State |
Reference |
Standard |
Alabama |
Rev Rul 05-001 |
"The licensing of trademarks by Parent is similar to the rental of the films in Paramount. In both cases intangible property, i.e. the trademarks and the programming, constitute intangible property. However, the intangible property can only be utilized through its embodiment on a tangible medium. In Paramount, the medium was the film. In the case of the Parent, the tangible property is the printed or otherwise displayed trademark of the Parent. Whether the trademark is viewed as intangible or its physical display is viewed as tangible property, the fact remains that it is actually utilized for display in a physical form.
There is no compelling reason to distinguish between the ownership of tangible property and the ownership in the state of intangible property for purposes of establishing presence or nexus. Both Paramount and the federal cases cited previously indicate that Parent has nexus with Alabama. Retail and Developer's proposed activities in Alabama will increase Parent's nexus with Alabama, which is already sufficient to support the imposition of corporation income taxes and business privilege taxes by Alabama."
|
Alaska |
|
|
Arizona |
DOR Decision 200700083-C
Pub 623 - Nexus in Arizona
Corporate Tax Ruling (CTR) 99-5 - Application of Public Law 86-272
|
In 200700083-C (3/27/08), the Department of Revenue applied the economic nexus rule of Geoffrey, Inc. v. South Carolina Tax Comm'n, 437 S.E.2d 13 (1993), to find that a company headquartered out-of-state that received franchise fees and royalties from franchisors in Arizona was subject to corporate income tax in AZ because it had substantial nexus. The taxpayer's agreements with the franchisees also stated that the franchisor would visit annually. Taxpayer purposefully directed business to AZ, so no due process clause problems. And per Geoffrey case and fact that physical presence is only required for sales tax nexus, the DOR found that the substantial nexus required by Complete Auto Transit existed. "Like the taxpayers in Geoffrey, by licensing its trade names and trademarks to the Arizona Franchisees, Taxpayer "contemplated and purposefully sought the benefit of economic contact" with Arizona. Geoffrey, 437 S.E.2d at 16. In addition, Arizona provided "an orderly society" for which the Franchisees could conduct business, and thereby "make it possible for [Taxpayer] to earn income pursuant to the [franchise] agreement.'" |
Arkansas |
|
|
California |
R&T Section 23101 (2/09)
FTB information
FTB Notice 2011-06 Chief Counsel Rulings for "Doing Business"
|
Effective for tax years beginning after 2010, nexus exists (a taxpayer is "doing business" in the state) if: (R&T Sec. 23101)
- taxpayer organized or domiciled in CA
- sales in CA exceed lesser of $500K or 25% of taxpayer's total sales
- taxpayer's real and tangible personal property in CA exceeds lesser of $50K or 25% of taxpayer's total of such property
- compensation paid by taxpayer in state exceeds lesser of $50K or 25% of total compensation paid
The above dollar amounts are to be indexed for inflation annually by the FTB. Despite what looks like an objective measure, the guidance from FTB indicates that even if the above thresholds are not met, an out-of-state business might still be considered "doing business" in California. Here is the FTB comment: "Partnership A is considered doing business in California even if the property, payroll and sales in California fall below the threshold amounts. Partnership A is considered doing business in California through its employees because those employees are "actively engaging" in transactions for profit on behalf of Partnership A."
FTB summary.
|
Colorado |
Regulation (39-) 22-301.1 - factor presence approach |
"Doing business" Regulation (39-) 22-301.1 modified to adopt factor presense approach (for when PL 86-272 does not apply) [CCH Newsletter with more information] |
Connecticut |
9/8/09 - HB 6802 became law (Public Act No. 09-3)
Q&A on Economic Nexus (IP 2010 (29.1))
Public Act 11-61, 55 changed an "or" to an "and" and provides that the rule is n/a to foreign corp that has no income effectively connected with a US business - see page 100
|
Adds an economic nexus standard effective for tax years beginning after 2009. Replaces a physical presence standard. Per Sec. 90 of the new law: "Any company that derives income from sources within this state, or that has a substantial economic presence within this state, evidenced by a purposeful direction of business toward this state, examined in light of the frequency, quantity and systematic nature of a company's economic contacts with this state, without regard to physical presence, and to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States, shall be liable for the tax imposed under chapter 208 of the general statutes." Also see Sec. 91 which makes changes to Section 12-726 of the general statutes to use an economic nexus standard for partnerships and S corporations.
