioned by the partnership’s factors separate from
the partner’s other income and factors.
• Often applies if “non-unitary” relationship is found.
– IITA Sec. 305(a) and (b))
– MA: 830 CMR 63.38.1(4)(d): separate accounting applies if
corporate limited partner owns less than 50% of capital or profits
interest (directly or indirect) of partnership under presumption
that activities of the partnership are “unrelated” (rebuttable by
Commissioner)
#2 – Partnership Level (Non-Unitary) Method (“Separate Accounting” / “Allocation”/ “Non-Unitary”)
30 30
• The partners then allocate this post-apportioned share
of state-sourced income separately
– The allocation rules may differ!
• Compare the impact on tax base and apportionment
with the Partner Level Method! – Whether the result is favorable depends on the facts…
– Under Partnership Level Method, if PTE is in an income position and
has high in-state factors = potential for substantial tax liability to the
partner.
– Under Partner Level Method, high income position and factors from
PTE may be offset against partner losses and/or apportionment dilution
#2 – Partnership Level (Non-Unitary) Method (“Separate Accounting” / “Allocation”/ “Non-Unitary”)
31 31
Partnership Level (Non-Unitary) Example
• Net Income: $1,000,000
• Business: Retail
• Apportionment = 75%
Corporation A
• Limited Partner (no active management)
• 40% Profits Interest / 40% Capital Interest
• Distributive Share: $400,000
• Business line different from PTE
Corporation A’s State Tax Return:
1. Business Income (partner level determination)
2. Non-Unitary (LP/no control + 40% capital)
3. Corp A’s State Tax Liability from PTE = $300,000
$400,000 distributive share
x 75% partnership factors
4. $300,000 is added to A’s other post-apportioned
income
A
PTE
32 32
• Key Issue:
– In some states, if a “business/nonbusiness income” regime
exists, and the distributive share is determined to be
nonbusiness income, such income is allocated to the
appropriate state, instead of apportioned (e.g., to the state of
domicile or other sourcing rules applicable to nonbusiness
income).
• Considerations:
– Do the allocation rules look to the partner or partnership? For
example, if dividend income is allocable to domicile, do you look
to the partner’s or the partnership’s commercial domicile?
– What is the impact if it is non-business income as opposed to
business income?
#3 – Business / Nonbusiness Issues
33 33
• At what level is the business income determination
made- partner or partnership level:
– Most states have no guidance.
– Exceptions:
• Partnership Level: AL, CA, IL
• Partner Level: AZ, PA
• If non-business income, the question is to which
state is the income sourced?
#3 – Business / Nonbusiness Issues
34 34
Business / Nonbusiness Example
• Net Income: $1,000,000
• Dividends: $500,000
• Retail: $500,000
Corporation A
• Limited Partner
• 40% Profits Interest / 40% Capital Interest
• Distributive Share: $400,000
• Business: Investment
Corporation A’s State Tax Return:
1. Assume retail is business income/apportionable
2. Assume dividends are nonbusiness income
allocable outside of state
4. Non-Unitary (LP/no control, 40% capital)
5. $250,000 state tax liability
• Retail: $150,000 ($200,000 x 75% appt)
• Dividends: $200,000 ($200,000 x 0%)
Liability may vary depending upon domicile rule!
A
PTE
35 35
(a) What problems exist with tiered partnerships?
– Timing Issues / Withholding Regimes / Composite Returns
(b) Do the same sourcing rules apply if the partnership has
individual partners instead of corporate?
– Some states adopt the corporate apportionment rules for
determining sourcing of nonresident partnership income (e.g.,
MA)
– For those states that still apply individual income sourcing
rules, many of the sourcing guidance remains vague and
archaic
– Differences may include whether the sale is treated as a sale of
an intangible or sale of tangible assets, and whether gain is
source to situs of partnership
#4 – Special Issues
36
Business/Non-Business Income
37 37
Business v. Non-Business Income
• Transactional Test
– Income arising from transactions and activity in the
regular course of the taxpayer's trade or business
• Functional Test
– Includes income from tangible and intangible property
if the acquisition, management, and disposition of the
property constitute integral parts of the taxpayer's
regular trade or business operations
38 38
Transactional Test
• Identify transactions and activity occurring in the
regular trade or business
– Generally, all transactions that are dependent upon or
contribute to the operations
• Three standard tests:
– Frequency and regularity of transactions
– Former business practices
– Subsequent use of proceeds (reinvestment or
distribution)
39 39
Functional Test
• Identify whether the transaction is an integral
part of the taxpayer’s trade or business
– Focus on whether property was used in trade or
business
– Frequency is generally irrelevant
– In the case of a disposition of assets, state may look
at whether the disposition itself is an integral part of
the business operations (e.g., IA, AL, TN, NC, IL, PA)
40 40
41 41
Business v. Non-Business Income
• Minnesota
– Firstar Corp v. Commr. Rev.
