Briefs

On January 5, 2016, TEI filed an amicus brief in support of the taxpayer's application for leave to appeal the Michigan Court of Appeals' decision in Gillette Commercial Operations North America v. Department of Treasury, Case No. 152588, and its four companion cases. Gillette upheld the validity of 2014 PA 282, which the Michigan Legislature enacted to retroactively overrule the Michigan Supreme Court's decision in International Business Machines Corp v Department of Treasury, 496 Mich. 642 (2014).

On July 6, 2015, TEI filed an amicus brief supporting the taxpayer's petition for writ of certiorari in Hambleton v. Washington Department of Revenue, No. 14-1436. Hambleton challenges the Washington Legislature's eight-year retroactive amendment of Washington's estate tax. The Washington Legislature enacted the amendment in response to the Washington Supreme Court's decision in Estate of Bracken, 290 P.3d 99 (Wash.

On July 2, 2015, TEI filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in a Massachusetts case challenging the application of the internal consistency test, First Marblehead Corp. v. Massachusetts Commissioner of Revenue, No. 14-1422. First Marblehead involves the proper apportionment of financial institution's income under Massachusetts' financial institutions excise tax.

On May 18, 2015, the United States Supreme Court issued a decision in Comptroller v.

On September 26, 2014, TEI filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in a case involving the limitations imposed by the federal Commerce Clause on a state's ability to tax business income earned outside the borders of that state (Comptroller v. Wynne). In a line of cases beginning with Complete Auto Transit v. Brady, the Court has consistently held that corporate income earned in multiple jurisdictions must be apportioned, with the domiciliary state taxing only its fair share.

On October 26, 2012, TEI filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in a case involving the characterization of income from the sale of assets as apportionable business income versus allocable nonbusiness income for state tax purposes, Kimberly-Clark v. Alabama Department of Revenue. The Institute's brief urged the high court to reverse lower court decisions in Alabama holding that gain from the sale of property used in a taxpayer's unitary business constituted nonbusiness income allocable in full to Alabama.

On June 1, 2011, the Institute filed an amicus brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn a lower court decision allowing Iowa to tax corporations with no physical presence in the State, KFC Corporation v. Iowa Department of Revenue. The core issue in this case is whether the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution prohibits a State from imposing its corporate income tax on businesses with no connection to the State other than having customers located there.

On March 24, 2010, TEI filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in Johnson Controls v. Kentucky. TEI argued that Kentucky legislation retroactively eliminating a taxpayer's ability to claim tax refunds undermines protections afforded by the Due Process Clause and raises fundamental questions about the availability of remedies.

TEI's brief was prepared under the aegis of TEI's State and Local Tax Committee. TEI Tax Counsel Daniel B. De Jong coordinated the preparation of the brief and was its principal author.

On April 28, 2009, TEI filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in support of the taxpayer in Geoffrey, Inc. v. Massachusetts Department of Revenue. In Geoffrey, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court concluded substantial nexus could be established where a taxpayer's only business in the state was licensing intangible property that generates income for the taxpayer. TEI maintains the Massachusetts court erred by concluding the bright-line, physical presence test embraced by the U.S.

On April 28, 2009, TEI filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in support of the taxpayer in Capital One Bank v. Commissioner of Revenue. In Capital One, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held the imposition of the Massachusetts Financial Institution Excise Tax on out-of-state taxpayers having no physical presence within Massachusetts did not violate the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. TEI maintains the Massachusetts court erred by concluding the bright-line, physical presence test embraced by the U.S.