NOTE - legislation in 2011 changed the "or" in the second line above to "and". (see links to PA 11-61 in cell to the left)
|
Delaware |
|
|
Florida |
Florida Technical Assistance Advisement 07C1-007 (10/17/07) |
The Florida Dept of Revenue held that a financial services firm providing various services to retailers in Florida had nexus for income tax purposes even though it had no physical presence in the state. T is licensed with the Florida Dept. of Financial Services under Florida law. The license indicates that T has a number of authorized retailers in the state and T paid a fee for each one. The retailers bind T because if a retailer does not pay for any transaction, T is liable to the service provider.
P.L. 86-272 does not apply to T because it is not selling tangible personal property. In analyzing due process, the DOR stated: �the U.S. Supreme Court has said that the �simple but controlling question is whether the state has given anything for which it can ask return.� See Wisconsin v. J. C. Penney Co. , 311 US 435, 444 (1940). In this case, Florida has provided the Taxpayer with a license, and with an orderly and regulated marketplace. Florida is also providing the Taxpayer with access to its courts. Therefore, Florida meets the requirements of the Due Process Clause.�
In analyzing commerce clause concerns using Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Brady, 430 U.S. 274 (1977)., the DOR also found no problem with imposing tax. �Florida has provided the Taxpayer with a license, and with an orderly and regulated marketplace. Florida is also providing the Taxpayer with access to its courts and police and fire protection for its authorized agents/representatives. Therefore, Florida�s corporate income tax has a fair relation to the services Florida provides.�
In analyzing any physical presence requirement, the DOR noted that cases in other states have found that the Quill physical presence standard does not apply for income tax purposes. The DOR also noted that the US Supreme Court had declined to hear a state case on this issue. It found these cases to be �persuasive, especially given the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the cases.�
The DOR found that T had substantial nexus in the state.
|
Georgia |
Ga. Code Ann. �48-7-31
Reg 560-7-7-.03
|
Reg. 560-7-7-.03 Corporations: Allocation and Apportionment of Income - (1) doing business - a fairly broad standard |
Hawaii |
|
|
Idaho |
|
|
Illinois |
|
Borden Chemicals and Plastics, L.P. v. Zehnder, 726 N.E.2d 73 (Ill. App. Ct. 2000), appeal denied, 731 N.E.2d 762 (Ill. 2000) |
Indiana |
MBNA America Bank v. Indiana Dept. of Revenue (Cause No. 49T10-0506-TA-53, 10/08) |
The Indiana Tax Court held that MBNA was liable for Indiana�s financial institutions tax because while it did not have a physical presence in the state, it had an economic presence. MBNA had no employees or facilities in Indiana and only contacted credit card customers and potential customers there by phone or mail. At issue was whether economic presence is sufficient to meet the substantial nexus requirement under the commerce clause of the US Constitution. The court concluded: �The Commerce Clause does not require MBNA to have a physical presence in Indiana to be subject to the FIT � its economic presence is enough.� |
Iowa |
KFC Corp. vs. Iowa Department of Revenue - see note to right
4/11 - writ filed with US Supreme Court
Policy Letter 10240041 (12/16/10)
|
KFC Corp. vs. Iowa Department of Revenue - this case where the DOR and District Court found economic nexus based on royalties received from Iowa franchisees was heard by the Iowa Supreme Court in May 2010. In late December 2010, the court issued its ruling finding that KFC has nexus in Iowa due to generating royalties in the state from its arrangements with franchisees in the state. The opinion has a lengthy review of the dormant commerce clause and why the Quill physical presence standard does not apply beyond sales tax. Click here for a story on the issue posted at the International Franchise Association website. Click here for a Grant Thornton news alert on the Administrative Law Judge's earlier ruling.
October 2011 - the US Supreme Court denied cert in the KFC case (No. 10-1340)
Policy Letter 10240041 - "LLC is subject to Iowa income tax since physical presence is not required to assert nexus for Iowa, and you are exploiting the Iowa market. In addition, any receipts received where the benefit of the service is received in Iowa would be considered an Iowa receipt." LLC had no payroll or property in Iowa; it was registered with the Iowa Secretary of State's office.
|
Kansas |
|
|
Kentucky |
|
|
Louisiana |
Bridges, Secretary of the Dept of Revenue, State of Louisiana v. Geoffrey, Inc., 984 So 2d 115 (Ct App, 2008) |
The court ruled that the physical presence standard of Quill does not apply to income tax. The court used an economic nexus approach to find that the taxpayer was subject to income tax for royalties generated from a company in the state.