– Capital gain from sale of office building was
nonbusiness income
– Applied transactional test
• Infrequent: Taxpayer had not previously sold commercial
property
• Subsequent use of proceeds: Not reinvested in the ongoing
business operations – treated as dividend to shareholders
42 42
Business v. Non-Business Income
• California
– Jim Beam Brands Co v. FTB
• Gain from the sale of a unitary subsidiary is business income
• Applied functional test
• Gain was business income because the property while
owned by taxpayer was used to produce business income
• Court rejected argument that disposition of property is not an
integral part of the business
43 43
Business v. Non-Business Income
• Is business/non-business income determination
made at:
– The partnership level?
– The partner level?
• Not much guidance; only a handful of states
have addressed in public guidance
44
Compliance Headaches/
Withholding Requirements
45 45
• Key Issues:
– The obligation of nonresident partners to file returns
and pay taxes in every state where a partnership
does business creates an administrative nightmare
for both state tax authorities, PTE management and
partners
– Must a nonresident partner file returns in every state
where a PTE does business?
– What method is required/optional – nonresident filing,
withholding regime or composite filing?
Compliance / Administrative Issues
46 46
• General Rule: withholding at the source is generally
required for PTEs with nonresident partners.
– Typically pay at the highest individual or corporate tax rate
(multiplied by the owner’s distributive share of income
attributable to the state)
• Typical Exemptions:
– Partner provides an exemption certificate certifying it will file/pay
tax individually
– Partner is tax-exempt
– Partner files as part of a composite return
– PTE is a specialized entity (e.g., investment partnership)
– Partner is not a nonresident
Withholding Regimes
47 47
• Some states have threshold based on income or tax
– May be applied to the entity or to a specific owner
– Ex. MI- Requires PTEs with Michigan-sourced business income
of over $200,000 to withhold on behalf of owners that are PTEs
or corporations
– Other states thresholds very low
• Some rates impose rate differentials that become
complex with tiered structures
– Lower tier may have to look to upper tier
– Ex. MI- requires withholding for both PTE and corporate owners
at the full 6% corporate. If the PTE knows the ultimate owner of
the upper-tier PTE is a non-resident individual, it may instead
withhold at the individual rate, currently 4.25%.
Withholding Challenges
48 48
• In some states, withholding may not be compulsory
– May depend on type of owner, i.e. trust, corproration
– May depend on type of PTE
– May exempt certain type of entities
• Sometimes voluntary at option of PTE and/or owners
• Also it may make sense to withhold
– May eliminate need to disclose taxpayer sensitive information. .
Withholding Challenges
49 49
• Some states allow owners to explicitly elect out of
withholding.
– Waiver usually required
– May be perpetual or required to be renewed
– Keep part of books and records
– May need to provide to state
• Why elect not to withhold?
– Owner has losses in state and no tax will be due
– Owner already making estimated tax payments
– Prefer to file composite return
Withholding Elections
50 50
• Under-report which results in penalties
– Based on difference in tax rates between PTE and owner
• Tiered Entities- special risks
– Withholding may be required by all levels and then there are
duplicative payments
• In this situation may want to elect out.
– Run higher risk of under-reporting
– Attributable to differences in apportionment methodologies
between the business and the owner
Withholding Risks
51 51
• Timing issues with estimated tax payments
– Often quarterly payments but seasonal business.
• Under-report which results in penalties
– Based on difference in tax rates between PTE and owner
• Tiered Entities- special risks
– Withholding may be required by all levels and then there are
duplicative payments
• In this situation may want to elect out.
– Run higher risk of under-reporting
– Attributable to differences in apportionment methodologies
between the business and the owner
Withholding Risks
52 52
• Conflict between state reporting requirements and legal
requirements for the PTE
– Ex. S corporations
– Distributions made to owners must be made on a basis
proportionate to ownership, otherwise the S-corporation runs the
risk of inadvertent termination of its S-election under 2
scenarios:
• Owners are residents of multiple states and participation in
withholding is limited to non-residents.. Disproportionate
distributions can result in termination of the S-corporation
election.
