Is California Joyce or Finnigan?

Is California Joyce or Finnigan?

Title 18, Section §25106.5(c)(7)(B)3, which adopted the Joyce rule in 2000. However, in 2009, the California legislature adopted the Finnigan/Nutra-Sweet rule, requiring revision of the existing regulations (CA Rev. and Tax. Code §25135).

What is the Joyce method?

Generally speaking, the Joyce rule is that individual corporations that are protected by P.L. 86-272 in a state do not have to include sales attributable to the state in the numerator of the sales factor of the combined unitary group, even if an affiliate corporation does have nexus within the state.

What is the throwout rule?

With a throwout rule, the “nowhere income” is subtracted from the denominator (the amount of total sales). Both of these changes increase the value of the fraction, thus increasing a corporation’s in-state tax liability, though throwback rules do so more aggressively than throwout rules.

Which states have a throwout rule?

There are three states that have a throwout rule:

• Louisiana.
• Maine.
• West Virginia.

What are Joyce and Finnigan rules?

Two rules, both named after court cases in California, have come to govern this question. [22] Under the Joyce rule, the relevant taxpayer is a particular corporate entity making a sale, whereas in a Finnigan rule state, the taxpayer is the combined group.

Does California have a throwout rule?

The throwback rule generally provides that when receipts from the sale of tangible personal property[1] are sourced to a state (i.e., the purchaser’s state) where the taxpayer is not taxable, the sales are “thrown back” into the numerator of the taxing state’s sales factor.

Does Wisconsin have a throwback rule?

Years ago, Wisconsin went to a single-factor apportionment formula (based 100% on sales) and repealed apportionment factors based on payroll and property because using these factors penalized businesses for investing in Wisconsin. Throwback does the same thing, especially given Wisconsin’s high corporate income tax …

Does Kentucky have a throwback rule?

The other twenty states that tax corporate income (five states do not tax corporate profits), but do not have a throwback rule in place are: Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode …

Does NY have a throwback rule?

Does North Carolina have throwback?

For apportionment purposes, does North Carolina have a “throwback” rule? No. For corporations permitted to apportion income, only those sales made within North Carolina are required to be included in the numerator of the sales factor.

Is PA a throwback state?

Does Oregon have a throwback rule?

While this methodology is similar to apportionment provisions, Oregon has a “throwback rule” for income tax purposes, which requires certain sales of TPP originating from Oregon that are not taxable in the purchaser’s state to be included in the Oregon sales factor (Or. Rev. Stat. §314.665(2)(b)).

What is the difference between Joyce and Finnigan?

“Joyce” and “Finnigan” refer to two different ways of calculating the sales factor numerator in a unitary combined report or consolidated return filed by a group of affiliated corporations. The names come from two decisions of the California State Board of Equalization: Appeal of Joyce, Inc., No. 66 SBE 069 (Cal.

Can You ship from a Finnigan state to a Joyce state?

On the other hand, if it is shipped from a Finnigan state to a Joyce state, it will not be included in either state’s numerator. By the way, the issue arises even in states that do not have sales throwback rules, or where sales of other than tangible personal property are involved.

Which states follow the Joyce-Finnigan rule?

Any state that has a sales throwback rule and allows or requires a combined report or true consolidated return has to deal with the Joyce-Finnigan issue. Some go one way, some the other. Kansas, Indiana, Arizona, and Wisconsin, for example, follow Finnigan, while South Carolina, Maine, and Illinois follow Joyce.

Is the Joyce or Finnigan approach to state taxation of multistate corporations uniform?

Not surprisingly, there is substantial inconsistency in states’ adoption of the Joyce or Finnigan approach.6 But, this is not the only area in state taxation of multistate corporations where lack of uniformity is prominent. Rather, nonuniformity exists in a significant number of areas, such as the formulation