The Minnesota Tax Court held that a taxpayer could not apportion its income to Minnesota using the Multistate Tax Compact’s evenly weighted three factor apportionment formula—in lieu of the more heavily weighted sales factor formula mandated by the Minnesota legislature.
Minnesota lawmakers enacted the Multistate Tax Compact in 1983. Articles III and IV of the Compact provide that taxpayers have the option of using the UDITPA allocation and apportionment rules or of using state-specific apportionment provisions.
In 1987, Minnesota lawmakers repealed Articles III and IV, and enacted legislation requiring taxpayers to use a more heavily weighted sales factor (unless the taxpayer petitioned for and was granted permission to use an alternative apportionment formula).
The taxpayer filed original Minnesota tax returns using the more heavily weighted sales factor formula under Minnesota law. Several years later, the taxpayer filed amended returns applying the Compact’s evenly weighted three-factor formula, and requested a refund of approximately $1.2 million.
The Department of Revenue denied the refund, and the taxpayer filed suit in the state’s tax court, alleging that when the legislature enacted the Compact in 1983, from that point forward, it was contractually obligated to offer the Compact election and to refrain from using its sovereign power to repeal the election.
In reaching its decision, the tax court concluded that the legislature was not contractually obligated to furnish the election or to refrain from repealing the election.
Read a June 2015 report [PDF 68 KB] prepared by KPMG LLP: Minnesota Tax Court Rejects Compact Election
© 2016 KPMG LLP, a Delaware limited liability partnership and the U.S. member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.
The KPMG logo and name are trademarks of KPMG International. KPMG International is a Swiss cooperative that serves as a coordinating entity for a network of independent member firms. KPMG International provides no audit or other client services. Such services are provided solely by member firms in their respective geographic areas. KPMG International and its member firms are legally distinct and separate entities. They are not and nothing contained herein shall be construed to place these entities in the relationship of parents, subsidiaries, agents, partners, or joint venturers. No member firm has any authority (actual, apparent, implied or otherwise) to obligate or bind KPMG International or any member firm in any manner whatsoever. The information contained in herein is of a general nature and is not intended to address the circumstances of any particular individual or entity. Although we endeavor to provide accurate and timely information, there can be no guarantee that such information is accurate as of the date it is received or that it will continue to be accurate in the future. No one should act on such information without appropriate professional advice after a thorough examination of the particular situation. For more information, contact KPMG's Federal Tax Legislative and Regulatory Services Group at: + 1 202 533 4366, 1801 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20006.