Wayfair: Its Implications and Missed Opportunities

This article reviews the Wayfair decision and its implications. First Professor Pomp considers the term “substantial nexus” which the court used in Quill to distinguish its commerce clause and due process jurisdprudence. He argues the Wayfair court should have used the opportunity to discard the term entirely as it was an invention of the court in Complete Auto that used the term once when the issue was not properly before the court. It then argues Wayfair extends beyond the issue directly in front of it and applies broadly such that taxpayers can no longer avoid state taxes by arguing they lack sufficient nexus with the state. In light of this conclusion the article provides guidance for state tax authorities seeking to collect state taxes in a post-Wayfair world

In Memoriam, How Phillip Transformed My Life

Phillip I. Blumberg served as Dean of the University of Connecticut School of Law from 1974 to 1984. These remarks were first delivered at the University of Connecticut School of Law’s tribute to Dean Blumberg, “Honoring Phillip I. Blumberg,” held on December 10, 2021. They have been lightly edited for publication

Designing a Combined Reporting Regime for a State Corporate Income Tax: A Case Study of Louisiana

This article presents a plan for revitalizing the Louisiana corporate income tax through the adoption of a combined reporting regime. Our plan would require affiliated companies engaged in a unitary business in the State to pay their Louisiana income tax based on an apportioned share of their combined income. Combined reporting is the only effective way for any state to impose a fair and uniform corporation income tax on multistate and multinational enterprises and to gain or maintain control over its own tax base. The current Louisiana corporate income tax is subject to abuse through tax planning techniques that are very familiar to members of the tax-avoidance community. California and other states that have adopted combined reporting have demonstrated that combined reporting fairly and effectively responds to most of these common tax avoidance techniques. Part II, below, discusses the potential benefits inuring to Louisiana from adopting a combined reporting regime. Those benefits are not mere speculation. California has been operating a combined reporting system successfully for nearly seven decades. In brief, the benefits are a uniform treatment of corporate groups without regard for differences in their organizational structure, a strong bulwark against the use of tax-haven jurisdictions to avoid state taxation, a significant reduction in administrative burdens on the tax department and on complying taxpayers, and the removal of the competitive disadvantage currently imposed on local firms that are unable to engage in cross-border tax-avoidance. In Part III, we address some basic issues in the design of an effective combined reporting regime. One of the important features of combined reporting is the use of a formula to apportion the unitary business income of a unitary enterprise between Louisiana and the rest of the relevant universe. Louisiana already uses formulary apportionment in its current corporate tax system. To operate a combined reporting regime, however, Louisiana must apply that formula not to the separate income of each corporation but to the combined income of a corporate group engaged in a unitary business in Louisiana. Yielding to political realities, we recommend that Louisiana offer companies a water?s edge election that would allow them to exclude from their combined report the income derived by certain foreign affiliates that do not have an obvious close tie to the unitary business conducted in Louisiana. Part IV addresses a variety of technical issues that Louisiana should address when adopting a combined reporting regime. We offer our views on how those issues should be resolved, drawing, when appropriate, on the experience of other combined-reporting states. Some of these issues relate to potential transition problems. Other issues relate to practical problems of assessing and collecting a tax from corporations operating in Louisiana on income that is computed by reference to the combined income of a unitary group

Brief of Interested Law Professors As \u3ci\u3eAmici Curiae\u3c/i\u3e Supporting Petitioner in \u3ci\u3eBrohl v. Direct Marketing Association\u3c/i\u3e

Amici curiae are 14 professors of law who have devoted much of their teaching and research to the area of state taxes and the role of state tax policy in our federal system. The names and affiliations (for identification purposes only) of amici are included in an addendum to this brief. The amici are concerned with the effect of this Court’s dormant Commerce Clause jurisprudence on the development of fair and efficient state tax systems. No decision of this Court has had more effect on state sales and use tax systems than Quill Corporation v. North Dakota. We believe the Tenth Circuit properly decided the case below. But if the Court decides to grant the Direct Marketing Association’s petition to review the issue of discrimination which it raises, we respectfully request that the Court also grant the conditional crosspetition filed by Executive Director Barbara J. Brohl of the Colorado Department of Revenue asking the Court to reconsider Quill. This brief sets forth the reasons for our support of that cross-petitio

Brief of Tax Law Professors as \u3ci\u3eAmici Curiae\u3c/i\u3e in Support of Petitioner in \u3ci\u3eLoudoun County, Virginia v. Dulles Duty Free, LLC\u3c/i\u3e

Amici are professors of tax law at universities across the United States. As scholars and teachers, they have considered the doctrinal roots and practical consequences of judicial limits on state and local taxation. Amici join this brief solely on their own behalf and not as representatives of their universities. A full list of amici appears in the Appendix to this brief