We have represented many companies in litigation in various courts and tax tribunals throughout the country. Most of these matters are settled at different stages of the litigation process short of the court or tribunal issuing a decision.
Below is a representative sample of some of the matters where a publicly available decision was issued by a court or tax tribunal with a brief description of the issue decided in the matter:
➣ SunGard Data Systems, Inc.– NYS Tax Appeals Tribunal (whether an entire federal consolidated income tax group of sixty-seven companies was entitled to file a combined NYS income tax return).
➣ CROWN Technology, Inc.– NJ Tax Court (whether a company that engaged in a research and development business outside of New Jersey was subject to income tax in New Jersey based solely on the use of the company’s intangible assets in New Jersey by licensees of those assets in manufacturing).
➣ Xpedite/Premier Global, Inc.– NJ Tax Court (whether receipts from various telecommunications services were properly sourced to New Jersey based on customer location rather than where the services were performed).
➣ SunGard Securities Finance, Inc.– NYS Tax Appeals Tribunal (whether a financial service provider’s use of proprietary software to deliver services to its clients constituted a taxable sale of prewritten software that was constructively received by its customers in New York).
➣ Springs Industries, Inc.– NJ Tax Court (whether an intercompany royalty payment was subject to tax both under the addback statute at the licensor parent company level and as taxable income of the licensee subsidiary corporation).
➣ CROWN USA, Inc.– U.S. Supreme Court/MD Court of Appeals (whether a subsidiary that engaged in a research and development business outside of Maryland was subject to Maryland corporate income tax based solely on its parent company’s business operations in the state).
➣ Schering-Plough Corporation– PA Supreme Court (whether income tax on a sales company was preempted under P.L. 86-272 where the company solicited sales of tangible personal property that it did not own).
➣ Carpenter Technology Corporation– CT Supreme Court (whether a parent company’s deduction for interest payments made to an affiliate were supported by a valid business purpose and were made at arm’s-length rates).
➣ Consolidated Edison. Inc.– NYS Tax Appeals Tribunal (whether the distribution by a subsidiary corporation to its parent company of proceeds from a mandated asset sale was subject to the excess dividends tax).
➣ Science Computer & Technology Corp.– PA Commonwealth Court (whether goodwill was an asset owned by a parent holding company or was includable in the capital stock value of its subsidiaries for computing whether franchise tax special holding company apportionment provisions applied).
➣ Carpenter Technology Corporation– NY Court of Appeals/NY Supreme Court (whether interest payments made to a subsidiary corporation were deductible business expenses rather than payments attributable to subsidiary capital).
➣ W.H. Newbolds Son & Company– PA Commonwealth Court (whether a company was required to file a short period tax return when it ceased to be a member of a federal consolidated income tax group in the middle of a tax year).
➣ Armstrong World Industries, Inc.– IL Circuit Court (whether a subsidiary corporation qualified as a financial company that was not includable in a combined income tax return with its operating company affiliates).
➣ Carpenter Technology Corporation– MA Appellate Tax Board (whether a company properly deducted interest payments made to a subsidiary corporation as valid business expenses made at arm’s-length rates).
➣ Philip Morris, Inc./Oscar Mayer– MA Appellate Tax Board (whether a company’s activities were ancillary to solicitation as defined in U.S. Supreme Court case law under P.L. 86-272).