"[T]he facts in this case establish that Geoffrey entered into a licensing agreement with Toys �R� Us-Delaware, whereby the parties agreed that Toys �R� Us-Delaware would pay Geoffrey a royalty fee based on three percent of Toys �R� Us-Delaware's net sales in its Toys �R� Us stores and two percent of net sales its Kids �R� Us stores in over forty states, including Louisiana, in exchange for Geoffrey granting Toys �R� Us-Delaware the exclusive right to use those trademarks. Those trademarks were admittedly used by Toys �R� Us-Delaware in approximately eight to eleven stores in Louisiana and Geoffrey admittedly received significant royalty income from the use of its trademarks in this state. Accordingly, we find that based on the facts in the record, Geoffrey has a substantial nexus with Louisiana sufficient to satisfy the Commerce Clause."
|
Maine |
|
|
Maryland |
Licensing of intangibles can create nexus. |
Comptroller of the Treasury v. SYL, Inc., and Comptroller of the Treasury v. Crown Cork & Seal Co. (Delaware), Inc., 825 A.2d 399 (Md. 2003), cert. denied, 124 S.Ct. 961 (2003) - nexus from trademark (no physical presence) [analysis from Blank Rome LLP (6/03)]
Nordstrom v. Comptroller of the Treasury (MTC No. 07-IN-OO-0317; 2008) - Maryland Tax Court found that two subsidiaries formed outside of Maryland to own Nordstrom trademarks did not have economic substance. Thus, any activities of the subsidiaries should be treated as activities of the parent corporation, an entity that had income tax nexus in Maryland. Nordstrom paid about $200 million in royalties to one of the subs which then loaned back about two-thirds of that amount to the parent. Nordstrom paid interest, but not much principal. The sub had very little expenses. It did have a full-time paralegal overseeing management of the intangibles. Per the court: �Fundamentally, the subsidiaries did not act independently, although the financial structure creates an illusion of substance.� [
http://www.txcrt.state.md.us/pubs/PDF/NordstromOct2008.pdf]
[Grant Thornton commentary on Nordstrom case]
|
Massachusetts |
Capital One Bank, , 453 Mass 1, 899 NE2d 76 (2009)
Geoffrey, Inc., 453 Mass 17, 899 NE2d 87 (2009)
|
solicitation of credit card customers in the state = nexus
licensing trademark = nexus
|
Michigan |
Revenue Administrative Bulletin 2013-9 (6/5/13) - defines "actively solicit" which is one way a corporation can have income tax nexus in MI. Corp must also have at least $350,000 of gross receipts sourced ot MI. RAB includes an analysis of due process in the Internet context. Query - is the $350,000 threshold sufficient in all contexts for due process nexus?
MCL 206.621 and 208.1200(1)
Dept. of Treasury, Revenue Administrative Bulletin 2007-6 (12/07) - add'l guidance on nexus for the Michigan Business Tax
MBT Nexus Standards - Revenue Administrative Bulletin 2008-4
|
Under the Michigan Business Tax (MBT) a business is liable for the tax if it has a physical presence in Michigan for over 1 day or it "actively solicits sales" in the state and its unapportioned gross receipts sourced to the state are $350,000 or more.
"Although the Department recognizes that some states have reached the opposite conclusion, the Department concludes that MBNA best summarizes the current state of Commerce Clause jurisprudence" (RAB 2007-6)
|
Minnesota |
Business Activity Questionnaire
Nexus and in-state repairs - Revenue Notice 96-16
|
Sales tax nexus - Revenue Notice 00-10
|
Mississippi |
|
|
Missouri |
|
|
Montana |
|
|
Nebraska |
|
|
Nevada |
|
|
New Hampshire |
|
|
New Jersey
|
TAM-6 (1/10/11) - foreign corporations subject to NJ Corporate income tax
Lanco, Inc v Director, New Jersey Div of Taxation
, 879 A2d 1234 (NJ Sup Ct App Div, 2005), cert den 127 S Ct 2974 (2007) - summarized in next column.
