South Carolina ~ Corporate Income Tax: Department Had Burden of Proving Alternative Apportionment Formula Was Appropriate

The South Carolina Court of Appeals has determined that a party seeking to override the legislatively determined apportionment method must bear the burden of proving that the method is not appropriate and that an alternative method more accurately reflects the taxpayer’s business activity within South Carolina for corporate income tax purposes.

The lower court had determined that the taxpayer had the burden of proving that the Department of Revenue’s (DOR) alternative apportionment formula was not appropriate for apportioning the taxpayer’s corporate tax liability.

A significant element of the business structure involved was the payment of a royalty by one division of a retail operation to a different division and the mixing of that intangible income with the retail income earned by the latter entity for state tax reporting purposes. This payment provided a deduction to one division, reducing its overall tax burden in those states in which it operated, including South Carolina. The mixing of the royalty payments with retail income produced a significantly lower apportionment ratio than that of the taxpayer’s royalty income considered alone.

The DOR found that neither the standard formula nor the gross receipts formula fairly represented the extent of the taxpayer’s business in South Carolina. The department applied an alternative method to calculate the taxpayer’s taxable income in South Carolina.

The alternative apportionment formula divided the taxpayer’s income from royalties and financing receipts from within South Carolina by its royalties and financing receipts from everywhere it does business to determine its ratio of apportionable income taxable in South Carolina. This alternative method did not include the retail income earned by the taxpayer in other states.

The taxpayer appealed, arguing that the department should have the burden of proving that the standard statutory apportionment method did not accurately reflect the taxpayer’s business and that the alternative accounting method was reasonable.

The appellate court agreed with the taxpayer and noted that the DOR, as the proponent of an alternative apportionment method, was required to establish that its alternative method was not only appropriate, but more appropriate than any competing methods.

CarMax Auto Superstores West Coast, Inc. v. South Carolina Department of Revenue, South Carolina Court of Appeals, Opinion No. 4953, March 14, 2012

AUTHOR

Wolters Kluwer Tax and Accounting

Wolters Kluwer Tax and Accounting is a leading provider of software solutions and local expertise that helps tax, accounting, and audit professionals research and navigate complex regulations, comply with legislation, manage their businesses and advise clients with speed, accuracy and efficiency. Wolters Kluwer Tax and Accounting is part of Wolters Kluwer N.V. (AEX: WKL), a global leader in information services and solutions for professionals in the health, tax and accounting, risk and compliance, finance and legal sectors. We help our customers make critical decisions every day by providing expert solutions that combine deep domain knowledge with specialized technology and services. Wolters Kluwer reported 2016 annual revenues of €4.3 billion. The company, headquartered in Alphen aan den Rijn, the Netherlands, serves customers in over 180 countries, maintains operations in over 40 countries and employs 19,000 people worldwide. Wolters Kluwer shares are listed on Euronext Amsterdam (WKL) and are included in the AEX and Euronext 100 indices. Wolters Kluwer has a sponsored Level 1 American Depositary Receipt program. The ADRs are traded on the over-the-counter market in the U.S. (WTKWY).

All stories by: Wolters Kluwer Tax and Accounting