• When the PTE is owned by different types of entities under
different withholding regime.
Withholding Risks
53 53
• Typical Conditions:
– Requirement of an election/consent to participate is common
(some require consent to be submitted, some require it to be
executed and available but not filed, some require an annual
filing)
– Limitation of composite returns to individual partners (no
corporate or PTE partners but some allow trust members to
participate)
– Preclusion of composite returns if the partner has in-state
income from other sources
– Agreement that PTE is authorized to resolve any audit/pay
deficiency
Composite Regimes
54 54
Why Is It a Nightmare?
• Lack of uniformity among withholding/composite regimes.
Variations include:
– Composite return wherein nonresident consents to taxation
– Nonresident withholding required
– Estimated tax payments are required
– Withholding done but PTE remains contingently liable
• Thresholds of minimum distributions vary
• Lack of clear guidance and forms within each state
• Compliance software is often outdated
• Communication/documentation to/from partners not always timely
• Difficulties exist in how to account/report refunds and audit issues to
partners
55 55
Why Is It a Nightmare?
• Complexities with multi-tiered structures as outlined herein
• PTE funding issues should be established for partner liabilities
• Transferee liability/management after PTE ceases operations
• Partners not subject to withholding or composite return must
typically agree to submit to the jurisdiction of the state and agree to
pay tax on the owner’s distributive share of PTE income
– Be careful – do you want to submit to the jurisdiction of the state? Do you have
a choice?
56
Take-Aways
57 57
• Develop a “due diligence” checklist for all PTEs
• Establish multistate matrix addressing:
Significant jurisdictional/nexus rules
State method of dividing the tax base
Specialized issues (credits, throwback, etc.)
Required forms (withholding, etc.)
Specialized entity exemptions
• Confer with business development / legal teams on
proper terms to include in entity agreements (reporting
requirements, deadlines, information management, audit
management)
SALT Department Tools
58
QUESTIONS?
THANK YOU!
Breen M. Schiller T: (312) 606-3220
Horwood Marcus & Berk Chartered 500 W. Madison Street, Suite 3700
Chicago, IL 60661 www.saltlawyers.com
Jennifer A. Zimmerman T: (312) 606-3247
STATE TAXATION OF CORPORATE PARTNERS IN MULTISTATE PARTNERSHIPS
AGGREGATE VS. ENTITY ISSUES
Ned Leiby
• Compliance & Planning Considerations
60
Entity vs. Aggregate
Nexus Business/Nonbusiness
Determination Unitary vs Non-
unitary Apportionment
61
Line 1, 2, 3 are
net income. These
amounts usually
are not be included
in partner’s
apportionment
factor- depending
on state and
partner’s
relationship with
partnership
P&L % may be
different than
capital %
PARTNER K-1
Non-unitary Partnership Income Reporting
62
IL-1120:
Non-unitary
Partnership
Business
Income
Flow-Through Entities – Nexus to Corporate Partners
• (Qualified) Investment Partnership Exceptions
― Qualified Investment Securities- defined by state
• Corporate partners must combine share NY receipts from partnership with their own
NY receipts to determine if they meet $1 million gross receipts nexus threshold.
New law effective 1/1/15- Aggregation requirement.
• Corporate Partner - California
• Deemed to be doing business in state and unitary with partnership if
general partner
• Owe $800 minimum tax
• No consideration given to ownership in partnership with respect to unitary
determination
― If unitary, % of apportionment factors will flow through and be
combined with factors of corporation
• Unitary status unlikely if corporation is a limited partner. The SBE has
declared in opinions that it is extremely difficult to overcome the inherent
passive investment nature of an limited partner interest.
63
Entity vs. Aggregate
Business/ Nonbusiness Determination
• For corporate partners is the business/nonbusiness income determination
made at the partnership level or partner level?
― Majority of states have not addressed
• Arizona & Illinois
― Requires partner level determination
― Arizona Corporation Tax Ruling No 94-2 (4/4/1994)
― Illinois Admin. Code tit. 86, §§ 100.3500(a)(3), 100.3500(b)(1)
• Alabama
― Requires partnership level determination. Alabama Supreme Court ruled
gain from the sale of partnership assets was not business income to the
corporate partners because such sales were not in the regular course of
the partnership’s trade or business.