Also see AccuZip case of 8/09 of the NJ Tax Court. The court held that software sales on CD-Roms by AccuZip and Quark were of tangible personal property, and did not derive a substantial economic benefit in NJ. It found that Quark was doing business in NJ but its activities were de minimis under PL 86-272 so it only owed the minimum tax. See case for discussion of Lanco.
|
TAM-6 (1/10/11) - "Applying the principles of the statute as amended and the above-referenced court decisions, taxpayers performing services and domiciled outside the State that solicit business within the State or derive receipts from sources within the State must file a Corporation Business Tax return and pay the applicable tax to New Jersey. This principle applies to all corporations, including financial corporations." Effective for periods beginning on and after 1/1 02.
Lanco - The New Jersey Supreme Court, in a per curium opinion, upheld the holding of the appellate court in finding that the Quill nexus standard only applies for sales and use tax (A-89-05; 10/12/05). In Lanco, Inc. v. Director, Division of Taxation, N.J. App. Div., No. A-3285-03T1 (Aug 2005), the court reversed the lower court decision to find that the Quill decision only applies to sales and use tax matters. Lanco licenses trademarks and similar intangibles to a related retailer in New Jersey � Lane Bryant. Lanco has no physical property in New Jersey. The �minimum contacts� and fairness considerations of the Due Process clause were not at issue. Instead, the �substantial nexus� consideration of the Commerce Clause was.
The Director argued that �there is no principled reason why the Commerce Clause should require a corporation�s physical presence to justify State taxation � provided the State can establish that the corporation derives significant benefits from the continued and deliberate economic activity in the taxing State.� The Director also noted that Quill�s connection with customers was via the U.S. mail or common carrier whereas Lanco�s connection with its customer (Lane Bryant) was a long-term contractual one designed to increase Lane Bryant�s sales and the parties were affiliated corporations. The Director noted that there is an increased burden to NJ from such increased retail sales activity relative to Quill mailing catalogs and products to customers.
The appellate court agreed with the Director that Quill was inapplicable to the case.
|
New Mexico |
K-Mart Properties v Taxation & Revenue Dept of the State of New Mexico, 131 P3d 27 (2006)
Suggestions from Dept. of Tax and Revenue to Governor's Budget Balancing Task Force (11/16/09) - includes economic nexus for GRT (slide 2)
|
nexus from a trademark
Summary from Jones Day (2006)
Information from the NM Taxation and Revenue Department
|
New York |
Economic nexus standard adopted in 2014. See state's outline and FAQs. Generally effective for tax years beginning on or after 1/31/15. |
A 7/09 report on Corporate Tax Reform from the NY Dept of Taxation and Finance recommended an economic nexus standard. Such a standard was enacted in 2014. |
North Carolina |
A&F Trademark, Inc v North Carolina, 605 SE2d 187 (NC Ct App, 2004), cert den 546 US 821 (2005)
|
Economic nexus |
North Dakota |
|
|
Ohio |
"Bright line" nexus standard used for Commercial Activity Tax (CAT), also known as a factor presence standard |
http://www.tax.ohio.gov/commercial_activities/faqs/cat.aspx (see Q12 - "
What out-of-state persons are required to register and remit this tax?"
Challenge to the CAT nexus standard by Overstock.com - 9/21/09 KPMG Tax Watch
|
Oklahoma |
Geoffrey, Inc. v. Oklahoma Tax Commission, 2006 OK CIV APP 27, ___ P.3d ___ 2005 |
Held that G was subject to income tax in the state on royalties received from the licensing of intangible property. G, domiciled in Delaware, has no property or employees in Oklahoma. Its licensee operates stores (TRU) there and pays license fees to G. TRU pays income taxes in Oklahoma and deducts the license fees it pays to G. The Oklahoma Tax Commission (OTC) found no due process or commerce clause issue with assessing tax on G because it had substantial nexus because the use of the trademarks in Oklahoma to generate substantial income shows a connection between the income and the interests of the state in imposing its income tax. OTC also noted that G �purposefully directed its activities toward residents� and �availed itself of the benefits of Oklahoma�s economic market.�
The court agreed with the Lanco decision ( 879 A.2d 1234 (N.J.Super.A.D., 2005)) that the physical presence required in the Quill sales and use tax case (504 U.S. 298 (1992)) for commerce clause purposes does not apply to income tax. The court also found no due process clause problem because G had purposefully directed its activities at residents of the state � it was a willing party.
