In This Issue:

Factor Representation: Is It Unconstitutional for a State to Have It Both Ways?; Upcoming Speaking Engagements; Expanded California Sales and Use Tax Exclusions for Advanced Manufacturing Projects; and Redefining “Business Income”: What Recent Decisions by the Oregon and Pennsylvania Supreme Courts Tell Us About the State of Business Income.

Excerpt from Factor Representation: Is It Unconstitutional for a State to Have It Both Ways? -

A state cannot include income in the apportionable base and then exclude the receipts and related factors that generated that very same income from the apportionment formula. Factor representation is not only a matter of being fair, it is mandated by the U.S. Constitution.

Please see full issue below for more information.

LOADING PDF: If there are any problems, click here to download the file.

Topics:  Apportionment, Business Income, Factor Representation, Sales & Use Tax

Published In: Business Organization Updates, General Business Updates, Constitutional Law Updates, Tax Updates

DISCLAIMER: 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 - State + Local Tax ("SALT") practice | Attorney Advertising

Don't miss a thing! Build a custom news brief:

Read fresh new writing on compliance, cybersecurity, Dodd-Frank, whistleblowers, social media, hiring & firing, patent reform, the NLRB, Obamacare, the SEC…

…or whatever matters the most to you. Follow authors, firms, and topics on JD Supra.

Create your news brief now - it's free and easy »