64
65
Gross Revenue = Partner’s
% of Lines 1,4-7. Net
amounts may require further
digging for gross revenue.
Note potential tiered flow-
through issue for line 4
Line 6 – Gross or Net?
Line 7 can be many different
items (+ & -)
1065 – PAGE 1
66
Make special note of items of
foreign income flowing through
as this may impact
apportionment.
SCHEDULE K
Flow-Through Entities Apportionment and Corporate Partners
• Approaches used by states
• Partnership/Entity Level Approach- Corporate partner includes only
its share of the income/loss of pass through entity as apportioned by
the entity, but does not include its share of property, payroll and
sales.
― Should any K-1 line items be reflected in factor if business income ?
• Partner/Aggregate Level Approach = “Flow-up of factors”
― Corporate partners combine their percentage share of the pass-through
entity’s apportionment factors with their own apportionment factors
67
• California
― If partners are unitary with partnership, then partnership’s factors flow-up to the
unitary partner(s).
― If partner(s) are not unitary, then no flow-up
― If partner(s) and partnership are not unitary, but the income is considered
business income, then partners must apportion partnership income separately
from their other business income.
― California's regulation regarding the treatment of partnership income does not
distinguish between a limited and general partnership interest. Because
partnership law prohibits a limited partner from exercising a management role
with respect to a limited partnership, absent a unitary relationship between the
general and limited partner, unity between the limited partnership and its
limited partners on the basis of strong centralized management is
unlikely. However, combination may be a consideration if the partnership and the
limited partner share operational ties.
68
Entity vs. Aggregate Calculation of Apportionment Factor
Entity vs. Aggregate Calculation of Apportionment Factor
Illinois
• A partnership is required to use combined reporting when engaged in a unitary business with one of its
partners. If unitary, the partner's distributive share of the business income and apportionment factors of
the partnership must be included in that partner's business income and apportionment factors. If the
partner had no other activities in Illinois, the partner would apportion the sum of it income plus its share
of the partnership income to Illinois using the partnership Illinois sales factors and the partnership
everywhere sales factors. In determining the business income of the partnership, transactions between
the unitary partner, or members of its unitary business group, and the partnership are not eliminated.
However, all transactions between the unitary business group and the partnership are eliminated for
purposes of computing the apportionment factors of the partner and of any other member of the unitary
business group. Ill. Admin. Code tit. 86, § 100.3380(d). However, this rule does not apply:
― 1. to shares of income from partnerships whose business activity outside the United States is 80
percent or more of its total business activity;
― 2. where the partnership has a different apportionment method than the corporate partner; or
― 3. where the partnership is not in the same general line of business or a step in a vertically
structured enterprise with the corporate partner. Ill. Admin. Code tit. 86, § 100.3380(c).
69
Illinois – Tiered Partnership Structure
• If a partnership and a partner are engaged in a unitary business and the partnership is a partner in a
second partnership, the partner's share of the first partnership's share of the base income apportioned
to Illinois by the second partnership must be included in the partner's Illinois net income. This
treatment applies if the partner is not engaged in a unitary business with the second partnership.
However, if the partner is engaged in a unitary business with the second partnership, the partner's
share of the first partnership's share of the business income and apportionment factors of the second
partnership must be included in the partner's business income and apportionment factors.
• If the partnership is a partner in a second partnership and one of its partners is engaged in a unitary
business with the second partnership, that partner must include in its business income and
apportionment factors its share of the partnership's share of the second partnership's business income
and apportionment factors. (See Example later in this deck)
• Generally, when a corporation's activities and its partnership's activities are not considered to be in a
unitary group, the partnership allocates its nonbusiness income and apportions its business income
which is then added to the corporation's other business income apportioned to Illinois
and nonbusiness income allocated to the state. The Illinois income is calculated at the partnership
level and merely reflects the partner's share of the partnership income as post–apportionment
income or loss.
70
Entity vs. Aggregate Calculation of Apportionment Factor
• Florida (Fla. Admin. Code Ann. r. 12C-1.015(10))
• Partnership factors flow through to the corporate partners
• Apportionment occurs at the partner level
• Compliance reporting considerations for tiered partnerships
• Massachusetts (Mass. Regs. Code tit. 830, § 63.38.1)
• Partnership factors flow through to corporate partners, if partnership
and corporate partners are engaged in “related business activities.” •
• If they are not engaged in related business activities, corporate
partners separately account for partnership income and apportion it
using only the partnership’s factors.