It was also held that G was a unitary business and its royalty income should be apportioned (rather than allocated to Delaware) using a �modified one-factor apportionment formula� based on G�s sales factor with such approach serving as an �accurate reflection of the business done� in the state.
|
Oregon |
Oregon Department of Revenue (DOR) adopted Rule (OAR) 151-317.010 (5/08) |
�Substantial nexus exists where a taxpayer regularly takes advantage of Oregon�s economy to produce income for the taxpayer and may be established through the significant economic presence of a taxpayer in the state.�
To determine if substantial nexus exists the DOR may look at the regularity of contacts in the state, deliberateness of marketing to Oregon customers, and significant gross receipts from Oregon customers or from the use of intangible property in Oregon. Also relevant is whether the business is protected by Oregon laws, has court access, uses state roads, benefits from Oregon�s educated workforce, or receives �police and fire protection for property in Oregon that displays taxpayer�s intellectual or intangible property.� http://arcweb.sos.state.or.us/rules/OARS_100/OAR_150/150_317.html
|
Pennsylvania |
|
|
Rhode Island |
|
|
South Carolina |
Geoffrey, Inc. v. South Carolina Tax Commission, 437 SE2d 13 (Sup Ct), cert denied 510 US 992 (1993) |
Holding company licensing use of trademark in the state = nexus |
South Dakota |
|
|
Tennessee |
America Online v. Johnson, M2001-00927-COA-R3-CV (2002) |
CDs in the state might create nexus |
Texas |
Texas Margin Tax |
Query - what type of tax is it? A notice issued by the California Franchise Tax Board (2009-06) implied that it wasn't always clear depending on the taxpayer and the calculation of the margin tax (there are 3 ways to calculate the tax base).
PL 86-272 only applies to net income taxes.
There seems to be little information available at the Texas website - click here for some of it.
|
Utah |
Publication 37 and R865-6F-6 |
|
Vermont |
|
|
Virginia |
Ruling 12-36 (3/28/12) |
While Tax Commissioner Ruling 12-36 does not specifically address economic nexus, this statement sheds light on the focus on a broader application of PL 86-272 concepts: "Although P.L. 86-272 applies to tangible property, the Department's policy has been to extend the "solicitation test" of P.L. 86-272 to situations involving the sale of other than tangible personal property." This ruling involves a taxpayer who owned servers in Virginia but had no other property there. Taxpayer also had one employee in the state soliciting orders. |
Washington |
SB 6143 (enacted 4/10) + various guidance from the Dept of Revenue (here)
Watch the video - tutorials from the Washington DOR on nexus and apportionment - here
Also see Lamtec Corp., No. 35716-811 (WA Ct App Div II, 8/4/09); affirmed 2011, Supreme Court of Washington
|
SB 6143: This legislation enacted in April 2010 creates a factor presence nexus standard (see page 2 of the Act for the reasons why Washington expanded its nexus standard). The new rule also provides that if nexus is established in one year, it will also exist for the subsequent year. The factor presence nexus standard is different that what the MTC proposes and what most states have adopted in that instead of $500,000 of receipts in the state creating nexus, it is $250,000 or more.
Lamtec - "Lamtec's business activities in Washington significantly contributed to its ability to establish and maintain its market in the state. Given Lamtec's business strategy-maintaining long-term relationships with a small number of customers-its in-person customer visits were critical to maintaining its existing Washington customers. And, as the Department suggests, when one is maintaining a customer relationship, it is establishing its market for future sales. While in Washington, Lamtec employees provided information, listened to concerns about and answered questions concerning Lamtec products, participated in telephone calls that the customers placed to Lamtec's technical and customer service departments in New Jersey, fielded questions concerning potential price increases and new products, and maintained general client relations."
"Lamtec's distinction that its employees solicited no sales during their visits to Washington is of no consequence. See Tyler Pipe, 483 U.S. at 249, 107 S.Ct. 2810; Gen. Motors, 107 Wash.App. at 52, 25 P.3d 1022 (stating that substantial nexus has never turned on whether an out-of-state company engages in direct selling activities); see also Orvis Co. v. Tax Appeals Tribunal of New York, 86 N.Y.2d 165, 630 N.Y.S.2d 680, 654 N.E.2d 954, cert. denied sub nom. Vermont Information Processing, Inc. v. Dep't of Taxation and Finance, 516 U.S. 989, 116 S.Ct. 518, 133 L.Ed.2d 426 (1995) (holding that there is no requirement under Quill and commerce clause jurisprudence requiring that an out-of-state company's sales representative be engaged in solicitation of sales or in sales transactions to satisfy the substantial nexus requirement). Likewise, Lamtec's distinction that it has no permanent employees in Washington is of no consequence. The test is whether Lamtec's in-state activities were significantly associated with its ability to establish and maintain its market in Washington, not whether it employed people within the state. See Tyler Pipe, 483 U.S. at 250, 107 S.Ct. 2810. See also Orvis, 86 N.Y.2d at 178, 180, 630 N.Y.S.2d 680, 654 N.E.2d 954 (finding a sufficient nexus based on the "slightest presence" of an out-of-state corporation's out-of-state employees visiting the state as many as 19 wholesale customers an average of four times a year)."