• If corporation owns less than 50% of LP, presumed not to be doing
business in Massachusetts, and apportionment is at partnership level
71
Entity vs. Aggregate Calculation of Apportionment Factor
• New Jersey (NJ Admin. Code tit.18, §18:7-7.6(g)(3))
• Partnership factors flow through to corporate partners, if the
partnership and partners are unitary
• If not unitary, apportion partnership income at the partnership level
and report distributive share of apportioned taxable income without
regard to the partners’ separate apportionment factors
• Note BIS, LP decision
― Interplay with w/h
• Oklahoma (Okla. Admin. Code §710:50-17- 51(15)(A))
• Partnership factors do not flow through to the corporate partners.
Income is apportioned at the partnership level and allocated to the
state by the corporate partners.
72
Entity vs. Aggregate Apportionment-Example
EXAMPLE
Orange Corp. operates exclusively in State A and generates $2,000,000 of taxable income.
It has total revenue of $5,000,000. Orange Corp. is also a general partner in Golden
Partnership owning 30% of capital and the same P&L%. Golden generated a taxable loss of
($1,000,000) on total revenue of $ 20,000,000 and operates in States B & C.
73
Golden Partnership
Orange Corp. (GP)
30%
Example: Flow-Through Apportionment
Orange Corp. Sales % Sales State Income (Loss)
State A $5,000,000 100% $2,000,000
State B $0 0% $0
State C $0 0% $0
Total $5,000,000 100% $2,000,000
74
Golden Partnership
Sales % Sales
State Income (Loss)
State A $0 0% $0
State B $15,000,000 75% ($ 750,000)
State C $ 5,000,000 25% ($ 250,000)
Total $20,000,000 100% ($1,000,000)
Example: Flow-Through Apportionment
Orange Corp. Direct Golden Line 28
Federal Taxable Income
$2,000,000 ($300,000) $1,700,000
75
Entity Only Scenario
State A $2,000,000
State B ($225,000)* (75% x $300,000)
State C ($ 75,000)* (25% x $300,000)
Total $1,700,000
* Sourced on State K-1 issued by Golden
Example: Flow-Through Apportionment
Aggregation (Flow-up) Sales Sales % Apportioned Income
T.I.= $1,700,000
State A $ 5,000,000 45.45% $ 772,650
State B $ 4,500,000* 40.91% $ 695,470
State C $ 1,500,000** 13.64% $ 231,880
Aggregate Denominator
$11,000,000 100.00% $1,700,000
76
* 30% x $15,000,000
** 30% x $ 5,000,000
Lack of uniformity/mismatch –compare
the two approaches.
• If State C is OK?
• If States A & B are IL and CA?
• Unitary/Non-unitary?
Factor Flow-up and Tiered Partnership
Direct Factors from
OP, LLC use 25%
25%
77
20%
15%
Effective Rate = 20% + (15% * 25%)
= 20% + 3.75%
= 23.75%
OP, LP
OP, LLC
INC.
Factor Flow-up and Tiered Partnership
Impact of L.P. interest
on effective rate
calculation?
Can a limited
partner be unitary?
78
20%
L.P.
15%
G.P.
OP, LP
OP, LLC
INC. 25%
L.P.
Considerations For Preparers of Returns
• What information to pass through to partners/investors.
• Does reporting through factor data to partners create confusion for partners
absent significant disclosure?
• Unitary determination must be made at partner level (or jointly with partnership –In
Practice?)
• What do tiered partnerships do?
• Does characterization of receipts of the partnership flow through to the partners?
Michigan – RAB 2015-5 states that receipts that flow through from the partnership that
are not “taxed” at the entity level (because they are protected by P. L. 86-272) are not
protected at the corporate partner level – Flow through receipts are from an investment,
and not from the sale of tangible property
• What percentages to use for performance fee allocations to G.P.s?
• Any impact of proposed regs. under IRC §707(a)(2)(A) (7/23/15)
• Treats certain partnership distributions as disguised payments for services
• Significant entrepreneurial risk requirement
79
80
Thank You!
Ned Leiby
Ryan, LLC
www.ryan.com