|
West Virginia |
Tax Commissioner of WV v MBNA, 640 SE2d 226 (2006), cert denied 127 S. Ct. 2997 (2007)
ConAgra Brands (WV SC 2012) - see link at right. |
MBNA - Economic nexus as evidenced by direct mail and phone solicitation in WV that was regular and generated a substantial amount of revenues, all of "which indicate[s] a significant economic presence sufficient to meet the substantial nexus prong of Complete Auto."
Per the court: "[W]e simply wish to acknowledge the great challenge in applying the Commerce Clause to the ever-evolving practices of the marketplace. James Madison, Benjamin Franklin, and the other Framers at the Constitutional Convention who adopted the Commerce Clause lived in a world that is impossible for people living today to imagine. The Framers' concept of commerce consisted of goods transported in horse-drawn, wooden-wheeled wagons or ships with sails. They lived in a world with no electricity, no indoor plumbing, no automobiles, no paved roads, no airplanes, no telephones, no televisions, no computers, no plastic credit cards, no recorded music, and no iPods. Likewise, it would have been impossible for the Framers to imagine our world. When they fashioned the Commerce Clause, they could not possibly have foreseen the complex and varied ways that commerce is conducted today, especially via the internet and electronic commerce. It would be nonsense to suggest that they could foresee or fathom a time in which a person's telephone call to his or her local credit card company would be routinely answered by a person in Bombay, India, or that a consumer could purchase virtually any product on a computer with the click of a mouse without leaving home. This recognition of the staggering evolution in commerce from the Framers' time up through today suggests to this Court that in applying the Commerce Clause we must eschew rigid and mechanical legal formulas in favor of a fresh application of Commerce Clause principles tempered with healthy doses of fairness and common sense. This is what we have attempted to do herein."
ConAgra Brands - see article and links here. This case supports that economic nexus doesn't exist just because an intangible (trademark) can be seen in the state. It is also a reminder that Due Process is still important in knowing if income tax nexus is important.
|
Wisconsin |
In 2009, an economic nexus approach was adopted with specific language describing what can constitute "doing business" when PL 86-272 does not apply.
Guidance will be needed on the meaning of "regularly." (see right)
|
2009 legislative change - summary from Dept. of Revenue (WI Tax Bulletin, 7/09): "Definition of �Doing Business in This State� Revised (2009 Act 28, amend sec. 71.22(1r), as affected by 2009 Act 2, effective for taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2009, and to any period for which the statute of limitations has not expired.)"
"Two provisions are added to the definition of �doing business in this state.� The definition as revised is provided below with the additional provisions shown in bold. The definition of �doing business in this state� provides that �doing business in this state� includes, except as prohibited under P.L. 86−272, issuing credit, debit, or travel and entertainment cards to customers in this state; regularly selling products or services of any kind or nature to customers in this state that receive the product or service in this state; regularly soliciting business from potential customers in this state; regularly performing services outside this state for which the benefits are received in this state; regularly engaging in transactions with customers in this state that involve intangible property and result in receipts flowing to the taxpayer from within this state; holding loans secured by real or tangible personal property located in this state; owning, directly or indirectly, a general or limited partnership interest in a partnership that does business in this state, regardless of the percentage of ownership; and owning, directly or indirectly, an interest in a limited liability company that does business in this state, regardless of the percentage of ownership, if the limited liability company is treated as a partnership for federal income tax purposes. A taxpayer doing business in this state for any part of the taxable year is considered to be doing business in this state for the entire taxable year."
"The statutory language relating to P.L. 86-272 is effective for taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2009. The statutory language relating to the non-recognition of part-year nexus applies to any period for which the statute of limitations has not expired."
|
Wyoming |
|
|